Weird News

[jinx]

Originally Posted by SamIam

What I think is that the number of addicts would be about the same if drugs are legalized.

Because the difference between that happening here and now and 1830's China is what?

As for weed, the laws against that are just pathetic. Definately should just legalize pot. Its one of the more benign drugs around.

So you do think there are more/less benign drugs, but think that alcohol and heroin are on equal footing here?

[DanaC]

@ Sam: i totally agree. The Uk didn;t really have much of a drug 'problem' until it outlawed certain drugs. Several of our top police peeps have suggested that the biggest danger from heroin comes from its illegality and have further suggested that it would be better legalised.

We lose waaaaay more people to alcohol and tobacco related illness than we do all other drugs put together. The deaths that do occur from drugs are predominantly due to the impurity of streetsold substances. It's ridiculous that alcohol and cigarettes are legal and other 'drugs' aren't.

[jinx]

Dana do you have any stats on people who can't hold down a job because of their nicotine addiction?

Do you think candy bars should be taxed to fund diabetes treatment centers?

[DanaC]

I know plenty of people who can't hold down jobs because of alchohol addiction.

I watched my father die a hideous, painful, lingering death due to smoking.

I have played with heroin a couple of times; Cocaine, amphetamines, ecstasy and lsd rather more extensively; cannabis, tobacco and alcohol are regular staples.

The only drug i have never been able to step away from is tobacco.

I saw a programme a few years ago looking at a history of drug use and drug legislation in britain. One of the things that surprised me was the fact that lots of heroin addicts prior to its being made illegal were able to hold down jobs just fine.

[DanaC]

Oh and just to step away from statistical arguments and whether or not one drug is more dangerous than another: the purpose of drugs legislation is supposedly to prevent drug use. It doesn't. it just makes drug use less safe and less controlled. Much as prohibition of alcohol didn;t stop people drinking, it just increased the likelihood people would be drinking dangerous moonshine and gave the Mob a new commodity to play with.

Also, from a purely ethical standpoint: what i do in the comfort of my own home is my business. What i put into my body is my business. Give me the warnings. But then let me make my choice. And the 'cost' argument when it comes to healthcare is totally off the wall when you look at the cost of alcohol and tobacco related illness. They outstrip anything that is spent, or would be spent on helping people with health problems related to other drugs. By far the biggest cost to society associated with drugs, is the cost of policing, trying, and imprisoning addicts and dealers.


[eta] it always amazes me that the country that purports to want small government that keeps out of your personal life, also wants that government to regulate what you put into your mouths and veins. It doesn't get more personal than that. It is not the state's job to decide what I eat, smoke or inject.

And now i am starting to feel really wound up. Nothing personal jinx, but this is one of those subjects that has me climbing the walls and throwing things about in anger :P So... I am off to bed before I burst a blood vessel.

[jinx]

Just as quite a few clinical alcoholics can and do hold down jobs. Some can't. They have a disease and need medical treatment. The questions are; are opiates more addictive/more destructive than alcohol, which is legal. Would it be more harmful if made legal and more available than it is now*.

I saw a program about China in the 1830's a while back. It made me rethink the whole everything should be legal and it'll work out great idea I was thinking before.
I'm still listening for a good argument though, I just don't think personal anecdote carries much weight. I've quit every drug I've tried/used. Doesn't mean I don't believe that addiction exists.

Originally Posted by *

Poisoning is now the second leading cause of unintentional injury death in the U.S. While several recent high-profile Hollywood celebrity cases have brought the problem to public attention, the rates of unintentional poisoning deaths have been on the rise for more than 15 years, and in fact, unintentional poisoning has surpassed motor vehicle crashes as the leading cause of unintentional injury death among people 35-54 years of age. In a study published in the May issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, researchers found that hospitalizations for poisoning by prescription opioids, sedatives and tranquilizers in the U.S. have increased by 65% from 1999 to 2006.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Nothing personal jinx.

[squirell nutkin]

I have a friend who used heroin and smoked cigs. He held down a job, pissed away most of his money but managed to keep just above water. He finally cleaned up and said it was a walk in the park to kick Heroin in comparison to quitting cigarettes.

I think Malcolm Gladwell talks about why cigarettes are so much more addictive than H.

Wm. Burroughs has a chapter in Naked Lunch where he discusses why the war on drugs will always fail and he advocates for making it legal at the cost of probably losing a generation to people going wild until the novelty wears off and then people decide if it is something they are interested in after seeing the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving
hysterical naked,
dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry
fix,

[jinx]

I thought quitting cigs (twice) was a walk in the park compared to pot.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Also, from a purely ethical standpoint: what i do in the comfort of my own home is my business. What i put into my body is my business.

Not if what you do on in the comfort of your own home affects what you do on company time. What i f you are a doctor on call and you're high as shit when "the call" comes?

Comparing a psychological addiction to a physical one is difficult. Substances that are physically addicting can be easier to beat once the substance is gone. However the psychological addiction never leaves. Beating it depends moreso on a persons desire to quit and determination.

[squirell nutkin]

Originally Posted by jinx

I thought quitting cigs (twice) was a walk in the park compared to pot.

I didn't realize one could quit pot...

