Drugs - legalise?

Do you have difficulty sustaining your election?

Re: Drugs - legalise?

Post by Tokyo Sexwale @ Fri Sep 09, 2016 3:02 pm

ttwiggy wrote:You snipped a section of what I actually said out of the quote (very PH ;)). You were posing the question as to why we continue to fight crime when it's an unwinable war. My point was that when we fight crime we do so to protect the victim and punish the criminal. We don't win every time, but we do at least address some of the balance. I terms of the war on drugs, we create more victims (by either criminalising the user or raising the chances of overdose etc) while simultaneously 'rewarding' the criminals by facilitating a supply chain.

You make it sound as though I took a tiny section out of a big post - I just didn't include your first sentence, because I don't really see what there is to say to that comment. The users aren't criminalised as such in reality but I do agree that the increased risk of overdose is there. None of that means we should stop fighting drugs though, to my mind.
User avatar
Tokyo Sexwale
 
Posts: 47241
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:14 pm

Re: Drugs - legalise?

Post by thekungfury @ Fri Sep 09, 2016 3:03 pm

Strawman wrote:
thekungfury wrote: Legalised and regulated will add hugely to the cost and nobody on hard drugs will be able to afford the increase.


Not sure if that is true, the vast costs involved in smuggling adds more than any regulation would, I'm not an expert but when you look at all the efforts put into smuggling it has to be the case.

Turntable wrote:We've disagreed on this before but I maintain that if Heroin was legal, it would be a fraction of the cost which itself would solve a lot of the 'gaining money' aspect of the crime.

I strongly disagree this. I do lots of work with drug companies and the cost of getting a prescription drug to the market is vast. Like truly, truly vast. The average according to a quick Google is $1-2Bn. In the healthcare arena there are different categories of drug and device (boring explanation below). Essentially for drug like heroin which you inject the costs are way higher and into the billions to develop.

When they're selling the drug they leave themselves open to being sued if they mess up so the quality controls are cripplingly expensive. Do you reckon the current heroin supply chain has any of these up front or quality control costs?

And then we're proposing a tax on these drugs which would presumably be in line with alcohol (~40%) and fags (~70%) to dissuade people and raise revenue for the associated illnesses.

  • SPOILER: Mouse over to reveal
    • Level 1 is topical. Rubbing something on your skin. You skin has a barrier to stop stuff killing us when we touch it.

      Level 2 ingestion. Swallow a tablet and our stomach acid kills nasties and is another barrier.

      Level 3 inhalation. Above ingestion but there is still a barrier within the lungs.

      Level 4 injection. It's straight into the bloodstream so bypasses all the previous levels and therefore far more risk. The brain has an extra level of protection with the blood-brain barrier which stops cells, particles and other bits like protein from getting up there. Which leads us to...

      Level 5 ocular. You can bypass the blood-brain barrier by going in through the eye. Some addicts have been known to get a better high by injection straight into their eyeball. INJECTION STRAIGHT INTO THEIR FCUKING EYEBALL! It makes me grimace just typing that.
User avatar
thekungfury
 
Posts: 31643
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 1:27 pm
Highscores: 1

Re: Drugs - legalise?

Post by Strawman @ Fri Sep 09, 2016 3:10 pm

thekungfury wrote:I strongly disagree this. I do lots of work with drug companies and the cost of getting a prescription drug to the market is vast. Like truly, truly vast. The average according to a quick Google is $1-2Bn.


Yeah but Heroin (morphine) and cocaine are already available for medicinal use aren't they, it would be expensive for Ecstasy to get a licence.
The downside of the 'war on drugs' is that it has hampered genuine research into cures for depression and alcoholism using LSD, the trials of which recently were made insanely difficult because of the war on drugs.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... y-suggests
User avatar
Strawman
 
Posts: 35603
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:50 pm
Location: insignificant next to the power of the force

Re: Drugs - legalise?

Post by thekungfury @ Fri Sep 09, 2016 3:10 pm

Tokyo Sexwale wrote:If anything, a civilised society should be thinking of banning alcohol rather then considering decriminalising other addictive drugs.

I expected this to come up. Same for smoking which cause more physical harm, if not social.

The question is perhaps more how we deal with addictive substances and addictive personalities. I tried pretty much every drug in my youth and didn't get addicted to any. I believe if heroin didn't exist then addictive people would simply be doing something else to fcuk themselves up.
User avatar
thekungfury
 
Posts: 31643
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 1:27 pm
Highscores: 1

Re: Drugs - legalise?

Post by ttwiggy @ Fri Sep 09, 2016 3:11 pm

Tokyo Sexwale wrote:
ttwiggy wrote:You snipped a section of what I actually said out of the quote (very PH ;)). You were posing the question as to why we continue to fight crime when it's an unwinable war. My point was that when we fight crime we do so to protect the victim and punish the criminal. We don't win every time, but we do at least address some of the balance. I terms of the war on drugs, we create more victims (by either criminalising the user or raising the chances of overdose etc) while simultaneously 'rewarding' the criminals by facilitating a supply chain.

