Drugs

Thanks very much for the intimate perspective on this, Caroline, I agree with a lot that you've said.

I'm in agreement with other comments that heroin and meth should never be legalized, nor should XTC, cocaine, or hallucinogens. They are just too dangerous. I do believe that needle exchanges will help destigmatize HIV / hepatitis prevention, and these are major public health problems unto themselves. Marijuana I don't care about, as long as they're as strict about driving under the influence of marijuana as they are about alcohol, and people do enough research to fully characterize and define any adverse health effects associated with recreational marijuana use.

Yes Aedes they are very dangerous drugs. One can actually get heroin on the N.H.S here in England but the only type of user accessing it are the very stables ones, ie, who have jobs and it's kep very quiet, not may people realise this probably because it would be seen to encourage use but I cannot see anyone wanting to spend their life addicted to heroin, and therefore think, well if it's avaliable on the NHS then I must go for it, they would receive serious education on it in the hope it would change their minds, many people get into the drug scene for various reasons and it's usally some major issues in their life that they cannot deal with and self-medicate. The advantages I see legalising some drugs, (I'd have concerns legalising crystal meth myself, it's a horrible awful drug), is to decrimanlise it because of the advantages, some of which I've mentioned and it would reduce crime rates and victims of crimes.
Thank you for your comments, that's nice to know.:a-ok:

Meth is an inferior product, if you were to legalize all drugs, I bet meth would disappear. The main reason why meth is as popular as it is, is because it is a cheaper alternitive to coke and easier to make.

In my experience (and I take care of drug users routinely), that is the rule and not the exception.

I understand the concept, but I don't think that there is a practical example of why this should actually be true. The alcohol / Prohibition example just can't apply, because alcohol's market is incomparably larger than that of all other illicit drugs put together, so the extant demand was more than enough to create a criminal market that (nearly) disappeared at the end of Prohibition. I just don't think that's so true of heroin or cocaine, and I also think that cocaine and heroin users as a subpopulation are completely screwed up at a far higher rate than alcohol users.

Next, controlled drugs (take oxycontin or ativan as examples), which I can (and do) legally prescribe, are legal but still have a very substantial street market and associated crime. I had a patient a month or two ago who was getting oral narcotics in the hospital for pain, but then someone found her going to the street in front of the hospital and selling them. :sarcastic:

Yes there are ways to prevent people selling their drugs on the street, ie, drug testing to ensure they are actually taking it and supervision especially applied to known users, if supervision is not practical for the user then tough, they shouldn't be selling their med's anyway.

---------- Post added 08-21-2009 at 10:25 PM ----------

The Alcohol Prohibtion is a fine example of what happens when drugs are made illegal, it goes underground into the black market and is run by gangs and criminals.

Yes but the things is Aedes there is a black market for drugs, that's what's happening now.

Three people will die today from drugs overdose definately. That is my point.

Again, alcohol prohibition is NOT a good analogy, because its demand prior to prohibition was FAR FAR higher than the current demand for drugs. And because we retain black markets for legal things (including alcohol), I'm doubtful that legalizing drugs will really decrease crime among marginalized street addicts who wouldn't be buying crack at the cigar shop anyway.

Uhuh.
But what of those three people today, what if they were being monitered?

Hey now, I was in the cigar shop yesterday and these 3 guys came and.....LMAO

Sorry, just couldn't resist.

I'm sorry I don't get it, I was talking about harm minimisation not legalising in that particular post. :perplexed:

Nothing to be sorry about Caroline. Just my ridiculously dry sense of humor that tends to amuse me more then anyone else.

that's ok-i was going to ask who those three people were-had to go back and see where i missed the turn...

Case by case. Drug use has a mortality rate.

How do you mean, (more specific), please, thanks?


Yeah I suggest you do that to understand the point of what I was trying to say.

Caroline:

no, that i captured-i just dont agree.

but those three people...?
where did they come from? is there some statistic you found that three people die every day from drug overdose...where, in uk? whole world? what year, every year? and i didnt follow your question to aedes about what would happen to them if they had been monitored. i mean how would he know? he doesnt even know who they are...how would anyone know? sorry, it just struck me funny. i must be getting tired...

Yes at least three people die a week in my county, we get announcements.