[xoxoxoBruce]

It's easier if you're pregnant, so that leaves you out.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by jinx

Seriously. My anger wasn't at you. But the topic we were discussing was making me angry. Which is why I tried to soften my post with a ':P'

This is one of those subjects which I find deeply upsetting and angering. Having seen people's lives wrecked not just by drugs, but by the way society deals (or fails to) with drugs and drug use. Sometimes I'm better off stepping away from the argument before I become completely incoherent with frustration and rage. Partly at the subject and partly at my inability to articulate why I am angry. These days I actively avoid documentaries about drugs and drug use because I just end up incandescent and upset; regardless of whether they're pro or anti legalisation. The entire subject is a red rag for me, much like the subject of asylum.

You put forward good points. I don't have the answers. But I 'know' that the current method of dealing with this problem is failing and harming those who do use drugs without in any way reducing drug use more generally. It is that system I am angry with, not you. But I find myself unable to be reasonable on the subject sometimes and, frankly, you deserve better than me ranting as an answer to your points *smiles*

[DanaC]

Since I am in a more reasonable frame of mind, I'll post a piece from 2002:

This was from Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom, speaking at a conference in Wales on how we deal with drugs and calling for a different approach:

Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom was speaking before today's landmark conference at Clwyd Theatr Cymru, Mold, in which he will again call for a major review of the drugs laws.

He said: "Methadone is as addictive as heroin and is clearly more dangerous. Head for head, more people die from methadone abuse than heroin abuse.

"It is not popular with users because it is not as much fun to take it and medically it is no better than heroin, so how on earth did we get into a situation where we are happy to give people methadone when it doesn't work very well and it certainly doesn't cure them, and we have created another black market in second-hand methadone."

[snip]

"The two most dangerous substances which are misused are tobacco and alcohol and they are freely available," he said. "They kill many more people than all the other illegal drugs. More than 50pc of all people dying from drugs die from tobacco, just under 50pc die from alcohol. Five or six per cent die form all the other drugs put together.

"Our drugs laws are illogical, they are unethical, they are counterproductive because they make the situation worse and they are untenable.

"I am arguing for a complete review of our drugs laws to put them on some rational basis. Why are some drugs legal and other drugs illegal?

"How on earth did we get into a situation where tobacco is freely available, although lightly controlled, and ecstasy is completely and utterly illegal? If you look at the death rate there is no comparison. It is difficult if not impossible to sustain an argument that heroin is more dangerous than cannabis or that cannabis more dangerous than tobacco."

If addicts are treated properly then Mr Brunstrom is convinced crime will drop as the need to fuel their habits through expensive drug dealers disappears.

"Heroin is not an inherently dangerous substance in its pure form. The real impact heroin has on society - unlike tobacco, which is killing many people, heroin doesn't kill hundreds and thousands of people each year - is it causes you to have to steal to feed your habit and that has an enormous impact on society which is not currently catered for."

But Mr Brunstrom does not believe there should be stricter controls imposed on alcohol or tobacco. Nor does he believe penalising drug addicts is the right way to solve the drugs issue.

"I am not persuaded that making drugs and alcohol illegal and penalising people through the criminal law is ever going to be successful and whether it is right in principle," said Mr Brunstrom.

"If you wish to abuse your body to the extent that you make yourself ill and kill yourself, I am not sure that society ought to deal with you as a criminal. We might want to say that you are a victim or a patient, we might say that you don't seem very capable of looking after yourself, but do we really want to put you in prison?"

I'd say that articulates my opinion somewhat.

I don't think heroin is 'safe'. I don;t think opiates are 'safe. But I also don't believe the current laws are in any way effective in stopping people using heroin. They simply make the social and personal cost of doing so much, much higher.

[ZenGum]

I second pretty much everything Dana has said (and said quite well, I thought).

In response to Classic:

Not if what you do on in the comfort of your own home affects what you do on company time. What i f you are a doctor on call and you're high as shit when "the call" comes?

This applies just as much to alcohol.
It is part of a doctor's duty, if they are on call, to stay capable of responding. So it is not connected to the "privacy of my own home" argument.

On that topic, this is a well-explored problem with the liberty principle. Suppose we consider the liberty principle as: you can do what you like to yourself, provided that you don't harm others.

The obvious problem is that no person is an island, and virtually everything everyone does affects others. Recall that woman who wanted to reach 1,000 lbs? Well, the *main* harm falls on her: she'll die early. But there will be many other effects: her child will receive less parenting from her than otherwise, she will be less economically productive and contribute less socially, and incur extra health care costs.

So the liberty principle needs to be reformulated. In social philosophy, that debate is still underway.
In the meantime (and as part of the debate) what we can do is look at lots of examples that we generally agree on.
People are allowed to be obese or very underweight; even deliberately so. People are allowed to go skydiving (1 in 4,000 chance of chute failure), fishing (kills about 50 Australians per year) or do boxing (causes brain damage). We're allowed to drink and smoke, binge on cheese and chocolate, and sit on our increasingly increasing posteriors and guzzle mass-media.

In all of these cases there is harm to the individual and some cost to society. Most are in some sense addictive.
Yet an individual is "allowed" to make decisions about doing these things.
Can anyone tell me a good reason why recreational drugs should be treated differently?