You make it sound as though I took a tiny section out of a big post - I just didn't include your first sentence, because I don't really see what there is to say to that comment. The users aren't criminalised as such in reality but I do agree that the increased risk of overdose is there. None of that means we should stop fighting drugs though, to my mind.


Possession of a class A drug is quite a serious offence. If the user has bought some for a few mates then 'intention to supply' is easily added on. Users are criminalised.

I don't think there's an easy answer to this but what we're doing isn't working, so some new approaches would seem necessary.
ttwiggy
 
Posts: 606
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2015 3:54 pm

Re: Drugs - legalise?

Post by thekungfury @ Fri Sep 09, 2016 3:38 pm

On the subject of drug use, Fabric nightclub in London has recently had its licence revoked by Islington council due to two drug deaths this year. All very sad of course but Prof David Nutt (neuropsychopharmacologist, great word) points out that horse riding (particularly eventing) is statistically riskier than taking ecstasy.
User avatar
thekungfury
 
Posts: 31643
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 1:27 pm
Highscores: 1

Re: Drugs - legalise?

Post by Turntable @ Fri Sep 09, 2016 4:36 pm

thekungfury wrote:I strongly disagree this. I do lots of work with drug companies and the cost of getting a prescription drug to the market is vast. Like truly, truly vast. The average according to a quick Google is $1-2Bn. In the healthcare arena there are different categories of drug and device (boring explanation below). Essentially for drug like heroin which you inject the costs are way higher and into the billions to develop.

When they're selling the drug they leave themselves open to being sued if they mess up so the quality controls are cripplingly expensive. Do you reckon the current heroin supply chain has any of these up front or quality control costs?

And then we're proposing a tax on these drugs which would presumably be in line with alcohol (~40%) and fags (~70%) to dissuade people and raise revenue for the associated illnesses.

  • SPOILER: Mouse over to reveal
    • Level 1 is topical. Rubbing something on your skin. You skin has a barrier to stop stuff killing us when we touch it.

      Level 2 ingestion. Swallow a tablet and our stomach acid kills nasties and is another barrier.

      Level 3 inhalation. Above ingestion but there is still a barrier within the lungs.

      Level 4 injection. It's straight into the bloodstream so bypasses all the previous levels and therefore far more risk. The brain has an extra level of protection with the blood-brain barrier which stops cells, particles and other bits like protein from getting up there. Which leads us to...

      Level 5 ocular. You can bypass the blood-brain barrier by going in through the eye. Some addicts have been known to get a better high by injection straight into their eyeball. INJECTION STRAIGHT INTO THEIR FCUKING EYEBALL! It makes me grimace just typing that.


I don't know for certain what would be involved (as it's never happened) but in your examples 99% of those costs of getting drugs to market are spread between research and development (not applicable here) and gathering data and patient response through drug trials (again-probably not applicable here because the data is already available)
THis drug already exists and has been trialled non stop for centuries. Everything is already known so comparing it to developing new drugs is not really relevant.
User avatar
Turntable
 
Posts: 29447
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:47 pm
Highscores: 7

Re: Drugs - legalise?

Post by thekungfury @ Fri Sep 09, 2016 4:58 pm

Turntable wrote:I don't know for certain what would be involved (as it's never happened) but in your examples 99% of those costs of getting drugs to market are spread between research and development (not applicable here) and gathering data and patient response through drug trials (again-probably not applicable here because the data is already available)
THis drug already exists and has been trialled non stop for centuries. Everything is already known so comparing it to developing new drugs is not really relevant.

They couldn't just sell it. I would still need to go through some trials before getting to market. Nevertheless if you want to ignore R&D costs there is still the cost of taxes (duty, VAT & VAT on duty) and the increased cost of quality control which is currently zero.

You say it's never happened however it has for weed in USA and medical costs more than street stuff.
User avatar
thekungfury
 
Posts: 31643
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 1:27 pm
Highscores: 1

Re: Drugs - legalise?

Post by Turntable @ Fri Sep 09, 2016 5:24 pm

thekungfury wrote:They couldn't just sell it. I would still need to go through some trials before getting to market. Nevertheless if you want to ignore R&D costs there is still the cost of taxes (duty, VAT & VAT on duty) and the increased cost of quality control which is currently zero.

You say it's never happened however it has for weed in USA and medical costs more than street stuff.


Im surprised at your last sentence. Assuming that's true it has got to be down to the government deliberately taxing it that way.

I cant see any logical reason why something like heroin/cocaine would cost any more than antibiotics to get to market. It is far simpler to produce and in countries where antibiotics are available over the counter they cost next to nothing.
Admittedly the government may want to tax it to oblivion, but that's a different argument
User avatar
Turntable
 
Posts: 29447
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:47 pm
Highscores: 7

Re: Drugs - legalise?

