Drugs

@salima,

salima;86471 wrote:

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

0 Replies

@Imnotrussian,

While illegalization may hinder free-will, I am not sure if some people would be responsible enough the make a rational decision regarding their health and safety should these substances become easier to access. I understand what is "right" or "rational" to a person is subjective, but much of society seems to agree about the dangers they bring.

I see no real harm for legalization of marijuana, alcohol has been rated worse. The war on drugs lingers on without much triumph. I don't tend to judge people who choose to take drugs for their amusement, but it is pitiful to see someone gradually fade away voluntarily. But the consequences have been factual, not theorized. I'm just not sure why anyone wants to do this to themselves.

0 Replies

@Imnotrussian,

Serena, drugs are easy to access anyway, you only have to go down certain streets. People make irrational decisions anyway regarding drugs and their own health and safety, we can see that by the amount of people that get messed up or die. I agree with DT, that decriminalising it will get help to the people that badly need it. Alcohol is the most dangerous drug of all resulting in the highest death rate. People take drugs to self-medicate, it numbs the pain, I can't see anyone choosing to be a heroin addict for the rest of their lives, when you meet your maker and he asks what have you done with your gift of life, what you gonna say, I was a heroin addict because God, it sounded such a good choice.
Thanks.

0 Replies

@Imnotrussian,

Hard drugs are not as easy to access and affordable as cigarettes and alcohol. A sufficient percentage of the destruction done in the world has been caused by those under the influence. Alcohol probably is the most detrimental drug because it is legal and the easiest to access. Legalization of these hard drugs would only evoke more hostility and it may appear that society approves of the abuse. If you could go out to a convenience store and buy a bag of meth or cocaine for the price of a pack of cigarettes, the temptation may be difficult to forbear. Some people just don't carry enough responsibility to say no. But if some people wish to continue to do this to themselves, it is not my place to decide. People may not necessarily choose to become addicts, but once addicted, the drug will essentially make the descions for you. I have also encountered people that seem to be proud of their drug habit. If it must continue, abuse of these drugs should not be legitimately out in the open.

Legalization of marijuana is a separate issue which I would endorse. It seems the government has disregarded the benefits of which marijuana can carry, the pros and cons have been properly weighed. They don't understand the amount of money that can be saved through legalization, I am really not sure what this "war on drugs" is really about.

0 Replies

@Imnotrussian,

No actually Serena, alcohol is not the most destructive drug because it's easy available, it is the most dangerous because of it's affects if you abuse it. The prohibition shows that banning it does not stop people taking it. If a person really wants to take cocaine he'll find it. I dont drink alcohol and yet it is easy to buy, but I dont drink it? Therefore you're wrong? I f I really wanted to drink alcohol and it was banned I would find it, I would go out and get if off someone who's illegally selling it on the black market.

---------- Post added 08-30-2009 at 08:13 AM ----------

Look I agree in that heroin shouldn't be on the streets, what people don't know they don't miss, same with cigarettes but there will always be people trying to smuggle it in, I've always believed that if it's not going to be made legal to decriminalize it then at least stop it coming in the country so these poor people stand a chance!

0 Replies

@Imnotrussian,

Alcohol is not the most detrimental drug physically or mentally, the effects of heroin, meth, cocaine and a number of other hard drugs have been way more severe. There is a reason why they are illegal, alcohol should probably be illegal as well especially if marijuana is. But there are a lot more alcoholics out there than meth addicts or cocaine addicts and so forth, probably due to it's legalization and affordability which can increase addiction. Some people do have the will-power to say no and would probably still decline if these drugs were legalized, yet some others would still be recruited. And those who are already addicts are likely to become bigger addicts if they know they can't be convicted of use and much less expensive. There is no sense adding to the problem even if the addition is very small.

0 Replies

@Imnotrussian,

Heroin itself is really no more dangerous than morphine or other strong opiates that are administered in hospitals all the time...assuming it is administered properly. It was actually developed by the Bayer company, the same people who brought us aspirin.

Meth and cocaine aren't going to be good for your body or mind if used for a long period of time, but neither will alcohol. It would be hard to say for sure if either the meth, cocaine, or alcohol addict would destroy himself more quickly than the other. They will all inflict damage.

1 Reply

@Pangloss,

Pangloss;86905 wrote:

Heroin itself is really no more dangerous than morphine or other strong opiates that are administered in hospitals all the time...assuming it is administered properly. It was actually developed by the Bayer company, the same people who brought us aspirin.

Meth and cocaine aren't going to be good for your body or mind if used for a long period of time, but neither will alcohol. It would be hard to say for sure if either the meth, cocaine, or alcohol addict would destroy himself more quickly than the other. They will all inflict damage.

how is cocaine different from heroine? is cocaine not an opiate? and if not, what is it? are you saying a cocaine addict would be in less danger? or are you saying that heroine has a use in medicine while cocaine does not?

