[DISCUSSION] GRcade's view of the "war" on drugs

[iup=3604482]Lagamorph[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3604451]Faust[/iup] wrote:Harmless things like weed, mdma, shrooms and acid will be legal.

Wasn't there a 20 year study by the WHO that recently concluded showing that Cannabis did have damaging long term effects after all?

Unlike alcohol and cigarettes..?

[iup=3604482]Lagamorph[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3604451]Faust[/iup] wrote:Harmless things like weed, mdma, shrooms and acid will be legal.

Wasn't there a 20 year study by the WHO that recently concluded showing that Cannabis did have damaging long term effects after all?

So does McDonalds, but we don't feel the need to imprison those selling it.

Drug possession and use should be decriminalised, of course, and I think it would be helpful for most drugs to be available to buy from a pharmacy.

I'm not sure whether I would be comfortable with pharmacies selling the real nasty stuff, like crystal meth or heroin, though. I don't know if that makes me a conservative prude or something, I just have this kind of reservation that maybe there are drugs too destructive to stock on the high street. I'm not an expert though and I guess I would be happy either way if it was reasoned that selling the stuff would be better overall for society (or whatever).

Obviously you should be able to go out and buy some weed if you want, though. It makes literally zero sense to push the economy for lighter drugs underground, when they're ultimately no different to alcohol or cigarettes.

[iup=3604591]Tineash[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3604482]Lagamorph[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3604451]Faust[/iup] wrote:Harmless things like weed, mdma, shrooms and acid will be legal.

Wasn't there a 20 year study by the WHO that recently concluded showing that Cannabis did have damaging long term effects after all?

Unlike alcohol and cigarettes..?

My point was that describing cannabis as 'harmless' and wanting to legalise it partly on that basis is incorrect.

I think one negative effect of our current policy is that no one has been allowed to research and develop recreational drugs that might potentially be less harmful and less addictive. For example, why should not someone be allowed to develop a drug that provides a mood lift without any of the physical damage done by smoking or drinking? If you could develop that drug and get people using it as an alternative to alcohol and cigarettes then society would benefit.

[iup=3604609]Lagamorph[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3604591]Tineash[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3604482]Lagamorph[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3604451]Faust[/iup] wrote:Harmless things like weed, mdma, shrooms and acid will be legal.

Wasn't there a 20 year study by the WHO that recently concluded showing that Cannabis did have damaging long term effects after all?

Unlike alcohol and cigarettes..?

My point was that describing cannabis as 'harmless' and wanting to legalise it partly on that basis is incorrect.

Depends on how you define 'harmless'. Few things are probably completely harmless, but as a society and as individuals, we weigh up the costs versus the benefits of certain actions and then decide whether the juice is worth the squeeze.

If something has to be completely and entirely harmless for it to be deemed acceptable then strawberry float, we're screwed. Defining weed as harmless in the context of this discussion is fine, in my opinion, because we generally accept a base level of harm in everything.

Weed is harmless for over 25s, but for those under with brains still developing it can be incredibly harmful, being linked IIRC to schizophrenia and lower IQs.

[iup=3604451]Faust[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3603477]Lagamorph[/iup] wrote:Since the vote is swinging in favour of "SOME should be available and others should be restricted", I ask this to those who voted that way. Where do you draw the line? Ketamine? Cannabis? Amphetamines? Heroin? Cocaine? How do you determine which ones get to be made legal and which ones stay illegal?

If your going to have partial prohibition, simply do it by how much harm they cause to the body, instead of historical assumptions. Harmless things like weed, mdma, shrooms and acid will be legal. The nasties like heroin and ket illegal.

I gets hard with things like coke, the odd gram of coke ain't gonna kill ya, and it's so expensive that unless your rich or dealing it, full blown addiction is fairly rare, but it can easily be turned into crack by anyone with baking powder and a teaspoon.

I don't think partial prohibition is the answer, but it is certainly an improvement over our drug policy, and will probably direct curious people to the more harmless varieties of drugs.

Pure heroin (opium) is harmless in of itself (of course you will die if you overdose). Most of the harm from heroin abuse is the from the various additives in street heroin.

[iup=3605328]<]:^D[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3604451]Faust[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3603477]Lagamorph[/iup] wrote:Since the vote is swinging in favour of "SOME should be available and others should be restricted", I ask this to those who voted that way. Where do you draw the line? Ketamine? Cannabis? Amphetamines? Heroin? Cocaine? How do you determine which ones get to be made legal and which ones stay illegal?

If your going to have partial prohibition, simply do it by how much harm they cause to the body, instead of historical assumptions. Harmless things like weed, mdma, shrooms and acid will be legal. The nasties like heroin and ket illegal.