Post by thekungfury @ Fri Sep 09, 2016 5:37 pm

From here

Image

I wonder what drug price inflation has been like over the years? I always remember an eighth was £15 and never seemed to change.
User avatar
thekungfury
 
Posts: 31643
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 1:27 pm
Highscores: 1

Re: Drugs - legalise?

Post by Darthdeathdealer @ Fri Sep 09, 2016 5:44 pm

Tokyo Sexwale wrote:
Darthdeathdealer wrote:Legalise them all. Control supply through controllable, taxable outlets.

Very PH



How very dare you. I challenge you to pistols at dawn.
Darthdeathdealer
 
Posts: 790
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 12:57 am

Re: Drugs - legalise?

Post by Tokyo Sexwale @ Fri Sep 09, 2016 6:20 pm

Antibiotic usage compared with coke/heroin must be many thousand times higher so economies of scale, plus it's incredibly easy to make - I made it by accident in biology once. From a Stacey someone doc I saw once, coke was surprisingly complicated and expensive to make. Loads of petrol involved iirc.
User avatar
Tokyo Sexwale
 
Posts: 47241
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:14 pm

Re: Drugs - legalise?

Post by desertweasel @ Fri Sep 09, 2016 6:25 pm

I think there is some disagreement over the Portugal stats, the violent crime stats fell, the burglary stats fell and the drug usage is very similar BUT drug deaths are massively down. Bear in mind there was a big support setup for particularly heroin users which may have helped, Kofi Annan has always had an agenda and is frankly fcucking delusional if he really thinks anyone can "win" the war on drugs, he is far more after the US money that it showers on developing countries if they agree to play the USA way.

I live in Portugal and to be honest I have seen way more drugs in UK and far more open usage, here it tends to be a lot of MDMA crystal and coke but the people I SEE doing it are usually foreigners, a lot of the mystic seems to have gone for anything but weed which they do smoke huge amounts of.

I like that there was no good drugs bad drugs distinction, it is basically any drug. The cops still bust big shipments but the stop and search thing has pretty much gone and this is saving them huge amounts of money in prosecutions (the real reason it came in in the first place) and makes the atmosphere in Lisbon at night pretty relaxed. The only people against it are the country folk and of course the church who see Lisbon and Porto as Sodom and Gomorrah and still rail about drug smoking hippies like it was the sixties.

I'm liking living here and knowing that a little dabble now and again will not result in a bust and getting thrown out the country as used to happen.

Personally I would legalise all but decriminalisation is a good first start.
desertweasel
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:11 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Drugs - legalise?

Post by Strawman @ Fri Sep 09, 2016 6:29 pm

Morphine, which is AFAIK a liquid form of heroin, costs $14 per 15ml without tax. To make it you need to grow poppies and harvest the resin and stuff. Not sure how this impacts on the debate of prohibition vs free access to various drugs.
User avatar
Strawman
 
Posts: 35603
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:50 pm
Location: insignificant next to the power of the force

Re: Drugs - legalise?

Post by Darthdeathdealer @ Fri Sep 09, 2016 6:55 pm

Strawman wrote:Morphine, which is AFAIK a liquid form of heroin, costs $14 per 15ml without tax. To make it you need to grow poppies and harvest the resin and stuff. Not sure how this impacts on the debate of prohibition vs free access to various drugs.



Morphine is Morphine. Heroin is Diacetyl morphine. A lot worse.
Darthdeathdealer
 
Posts: 790
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 12:57 am

Re: Drugs - legalise?

Post by spast1kunt @ Fri Sep 09, 2016 7:04 pm

Darthdeathdealer wrote:
Strawman wrote:Morphine, which is AFAIK a liquid form of heroin, costs $14 per 15ml without tax. To make it you need to grow poppies and harvest the resin and stuff. Not sure how this impacts on the debate of prohibition vs free access to various drugs.



Morphine is Morphine. Heroin is Diacetyl morphine. A lot worse.

But not very expensive.

Injection, powder for reconstitution, diamorphine hydrochloride, net price 5-mg amp = £2.27, 10-mg amp = £3.01, 30-mg amp = £2.92, 100-mg amp = £8.48, 500-mg amp = £37.54

from - https://www.evidence.nhs.uk/formulary/b ... rochloride
User avatar
spast1kunt
 
Posts: 2573
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2015 7:10 pm

Re: Drugs - legalise?

Post by Tokyo Sexwale @ Fri Sep 09, 2016 7:23 pm

spast1kunt wrote:
Darthdeathdealer wrote:
Strawman wrote:Morphine, which is AFAIK a liquid form of heroin, costs $14 per 15ml without tax. To make it you need to grow poppies and harvest the resin and stuff. Not sure how this impacts on the debate of prohibition vs free access to various drugs.



Morphine is Morphine. Heroin is Diacetyl morphine. A lot worse.

But not very expensive.