0 Replies

@Imnotrussian,

Cocaine and heroin are very different. Both have legitimate medical uses, though you won't see them being used in hospitals anymore. I'd suggest you do some research on the two drugs; cocaine is a powerful stimulant and 'euphoriant', while heroin is an opiate and has depressant as well as euphoric effects. Cocaine mainly works by inhibiting the reuptake of dopamine in the brain, while heroin and other opiates activates the opioid receptors.

Also, to address what Serena said regarding alcohol and why there are more alcoholics than other drug users: you are overlooking one big factor. Alcohol is not popular because of its legality and price. It is the traditional european american intoxicant of choice, and so its use is socially acceptable and even encouraged within US culture. Tobacco has traditionally been the same way, though its popularity has decreased now thanks to the efforts of anti-smoking campaigns and more awareness of its health effects.

I do not think that illegal drugs would become significantly more popular than they are now if they were legalized and controlled. Drug education, along with the negative social stigma attached to "hard drug" use, would keep most people away from them, as it does now. There are only small numbers of circles on the fringe of our society where hard drug use is considered to be "cool" anymore. Legalization would also help to keep them away from teens and kids-- any high schooler can tell you that it's easier for them to get marijuana than it is to get alcohol, because the black market doesn't care if you are underage.

0 Replies

@Imnotrussian,

Affordability of alcohol is only part of the reason why it is so popular. It tends to be the most appropriate and elegant for social events and its sophistication makes it more of a gratifying collectible. The taste is more preferable than cocaine, shrooms and meth as well. It probably would remain as the most abused drug with the legalization of everything else.

But strict education and anti-drug and alcohol propaganda have been around for years and it has only been mildly affective. Same thing goes for tobacco, despite all the education people receive, there are more and more new smokers everyday. While the education may reduce a substantial number of potential users, others will still try it out of curiosity and pressure and would make it much more easier if everything was available at their local gas station. But while more people are starting up, many more are quitting. Even with legalization, use probably for the most part would remain balanced with maybe a very minor increase of abuse. But that is still a few too many.

0 Replies

@Pangloss,

Pangloss;86213 wrote:

Drugs should be legalized because we should allow adults to make their own decisions about what to do with their bodies.

Should we let people buy some chemotherapy, antibiotics, seizure medications, or antiarrhythmics if they decide to self-treat?

There is a reason why dangerous pharmacologic agents are controlled.

---------- Post added 08-30-2009 at 10:34 PM ----------

Pangloss;86951 wrote:

Cocaine and heroin are very different. Both have legitimate medical uses, though you won't see them being used in hospitals anymore.

Cocaine is still used in ophthalmology and eye surgery. My son had the pleasure of getting cocaine eyedrops from a pediatric neuro-ophthalmologist to test him for Horner's syndrome (it was used diagnostically, not therapeutically) because he has a slight discrepancy in pupil size.

---------- Post added 08-30-2009 at 10:37 PM ----------

Serena;87021 wrote:

Same thing goes for tobacco, despite all the education people receive, there are more and more new smokers everyday.

No, rates of new smoking are falling in the United States. Nearly all new smokers are teenagers, and there have been a number of highly effective interventions to prevent teen smoking, namely taxing it heavily to raise the price, banning cigarette vending machines, banning cigarette ads from magazines, banning cartoon characters from ads, and strict carding at places where cigarettes are sold.

Wikipedia wrote:

Smoking rates in the United States have dropped by half from 1965 to 2006 falling from 42% to 20.8% of adults.

1 Reply

@Imnotrussian,

Right, I was sort of referring to new smokers as being teenagers and vending machines do still exist, they just aren't as ubiquitous as they use to be. It is rare to see new smokers as adults, adults who continue to smoke usually have been smoking since they were teenagers so it has been difficult to quit. But true, the smoking rate has dropped substantially since the introduction of its causes.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes;87024 wrote:

Should we let people buy some chemotherapy, antibiotics, seizure medications, or antiarrhythmics if they decide to self-treat?

There is a reason why dangerous pharmacologic agents are controlled.

In my opinion, yes. I don't know who, or for what reason, would want to buy these drugs to experiment on themselves without first consulting a qualified physician, but if they want to buy them, that's their choice. We also let people buy cars, power tools, and extreme sports equipment, which can all be very dangerous, but there's an assumption of risk and individual responsibility comes into play when you choose to engage in dangerous activities.

Quote:

Cocaine is still used in ophthalmology and eye surgery. My son had the pleasure of getting cocaine eyedrops from a pediatric neuro-ophthalmologist to test him for Horner's syndrome (it was used diagnostically, not therapeutically) because he has a slight discrepancy in pupil size.

Yea, I knew this was its main medical use, but wasn't sure if they were still using cocaine or had moved on to using something else. Hence why cocaine is still a schedule 2 drug I suppose...I'm surprised they haven't found a different drug to use, since it might be a problem at some hospitals keeping the cocaine drops from going missing. :Glasses:

1 Reply

@Pangloss,

Pangloss;87045 wrote:

In my opinion, yes. I don't know who, or for what reason, would want to buy these drugs to experiment on themselves without first consulting a qualified physician, but if they want to buy them, that's their choice.