I gets hard with things like coke, the odd gram of coke ain't gonna kill ya, and it's so expensive that unless your rich or dealing it, full blown addiction is fairly rare, but it can easily be turned into crack by anyone with baking powder and a teaspoon.

I don't think partial prohibition is the answer, but it is certainly an improvement over our drug policy, and will probably direct curious people to the more harmless varieties of drugs.

Pure heroin (opium) is harmless in of itself (of course you will die if you overdose). Most of the harm from heroin abuse is the from the various additives in street heroin.

If a street heroin user is unfortunate enough to come across pure heroin, the most likely scenario is majorly miscalculating the dose and dying.

I don't think anything that addictive can be ever classed as harmless, as it quickly leads into a cycle of dependence that will never fully leave. Even if you start off with a clean supply of heroin, how long is gonna take before you start down the path of buying the cut gooseberry fool and sharing needles and all the other nonsense associated with it.

The amount of people that successfully and completely kick the habit is so low, I don't think they should even bother spending money on rehab for junkies, it's just not economical. Just write them off as a loss and carry on.

[iup=3604608]Karl[/iup] wrote:I'm not sure whether I would be comfortable with pharmacies selling the real nasty stuff, like crystal meth or heroin, though. I don't know if that makes me a conservative prude or something, I just have this kind of reservation that maybe there are drugs too destructive to stock on the high street. I'm not an expert though and I guess I would be happy either way if it was reasoned that selling the stuff would be better overall for society (or whatever).

I'm not an expert either but isn't a lot of what makes these drugs destructive is the awful stuff they get cut with? Which if the whole process was legalised and regulated, would no longer be the case. I'm assuming they'd still be viciously addictive, so while their impact on physical wellbeing might be lessened, they could still wreak havoc - but in much the same way that any kind of addict would suffer for their addiction? I certainly wouldn't want to encourage people to take these drugs, but I just feel that, if someone wants heroin, nowadays they're going to get it. So the demand won't go away. Surely it's the most humane, least hypocritical approach to minimise any potential suffering the addict might endure, as opposed to driving them underground?

Like weird smiley face guy said, pure heroin is actually pretty safe in the form that's administered in hospitals (diamorphine). Of course, I use the term 'pretty safe' with respect to the harm caused by street heroin - while it is prescribed all the time on the NHS, miscalculations with dosage and such do happen.

The 'Three Is' are what hurt heroin users the most - infection, incarceration, and impoverishment. Three things that aren't direct consequences of taking heroin. In fact, a number of trials over the years in prescribing diamorphine to heroin addicts has shown it to not only save money, but also improve the health and quality of life for addicts.

The trials proved diamorphine maintenance to be superior to other forms of treatment in improving the social and health situation for this group of patients.[26] It has also been shown to save money, despite high treatment expenses, as it significantly reduces costs incurred by trials, incarceration, health interventions and delinquency.

This has reminded me of the Mitch Hedberg joke.. "I'm a heroine addict. I need to have sex with women who have saved someone's life."

[iup=3605328]<]:^D[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3604451]Faust[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3603477]Lagamorph[/iup] wrote:Since the vote is swinging in favour of "SOME should be available and others should be restricted", I ask this to those who voted that way. Where do you draw the line? Ketamine? Cannabis? Amphetamines? Heroin? Cocaine? How do you determine which ones get to be made legal and which ones stay illegal?

If your going to have partial prohibition, simply do it by how much harm they cause to the body, instead of historical assumptions. Harmless things like weed, mdma, shrooms and acid will be legal. The nasties like heroin and ket illegal.

I gets hard with things like coke, the odd gram of coke ain't gonna kill ya, and it's so expensive that unless your rich or dealing it, full blown addiction is fairly rare, but it can easily be turned into crack by anyone with baking powder and a teaspoon.

I don't think partial prohibition is the answer, but it is certainly an improvement over our drug policy, and will probably direct curious people to the more harmless varieties of drugs.

Pure heroin (opium) is harmless in of itself (of course you will die if you overdose). Most of the harm from heroin abuse is the from the various additives in street heroin.

Opium is not pure heroin. Heroin is the refined and processed form of opium, similar to cocaine from coca leaves. In many ways, heroin would be considered a "purer" form of the active component of opium. It is several times stronger and most certainly is harmful. Most of the physical harm of heroin abuse comes from mainlining an opiate into your system and withdrawal.

Opium, like its derivative Heroin, is extremely addictive but has a longer addiction onset. This article details what opium itself is like http://www.collectorsweekly.com/article ... nderworld/

legalise all drugs.