Injection, powder for reconstitution, diamorphine hydrochloride, net price 5-mg amp = £2.27, 10-mg amp = £3.01, 30-mg amp = £2.92, 100-mg amp = £8.48, 500-mg amp = £37.54

from - https://www.evidence.nhs.uk/formulary/b ... rochloride


Interesting prices.
I remember a mate's nan was given a load of it for her terminal cancer and when she died there was loads left. We eyes it and looked at each other daringly and then decided against it.
User avatar
Tokyo Sexwale
 
Posts: 47241
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:14 pm

Re: Drugs - legalise?

Post by spast1kunt @ Fri Sep 09, 2016 7:39 pm

Tokyo Sexwale wrote:Interesting prices.
I remember a mate's nan was given a load of it for her terminal cancer and when she died there was loads left. We eyes it and looked at each other daringly and then decided against it.

Probably wise.

I understand it can be quite more-ish.
User avatar
spast1kunt
 
Posts: 2573
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2015 7:10 pm

Re: Drugs - legalise?

Post by Pigeon @ Fri Sep 09, 2016 9:47 pm

Tokyo Sexwale wrote:
spast1kunt wrote:It's the illegality of drugs which creates most of the social problems associated with drug use.


You whole post hinges on this and it's totally incorrect. The illegality of drugs causes unclean drugs and wealthy cartels but the real crimes committed (when thinking of Class As like Heroin, Crack etc) are in gaining money to buy the drug in the first place, or violence from one addict on another or other antisocial behaviour. The fact the drug is illegal is irrelevant to the social problems, just look at alcohol. Alcohol is a legalised drug that has huge problems from a societal and criminal POV. It's availability is the biggest reason for this - a highly addictive drug that's available almost 24/7 with the only real restriction on it being age and not to sell it to someone who's completely fcuked. It's mass market means it's cheap as chips too.


No, spazzers is right. The crime done to get money to buy drugs other than alcohol is purely an artefact of their illegality pushing the price up. Alcohol - despite being taxed to fcuk - is still cheap enough that people don't generally have to commit crime to pay for it. There's no reason why other drugs shouldn't be just as cheap (in terms of price per unit effect, rather than price per unit mass), since they are all piss simple to produce. Purely synthetic drugs like E and speed are much simpler to synthesise than many common medical drugs, being about on the level of aspirin or paracetamol in complexity. With heroin and cocaine a plant does all the difficult chemistry for you and all that's needed is to purify the extract, and in the case of heroin acetylate it - even simpler processes.

Also, you can't just dismiss the "wealthy cartels" like that. Manufacturers of legal things do not generally run what amounts to private armies or terrorise and fcuk up entire regions or countries.

Alcohol is a special case when it comes to antisocial or criminal behaviour because it is pretty much unique in having the effect of making you think it's a great idea to act like a cnut. Most other drugs you either don't want to do anything at all much, or else at least allow you to retain a reasonable appreciation of whether you're being a cnut or not and the desire not to be one.

Turntable wrote:If figures show that legalising hard drugs (with controls and education) would make far more addicts than exist already, then I would definitely be against it.


I wouldn't. There's nothing wrong with being an addict per se. It's only a problem when it's difficult to get hold of the stuff you're addicted to, and of course legalisation would put a stop to that. Tobacco is of the same order as heroin in terms of addictiveness but that's OK since it's available and cheap enough that anyone who wants it doesn't have a problem getting it.

CJ+ wrote:Stepping away from the criminality/cost aspect, what do we think of the "well, why the giddy fcuk can't I put whatever chemicals I like into my own bloodstream?" question?

If the government should be able to mandate what people can and cannot do to themselves, where/how do we draw the line.

Imagine this scenario:

Heroin is legal, taxed and regulated, and is available in shops under much the same circumstances as alcohol is now. All the laws that apply to alcohol (driving, operating machinery, age, etc.) apply to heroin too.

So Wayne McChav goes down the offy and spends his dole on (a) White Lightning or (b) Sunny H.

Assuming for a moment that he doesn't go criming or be in charge of children or whatever when he's pissed or high, so what?

So he's addicted. Again, so what? His body, his problem.

Genuinely interested to hear your thoughts about this - on each side of the debate.


This, absolutely. What someone does to their own body is their own problem and none of the government's fcuking business. It's only people being cnutish to other people that should be of the government's concern, and legalising drugs would cut out a great swathe of motivation to cnutishness both deliberate and secondary. Health care costs are covered by the tax (last time I looked tobacco taxes brought in something like 9 times the cost of treating tobacco-related health problems), and also by people dying earlier and not needing so much pension, geriatric care etc. (And in any case nobody worries about taxing people to pay for the health care costs of other kinds of self-inflicted damage incurred in the course of some activity that the whining moralists do not have a down on, like climbing mountains and falling off, or riding a bike and falling off, or doing sport and getting Dis-eye or Deev-knee, etc.) Not to mention the massive reduction in police, prison etc. costs from not chasing dealers and not having to deal with crime committed to pay dealers.
User avatar
Pigeon
CTF Technical Expert
CTF Technical Expert
 
Posts: 22960
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 8:50 pm
Location: All alone in the crazy city

Re: Drugs - legalise?