Completely disagree. These medications can be extraordinarily dangerous, people will be able to give them to one another or to their children without adequate informed consent, and in the case of antibiotics they can be a public health disaster.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;87595 wrote:

Completely disagree. These medications can be extraordinarily dangerous, people will be able to give them to one another or to their children without adequate informed consent, and in the case of antibiotics they can be a public health disaster.

I think you are overestimating how willing people would be to self-medicate and self-diagnose, if all drugs were available OTC. As for antibiotics, they are already way over prescribed, and I doubt that would make much of a difference either. There are doctors everywhere who are more than happy to send someone home with a bottle of antibiotics, just so the patient feels like they are getting some kind of help.

Then again, we are both speculating as to what would happen. I think legalizing drugs is worth a shot, and if I'm wrong and all hell breaks loose, it can easily be undone.

2 Replies

@Pangloss,

Pangloss;87654 wrote:

if I'm wrong and all hell breaks loose, it can easily be undone.

But the harm done in the meantime is not so easily reversed as the law.

0 Replies

@Pangloss,

Pangloss;87654 wrote:

I think you are overestimating how willing people would be to self-medicate and self-diagnose, if all drugs were available OTC.

I've got a pretty good sense of it, thank you, I've seen what people will do to themselves with over the counter meds. Wanna know how many people I've seen with bleeding ulcers or renal failure from ibuprofen?

Pangloss;87654 wrote:

As for antibiotics, they are already way over prescribed, and I doubt that would make much of a difference either.

They're overprescribed in large part because of pressure from patients, and this has been shown in numerous surveys of primary care providers. You think that antibiotic stewardship would get better without a doctor to evaluate the patient? I don't think so -- and this is my subspecialty (infectious diseases), so it's something I see all the time, patients demanding antibiotics for noninfectious (or at least nonbacterial) illnesses. There was yet another study earlier this year, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, that antibiotics don't alter duration of symptoms for sinus infections -- but I can tell you that a lot of patients with seasonal allergies would reach for antibiotics for their sinuses.

0 Replies

@Imnotrussian,

Well, in the case of drugs like antibiotics where their abuse/overuse could result in serious societal-wide health issues, then I would have to agree that they should still be controlled. I can't think of any recreational drugs though that could have this impact, or that could ultimately hurt anybody other than the user when taken.

---------- Post added 09-02-2009 at 11:34 AM ----------

Didymos Thomas;87659 wrote:

But the harm done in the meantime is not so easily reversed as the law.

It should not be the authority of the state to mandate personal health and/or moral decisions for individuals, so long as their decisions do not harm others. Not including obvious exceptions, like children or mentally handicapped people, who are not capable of making their own decisions.

1 Reply

@Pangloss,

Pangloss;87676 wrote:

Well, in the case of drugs like antibiotics where their abuse/overuse could result in serious societal-wide health issues, then I would have to agree that they should still be controlled. I can't think of any recreational drugs though that could have this impact, or that could ultimately hurt anybody other than the user when taken.

Well, the epidemics of hepatitis C and HIV sure have a lot to do with recreational drug use, as do excessive health care expenditures for uninsured patients, domestic violence, impact of gestational drug use on pregnancy outcomes, impact of parental drug use on emotional well-being and school performance in children, driving under the influence, as well as all sorts of drug-related crimes.

There is no way to know how the illegality of drugs positively or negatively impacts these things, but either way it certainly argues that there's more at stake than just the body of the user.

0 Replies

@Imnotrussian,

Those other impacts are the result of irresponsible decisions made by some drug users, and are of course not necessarily caused by any drug use.

Hepatitis and HIV would be a problem with or without drugs being legal; as would uninsured patients, domestic violence, DUI, and crime. You're right, there may be a positive correlation between drug use and engaging in dangerous activities or making risky decisions, but there's no evidence to suggest that these things would get worse if drugs were legal, or that drug use would increase just because they are legal.

If you want some hard evidence for negative effects on our society because of drugs being illegal, simply look at our prison, law enforcement, and courts systems. We are spending enormous sums of money on legal fees and prison expenses that go along with processing and imprisoning so many people for drug crimes. This is in addition to law enforcement efforts nationwide devoted to going after drugs. The percentage of our population in the prison system is astounding, and this is mainly a result of the drug laws. Courts and state's attorneys and public defenders are backed up with an endless supply of drug cases. This is clearly all because drugs are legal. And having these laws and prosecuting people does not seem to be stopping anybody from getting drugs or using them.

If you want some harmful effects that go along with drug illegality, try unconstitutional searches of home, person, and property that take place all the time, police brutality, fines, spending time in prison, all because a person wanted to get "high". And that's really what it's all about, and why drugs will never become legal in this country. The public is uncomfortable with others "getting high" and having a better time than they might have; The politicians are afraid of the rebellious actions and ideas associated with drug users, so they want a way to lock them up. (and win votes by telling us how they will save us all from the dangerous drug addict) How many political activists in the 60s and beyond have been prosecuted for drug crimes, because it was the only method the govt. had available to silence free speech?

The negative effects of drugs being illegal are much worse.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know