Tax them, produce them safely and sell the over the counter. We can have systems to monitor usage and provide support to addicts. Maybe people have an account which tracks all the drugs we buy so if we ever get in trouble, doctors/paramedics can get access to what's been taken.

The current system only benefits criminals, if people want to take drugs, they do. No one is out off by the illegality of it. If the UK legalised drugs next week it would decimate the criminal underworld which is financed almost entirely by illegal drugs.

[iup=3604482]Lagamorph[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3604451]Faust[/iup] wrote:Harmless things like weed, mdma, shrooms and acid will be legal.

Wasn't there a 20 year study by the WHO that recently concluded showing that Cannabis did have damaging long term effects after all?

Cannabis can also be fantastic for helping medical ailments, though,

I'm in excruciating pain if I don't consume at least a little edible cannabis each day. If that results in me dropping a few IQ points over a long period of time then so be it.

banana splits who think people shouldn't be allowed to have access to medicine that has been proven to work because of some retarded social stigmas can strawberry float right off. Not aiming that at anyone on here.


Also completely agree with shadow. Particularly when it comes to heroin policy. I really don't understand why we prescribe addicts methadone when prescribing them heroin would alleviate their need to go and score illicit drugs to top up with as is currently the case.

Very interesting - thank you for that.

There's this article too which I read several years ago - I've since actually read Nick Davies' book and I don't agree with it all so don't take my posting this as an endorsement of the man's stance entirely, but it was the first time I'd read a convincing argument for the legalisation of drugs.

Normally my response to this is "Legalise them all, tax the hell out of them in proportion to what abuse of the drug is likely to cost the NHS."

The Economist persuaded me back in 2009 http://www.economist.com/node/13237193

[iup=3605674]ianf[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3604482]Lagamorph[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3604451]Faust[/iup] wrote:Harmless things like weed, mdma, shrooms and acid will be legal.

Wasn't there a 20 year study by the WHO that recently concluded showing that Cannabis did have damaging long term effects after all?

Cannabis can also be fantastic for helping medical ailments, though,

I'm in excruciating pain if I don't consume at least a little edible cannabis each day. If that results in me dropping a few IQ points over a long period of time then so be it.

How old are you, and how much do you consume daily? The negative effects of cannabis consumption depend on your age, and presumably also depend on how much is taken at a given time, and I imagine the form it's taken in might have an effect too. Heavy use has been shown to lead to some quite severe long-term problems, like impairments of learning, memory and decision making, personality, mood motivational and hormonal changes, as well as the destruction of lung fibers and potentially permanent brain lesions, among other things.

Careful and moderate use, especially after 25, is fine, but I worry that most people aren't all that disciplined (young 'uns especially) and that they and others could suffer as a result. No more than with alcohol and tobacco products, though. If weed is regulated like those, I'd probably have few issues with its legalization, especially if odorless pot and tobacco cigarettes were developed so I don't have to smell that gooseberry fool.

[iup=3609906]Alvin Flummux[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3605674]ianf[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3604482]Lagamorph[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3604451]Faust[/iup] wrote:Harmless things like weed, mdma, shrooms and acid will be legal.

Wasn't there a 20 year study by the WHO that recently concluded showing that Cannabis did have damaging long term effects after all?

Cannabis can also be fantastic for helping medical ailments, though,

I'm in excruciating pain if I don't consume at least a little edible cannabis each day. If that results in me dropping a few IQ points over a long period of time then so be it.

How old are you, and how much do you consume daily? The negative effects of cannabis consumption depend on your age, and presumably also depend on how much is taken at a given time, and I imagine the form it's taken in might have an effect too. Heavy use has been shown to lead to some quite severe long-term problems, like impairments of learning, memory and decision making, personality, mood motivational and hormonal changes, as well as the destruction of lung fibers and potentially permanent brain lesions, among other things.

Careful and moderate use, especially after 25, is fine, but I worry that most people aren't all that disciplined (young 'uns especially) and that they and others could suffer as a result. No more than with alcohol and tobacco products, though. If weed is regulated like those, I'd probably have few issues with its legalization, especially if odorless pot and tobacco cigarettes were developed so I don't have to smell that gooseberry fool.

23, and I eat about 1g a month at most by splitting it into tiny amounts, cooking it then nibbling on it throughout the day. So it's very light usage really, heavy users can smoke through a g a night easy. Have you got any scientific papers behind those claims? I understand there's major concerns with heavy usage amongst adolescents but otherwise most claims of significant harm remain unproven.

How would others suffer from people being undisciplined with weed? Of course it should be regulated like alcohol or tobacco, I don't think any proponent of legalisation would want children getting their hands on it.