Post by Doctor Congo @ Fri Sep 09, 2016 10:46 pm

thekungfury wrote:Level 5 ocular. You can bypass the blood-brain barrier by going in through the eye. Some addicts have been known to get a better high by injection straight into their eyeball. INJECTION STRAIGHT INTO THEIR FCUKING EYEBALL! It makes me grimace just typing that.



That's total bollocks. You cannot bypass the blood brain barrier by injecting into the eye. In fact, the drug will simply float in the vitreous, unless the addict is able to cannulate his retinal vessels, which is impossible. As a matter of fact, I inject people's eye's nearly every day with various, highly expensive drugs, and none of those drugs reach systemic circulation due to the blood retinal barrier.
User avatar
Doctor Congo
 
Posts: 5091
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 7:39 pm

Re: Drugs - legalise?

Post by Barbarianna @ Fri Sep 09, 2016 10:51 pm

I dont think addiction is limited to being the addict's problem. The consequences frample with heroin addiction are deeply damaging even if the drug were clean: apathy, mental degradation (biological decline in brain size and function) and a whole range of mental health disorders are frequent consequences. The person becomes trapped in a hollow body and burdensome on evryone involved in their life and/or the state, even if they dont engage in crime. The loss of a productive individual has its costs. They have very little power over the choice in stopping becoming addicted: heroin is more powerful than willpower (ditto alcohol) and the sense of euphoria and escape it offers would, I gather, belittle pretty much anything a sober life could offer to the recovering addict. Thats why they relapse so horrifically often. So it would be inaccurate to say that it is either their choice or their exclusive problem.

So heroin and crack cocaine , both of similar addictiveness AFAIK, are worth grave attention and restriction: decriminalisation good, but the tone of that move would need very carefully managed: addressing the social issues that lead to people turning to addiction is a priority, prevention being better than cure. But social problems are worthy complexities that are often mistaken for being soft and evasive, so not much gets done about them that is properly sophisticated and focussed on results.

Cocaine itself, though a common 'party drug' is dangerous enough on its own, not comparable to things like ecstasy even though the context and buying market of the two drugs is often similar. Cocaine is intensely euphoric for most users and the consequences of mid-to longer term use, even periodically, seem to be insidious but tangible: a coarsening of the personality, loss of resilience and greater incidence of anger, emotional instability and ability to apply oneself to more complex problems, which unfortunately are temporarily relieved by more cocaine. A person can lose their humanity with such a drug. Thankfully, it doesnt seem to be quite as much of a permanent mental prison as heroin and crack if a person does stop taking it ( though what people gain from taking any given drug is a hugely variable thing).

In essence, i believe the legalisation debate needs to be more subtly addressed, with close attention to the pitfalls and economies related to any given drug.

However, this question is far from a practical one in the UK; governments simply dont have the appettite/courage to make this an issue. Not that the Americans have it entirely right- though their legalising cannabis in many states is probably a positive move, it has more to do IMO with a significant part of the voter mindset being sympathetic to personal freedoms and adventures that were prediminant in the 60s and 70s in that country. The Uk's old people didnt have such a view in sufficint numbers to kick up a fuss about smoking weed.

Americas view on hard drugs is sadly the worst example of politicisation in any Western state. Countless millions of black people are given mandatory long sentences for possessing or selling cocaine, with little or no interest in addressing the underlying causes ( no great surprises in what these are- poverty, festering suspicions of state authority, and a plain culturally held (mis) belief that involvement with drugs is wholly down to personal weakness and failure of morality. The problem is enough to make sensible commentators think that this may as well be a disinterested de facto attack on the racial underclasses (background histories of CIA involvement in drug trafficking to largely black areas have largely rung true etc). The white undeclasses have not escaped damage either- crystal meth, which is simply methamphetamine- is a horrendous drug. But AFAIK the damage is not compounded by mass imprisonment to the same levels as cocaine.

If only we could fast forward to when our demographic become the oldish lot who the government listens to: I hope we retain the balls and memory of how we are now when that time comes, rather than acquiesce to the bigoted fear of everything that infects old people, disguising itself as wisdom and balance when it is nothing but a selfish wish to suppress the sum of bad things that their weak bodies have never learned to properly understand when they were younger.
Last edited by Barbarianna on Fri Sep 09, 2016 10:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Barbarianna
 
Posts: 3883
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: Drugs - legalise?

Post by thekungfury @ Fri Sep 09, 2016 11:00 pm

Doctor Congo wrote:
thekungfury wrote:Level 5 ocular. You can bypass the blood-brain barrier by going in through the eye. Some addicts have been known to get a better high by injection straight into their eyeball. INJECTION STRAIGHT INTO THEIR FCUKING EYEBALL! It makes me grimace just typing that.