You can't speculate on what a broad public health measure will do for an individual person (or three) without really narrowly defining this person as part of a uniform denominator.

Yes I definately agree. You have to take it case by case, costs alot of money so has to be efficient.

When it comes to legalizing drugs, we really don't know what would or would not happen...really, I think it's a crap shoot; some things might improve, some things might get worse. But this is not really something I'm concerned with, because until we try it, we don't know.

Drugs should be legalized because we should allow adults to make their own decisions about what to do with their bodies. I will allow that recreational drug use is not a good thing, for most people, a bad thing. But people should not be searched, have their property seized, be arrested, or be thrown into prison for their decision to do something that probably won't be good for them.

Along with drugs, why not make everything else illegal that could also harm us? We should then outlaw tobacco, alcohol, tanning beds, unhealthy foods, laziness, driving, dangerous sports, and a million other things. Then we can all live very long, prosperous, boring lives.

Yes, the response will be that drug use is not a victimless crime, it hurts everyone around the person as well, or it hurts society in general, etc. Except it is not drug use that does this, it is the actions of individuals who happen to use drugs that cause these other problems. Plenty of individuals can use illegal drugs responsibly and hurt nobody but perhaps themselves. Some people can not. Plenty of individuals can operate vehicles without hurting anyone else, while others can not. A small number of people are simply irresponsible and will end up harming others around them no matter what. That doesn't mean that everyone should have to give up what should be their free right.

The way that our government and its lackeys treats adult drug users and dealers is sickening. In my mind, the fact that we are sending people off to prison for decades because they were buying or selling some little bag of drugs is simply indefensible. Any gruesome story of addiction or drug overdose (which is obviously an assumed risk when you use drugs) that can be presented pales in comparison to the tragedy of so many people ending up in prison for years because of drugs. The war on drugs is fit only for a police state...leave these people alone. If drug use is a "disease" as many insist, then send these people to the hospital, not prison.

I agree - never legalize them. Only decriminalize use and simple possession so that we can treat those poor souls diseased with addiction rather than lock them away in hell where they either go through the nightmarish withdrawal process in prison or begin to buy even more dangerous forms of the drugs available in lock up.



A few things: what about decriminalization as a way to help promote healthcare for addicts?
Otherwise, I completely agree about heroin, meth, and ecstasy. Cocaine, though, I am not so convinced. I have personally witnessed people with awful cocaine problems, and it is certainly a terrible drug. But, as with most drugs, people are going to use the stuff: what about extremely restricted access - age limits, immense prices, and strict quantity allotments? Wouldn't some formalized system such as this undermine the illegal trade, regulate the product for safety, and foster to some degree responsible use. Or are you of the belief that responsible cocaine use is impossible?

As for hallucinogens, I'm torn. First, any hallucinogen use should be heavily restricted: even Tim Leary, when testifying to Congress, implored Congress to establish a system of training for all psychedelic users so that people would be ready for the intense experience and be capable of handling the experience.

Certain hallucinogens, like the 2c line, should be banned outright. But, again, we are dealing with drugs that people want to use and will use - sure, Leary was nuts, but I think he was on the right track in front of Congress. By establishing a system of training for psychedelics, even establishing places where they are to be used under the care of professionals, allows people to have an experience that they were most likely going to have anyway, but to have it under controlled and safe conditions. That way when someone freaks out they can get a thorazine injection rather than climbing on their roof and hurling themselves to their death.

For example - is peyote use "too dangerous" for Native Americans in highly ritualized environments?



Absolutely.



Which is what we need for all of these drugs, regardless of whatever other views we have on their legal status. People have the right to honest information about drugs. Just saying no to research and honest education is not only ineffective, but dangerous.



Meth is not an inferior product, my friend. Meth is a more intense high, and it lasts longer than cocaine.

Meth is cheaper to produce, which is why it exploded across this country. But regardless of price, it will remain because it's just a more powerful intoxicant.

The end of prohibition would not be the end of meth, but a terrible new beginning.

hello paul-
the only hallucinogen i know of is LSD. can you tell me what the other most common ones are in use today?

is marijuana the only thing you feel is safe enough to be legalized? what about peyote and mushrooms? anything else?