That's total bollocks. You cannot bypass the blood brain barrier by injecting into the eye. In fact, the drug will simply float in the vitreous, unless the addict is able to cannulate his retinal vessels, which is impossible. As a matter of fact, I inject people's eye's nearly every day with various, highly expensive drugs, and none of those drugs reach systemic circulation due to the blood retinal barrier.

You know far, far more than I do on this subject. I'm just saying what I've been told about healthcare devices and approvals.
User avatar
thekungfury
 
Posts: 31643
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 1:27 pm
Highscores: 1

Re: Drugs - legalise?

Post by Doctor Congo @ Fri Sep 09, 2016 11:07 pm

thekungfury wrote:
Doctor Congo wrote:
thekungfury wrote:Level 5 ocular. You can bypass the blood-brain barrier by going in through the eye. Some addicts have been known to get a better high by injection straight into their eyeball. INJECTION STRAIGHT INTO THEIR FCUKING EYEBALL! It makes me grimace just typing that.


That's total bollocks. You cannot bypass the blood brain barrier by injecting into the eye. In fact, the drug will simply float in the vitreous, unless the addict is able to cannulate his retinal vessels, which is impossible. As a matter of fact, I inject people's eye's nearly every day with various, highly expensive drugs, and none of those drugs reach systemic circulation due to the blood retinal barrier.

You know far, far more than I do on this subject. I'm just saying what I've been told about healthcare devices and approvals.


Yes, and you certainly have a point about the process of marketing medicines, which is very expensive. However, the debate is finely nuanced in a way eloquently described by Barbs. I do believe on balance that there should be a decriminalisation of drugs. The contrary position has been wholly unsuccessful at dealing with the problem and actually propagates further problems within society in terms of crime and health issues. But, it's not straightforward and will not be an answer to all the issues that arise.
User avatar
Doctor Congo
 
Posts: 5091
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 7:39 pm

Re: Drugs - legalise?

Post by thekungfury @ Fri Sep 09, 2016 11:30 pm

Barbarianna wrote:Cocaine itself, though a common 'party drug' is dangerous enough on its own, not comparable to things like ecstasy even though the context and buying market of the two drugs is often similar. Cocaine is intensely euphoric for most users and the consequences of mid-to longer term use, even periodically, seem to be insidious but tangible: a coarsening of the personality, loss of resilience and greater incidence of anger, emotional instability and ability to apply oneself to more complex problems, which unfortunately are temporarily relieved by more cocaine. A person can lose their humanity with such a drug. Thankfully, it doesnt seem to be quite as much of a permanent mental prison as heroin and crack if a person does stop taking it ( though what people gain from taking any given drug is a hugely variable thing).

What are your thoughts on addictive substances and addictive personalities?

I can only speak from personal anecdotal evidence and from what I've seen which includes the very hardest of narcotics* nobody has got anywhere close to addiction. Everyone has had something and not been compelled to keep taking it. They might have it again for the next night out but there wasn't the need to have it on a Tuesday morning. I've tried some extremely euphoric and supposedly addictive things but afterwards I was never any more drawn to them than glass of chardonnay.

I've not had any direct experience with alcohol addiction but my best man's brother was a high functioning alcoholic who'd nail a bottle of vodka because he had to. As someone who has been incoherently drunk I can attest to the fact that the following day(s) the last thing on my mind has been more booze. Likewise with drug comedowns.

We've all said "never drinking again". When does never again become I need alcohol/drug right now? I can't see it unless the person is the type of person that is addicted to things. Or maybe the person was "in a bad place" and the alcohol/drug helped as a crutch? Either way, it's my view that whether heroin etc. is legal/illegal/regulated/w'ev people who will get addicted to something will get addicted to something and there is very little we can do to stop it.

* forex I shared a house with a low level drug dealer who had some shady friends. One was a chemistry phd student who nicked equipment from our labs to make homemade crack from cocaine. Yield was, apparently, reasonable and they smoked rocks of it in our lounge whilst we went to the pub to get wasted on a legal drug and play pool.
User avatar
thekungfury
 
Posts: 31643
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 1:27 pm
Highscores: 1

Re: Drugs - legalise?

Post by Barbarianna @ Sat Sep 10, 2016 12:01 am

thekungfury wrote:What are your thoughts on addictive substances and addictive personalities?

I can only speak from personal anecdotal evidence and from what I've seen which includes the very hardest of narcotics* nobody has got anywhere close to addiction. Everyone has had something and not been compelled to keep taking it. They might have it again for the next night out but there wasn't the need to have it on a Tuesday morning. I've tried some extremely euphoric and supposedly addictive things but afterwards I was never any more drawn to them than glass of chardonnay.

I've not had any direct experience with alcohol addiction but my best man's brother was a high functioning alcoholic who'd nail a bottle of vodka because he had to. As someone who has been incoherently drunk I can attest to the fact that the following day(s) the last thing on my mind has been more booze. Likewise with drug comedowns.

We've all said "never drinking again". When does never again become I need alcohol/drug right now? I can't see it unless the person is the type of person that is addicted to things. Or maybe the person was "in a bad place" and the alcohol/drug helped as a crutch? Either way, it's my view that whether heroin etc. is legal/illegal/regulated/w'ev people who will get addicted to something will get addicted to something and there is very little we can do to stop it.

* forex I shared a house with a low level drug dealer who had some shady friends. One was a chemistry phd student who nicked equipment from our labs to make homemade crack from cocaine. Yield was, apparently, reasonable and they smoked rocks of it in our lounge whilst we went to the pub to get wasted on a legal drug and play pool.


'Addictive personality' IMO is an understandable but clumsy and misleading shorthand for another many-factored thing.
I think there is evidence of some genetic proneness to addicition with certain people-IIRC, those who have naturally over-reactive dopamine systems frample. But in addition to, and emtirely separately from that, proneness to addiction depends on both static and dynamic factors. A simple xample is heroin: heroin is apparently only enjoyed by people whose daily life is shit, because it dimishes their cinnection to it. A happy person would have little to gain from heroin other than the irritating side effects of opiates in general: nausea, itching, drowsiness etc. The same happy person could, arbitrarily in another life or part of their life, face some negative and enduring curcumstances that would conspire to make their life a stale and unfixable mess, then rendering themselves vulnerable to heroin's draw.

Experimenting with drugs in a group setting is a bit like a tiny drug trial on a biased population sample: likely to not generate any useful dats. If the group are bonded, or all similarly resourced in outlook and opporunity, they may well conclude that all is well of they got through without incident that time, but the longer term issues are not observably or objectively reportable, and the crucial uniting factor protecting against a bad experience- having friends or familiarity close to hand- is overlooked. But think back to when the groups you were in were less connected. In Universityt I remember in our larger community in the block of flats of 300 or so, there was the hedonistic group who were always indulging in something or another, but their number varied and diminished somewhat. Drawn from different backgrounds , there was more than one or two who just got toofar into whatever 'got' them, being speed or weed or whev, and seemed to deteriorate or disappear altogether, dropping out apparenltly because of the consequences, only garnering a conciliatory 'he was such a cool guy' followed by a long bong draw if their name was mentioned to the group. But this is again not evidence; examining the larger more formal studies has revealed the mix of cinstitutional and contextual factors that lead one person to make it out ok and another not.
Last edited by Barbarianna on Sat Sep 10, 2016 12:08 am, edited 2 times in total.
Barbarianna
 
Posts: 3883
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: Drugs - legalise?

Post by NNK @ Sun Sep 11, 2016 9:48 pm

thekungfury wrote:[I can only speak from personal anecdotal evidence and from what I've seen which includes the very hardest of narcotics* nobody has got anywhere close to addiction. Everyone has had something and not been compelled to keep taking it. They might have it again for the next night out but there wasn't the need to have it on a Tuesday morning. I've tried some extremely euphoric and supposedly addictive things but afterwards I was never any more drawn to them than glass of chardonnay.

I've not had any direct experience with alcohol addiction but my best man's brother was a high functioning alcoholic who'd nail a bottle of vodka because he had to. As someone who has been incoherently drunk I can attest to the fact that the following day(s) the last thing on my mind has been more booze. Likewise with drug comedowns.

We've all said "never drinking again". When does never again become I need alcohol/drug right now? I can't see it unless the person is the type of person that is addicted to things. Or maybe the person was "in a bad place" and the alcohol/drug helped as a crutch? Either way, it's my view that whether heroin etc. is legal/illegal/regulated/w'ev people who will get addicted to something will get addicted to something and there is very little we can do to stop it.

* forex I shared a house with a low level drug dealer who had some shady friends. One was a chemistry phd student who nicked equipment from our labs to make homemade crack from cocaine. Yield was, apparently, reasonable and they smoked rocks of it in our lounge whilst we went to the pub to get wasted on a legal drug and play pool.


The main subject (legalisation) I am a bit wary of, certainly yes to dope and ecstasy, possibly to speed (dex not meth) and coke, herion, etc I'm not so sure about.
But legalise some and people will find another drug to lobby for just for something to do.

From early 20's to 33 I never did less than a g of coke a day, obv not always myself as there were others around (gf in particular) who didn't have their own. I don't believe I was ever addicted but it certainly was a habit (if that doesn't contradict). I only smoked dope to go to sleep at night.
Ecstasy use was most weekends, the more you do the more you need, something to do with serratonin levels I think. The E chews it up and your body takes a while to get levels up again.
I saw people who could never be trusted with more than a small amount of anything at a time, they would blow through a g of coke in an hour. One friend had to have blood vessels in his face cleaned out as his skin had stopped breathing (or something, it was a long time ago). He and his wife would get through 3g a night just sat at home, I could never understand that.
Having spent a number of years on the business side of the industry I can say that the profits are vast. My figures would be a long way out nowadays I'm sure as this was all 15+ years ago but IIRC a kg of hash in Spain was approx. 500 quid and sold in UK for 1500 - 2000 depending on how many hands it went through.
Then it was 100 quid an oz (36 per kg).
Ecstasy was 1 - 2 quid per pill and 10 - 15 in a club. Strangely I had one not long ago over here and had to pay $60 for it ! Nearly 50 but felt 25 !
As always I have drifted off on a tangent and cant remember what I was going to type originally, senility ? Drug abuse ? Who knows but it was fun
NNK
 
Posts: 7673
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: NZ

Re: Drugs - legalise?

Post by Barbarianna @ Mon Sep 12, 2016 10:31 am

NNK wrote:
From early 20's to 33 I never did less than a g of coke a day, obv not always myself as there were others around (gf in particular) who didn't have their own. I don't believe I was ever addicted but it certainly was a habit (if that doesn't contradict). I only smoked dope to go to sleep at night.
Ecstasy use was most weekends, the more you do the more you need, something to do with serratonin levels I think. The E chews it up and your body takes a while to get levels up again.
I saw people who could never be trusted with more than a small amount of anything at a time, they would blow through a g of coke in an hour. One friend had to have blood vessels in his face cleaned out as his skin had stopped breathing (or something, it was a long time ago). He and his wife would get through 3g a night just sat at home, I could never understand that.
Having spent a number of years on the business side of the industry I can say that the profits are vast. My figures would be a long way out nowadays I'm sure as this was all 15+ years ago but IIRC a kg of hash in Spain was approx. 500 quid and sold in UK for 1500 - 2000 depending on how many hands it went through.
Then it was 100 quid an oz (36 per kg).
Ecstasy was 1 - 2 quid per pill and 10 - 15 in a club. Strangely I had one not long ago over here and had to pay $60 for it ! Nearly 50 but felt 25 !
As always I have drifted off on a tangent and cant remember what I was going to type originally, senility ? Drug abuse ? Who knows but it was fun


You've clearly functioned well throughout your adult life for the levels you used to consume! It leads to some intriguing
questions about use, misuse and utility. If you can recall, it would be good to get your view on:
- a g a day of coke. What do you think you got from taking it? Did it help you in a way that made it genuinely useful?
- was it going on around you because of your peers or your line of work?
- what were the downsides of taking it, psychologically or otherwise?


Regarding the hash, if I read it right then you were involved in moving it or in some trade that was connected to it. What was that- nightclubs or similar?

Finally, as if this weren't enough of an interrogation, the dilemma question: if your kid was 20 now and had these options open to him, what would your advice be?

Sorry for the eager questions but they are genuine- I am not cool enough to pretend indifference to your remarkable personal experience!
Barbarianna
 
Posts: 3883
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: Drugs - legalise?

Post by NNK @ Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:03 am

[quote="Barbarianna"][You've clearly functioned well throughout your adult life for the levels you used to consume! It leads to some intriguing
questions about use, misuse and utility. If you can recall, it would be good to get your view on:
- a g a day of coke. What do you think you got from taking it? Did it help you in a way that made it genuinely useful? Confidence (I wasn't exactly lacking), insane drinking abilities, a nice buzz - but that was all at the start, towards the end it was just something I did for some reason. I stopped overnight and didn't sample again until my 40th in Vegas, then it was a couple of years ago in London
- was it going on around you because of your peers or your line of work? I was introduced to speed at about 14 and coke at 15/16
- what were the downsides of taking it, psychologically or otherwise? Who knows the long term effect ? Was it the lager or the coke that made me a bit punchy ? I don't think I had ever cried as an adult until a few years into E's, then I could be quite emotional. Not always a good thing in that industry.


Regarding the hash, if I read it right then you were involved in moving it or in some trade that was connected to it. What was that- nightclubs or similar? A little larger scale than that and also a very long time ago

Finally, as if this weren't enough of an interrogation, the dilemma question: if your kid was 20 now and had these options open to him, what would your advice be? I caught NNK jnr smoking the synthetic dope stuff about a year ago (he was 14) with some of his mates. I managed to stay reasonably calm and explained to him the hazards of it. I let him know that it was unacceptable while living under my roof and also until he was 18. I then advised that if he wished to smoke dope at 18 to buy the proper stuff and not synthetic crap . I don't believe I am in the running for parent of the year.

[color=#000080]]I remember lots about those days and the fun/excitement but I cant remember what I had for lunch yesterday, maybe that's the drugs ?
[/color
Last edited by NNK on Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
NNK
 
Posts: 7673
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: NZ

Previous

Return to Political Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

yt
  Enable youtube titles
cron