Should drugs be legalised?

[Fjool]

^ Of course. The book I recommended several pages ago "Living with drugs" by Dr Gossop is but one such source. I'll see if I can find an on-line resource too though.

 

Edit: From this page, amongst others:

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmhaff/318/318m17.htm

 

3.2 We also need to look at safety, not just in terms of street heroin which is available which is impure and the techniques of injecting which are dangerous, but if a pure form of heroin was available with sterile equipment, automatically the safety of this drug would improve, and it is often the criminalising of a drug that makes a drug contaminated and dangerous. Below I use a couple of examples in which we could develop a new safety profiling;

 

(i) For heroin (Diamorphine) short-term side effects include constipation, nausea and sedation. Heroin has no long-term side effects.

 

(ii) In overdose heroin can be fatal because it stops one breathing.

 

(iii) Health problems; these are mainly associated with an impure and criminalised supply and risky injecting practice, these include abscesses, hepatitis B and C, HIV.

 

(iv) The safety rating of heroin under this system, because of the lack of long-term side effects and assuming a pure pharmaceutical supply, come out as being good to fair.

 

Furthermore, the report goes on to say:

 

"Hard drugs", such as heroin, which has pariah status, have no long-term side effects, and most people are killed as a result of society's decision to criminalise it.

Which has rather been my point all along.

 

I'm sure one could find many more such sources if one was so inclined.

[JohanofNess]

I'm not saying the good Dr is wrong but you can pretty much find a counter argument for anything accepted as being the norm in todays society. There was that documentary on C4 that suggested global warming was a myth and that was is happening is just a natural chain of events like those that led up to the last ice age.

 

My point is hard drugs whether you can be safely addicted to them or not there is absolutely no justifiable reason to be. Just because you believe your human rights should allow you to be spaced out of your gord whenever you feel like it that doesn't mean you should. More importantly legalising drugs like those will just create more addicts and how can anyone think that's ok.

[Fifi]

It is perfectly possible to be safely addicted to heroin for decades, with no ill effects; either mental or physical.

You're a brave man. In years to come, when parents are discussing their offspring's addiction and the son or daughter says - well, a moderator on the Shetlink forum said you could be safely addicted to heroin..

[Ghostrider]

Just because you believe your human rights should allow you to be spaced out of your gord whenever you feel like it that doesn't mean you should.

 

Why not? What right does any one individual or collection of individuals have to deny another individual the right to do with and to their own body exactly what they please? Especially, as is the case here, their doing so does not have the slightest affect in any way on anyone else.

 

Your own body is the one and only thing can possibly have exclusive rights over, and those rights are ones everyone should fight to preserve until their last breath.

[Fjool]

My point is hard drugs whether you can be safely addicted to them or not there is absolutely no justifiable reason to be.

I agree, and nobody is suggesting otherwise. However, there's absolutely no justifiable reason to make them more dangerous. There is a strange idea that by somehow making drugs illegal we are saving people from them. Quite the reverse is demonstrably true.

 

More importantly legalising drugs like those will just create more addicts and how can anyone think that's ok.

I don't think that this is a given at all. It is an assumption used to justify the criminalisation of drugs and drug users, but it doesn't necessarily bear out in practice.

 

Smoking is legal, but most people do not smoke. Alcohol is legal and addictive, but most people are not addicts.

 

Besides, even if there are more addicts, but those addicts are safer, cleaner and happier then is it automatically a worse scenario? I don't believe that this is true. Even if there are twice the number of addicts, but they lead an otherwise normal and productive life, then what really is the problem to you or I?

[Fjool]

You're a brave man. In years to come, when parents are discussing their offspring's addiction and the son or daughter says - well, a moderator on the Shetlink forum said you could be safely addicted to heroin..

I take your point, Fifi. But at no point am I saying that people should use heroin; quite the reverse. I believe that people shouldn't use it. However, this doesn't change the fact that the major dangers of heroin come from it's impure and illegal nature. If someone is prepared to take one snippet of what I write, out of context, and use it as a basis for a drug 'career', then there have been big failings at all levels a long time before this.

 

I will categorically state that I am not talking about street heroin when I say that. Street heroin is poisonous and highly dangerous and nobody can be safely addicted to it. It is chemically pure diamorphine to which I refer and, at present, this is not generally available to users. It is also still possible to overdose on diamorphine; this is of course a danger which remains. However, since the strength is known, this risk is also greatly reduced.

 

It is the prohibition which makes this substance as dangerous as it is. And it is circular reasoning to use the dangers of street heroin as a reason for making heroin dangerous.

 

I certainly do not want anyone thinking that I aim to encourage anyone to use any drug at all. My interest is in preventing people harming themselves and, through their choices, harming others. I do not believe that we achieve good results by criminalisation, and seek a more pragmatic solution. We harm society with our current approach and then wonder why we have such a problem.

 

Remember that I have children of my own, and I have a keen interest in their not growing up to have drug problems. I must be realistic though and accept that, no matter how I educate or persuade them, they are individuals with their own free-will. There will come a point where they may be offered something such as heroin, or whatever is invented tomorrow. Is is realistic and responsible for me to pretend that drugs don't exist? Or do I play bogeyman and attempt to scare them away?

 

Personally, I believe that honesty is the best policy.

[JohanofNess]

I don't think that this is a given at all. It is an assumption used to justify the criminalisation of drugs and drug users, but it doesn't necessarily bear out in practice.

 

Smoking is legal, but most people do not smoke. Alcohol is legal and addictive, but most people are not addicts.

 

Besides, even if there are more addicts, but those addicts are safer, cleaner and happier then is it automatically a worse scenario? I don't believe that this is true. Even if there are twice the number of addicts, but they lead an otherwise normal and productive life, then what really is the problem to you or I?

 

The problem is when an addict can't lead a normal and productive life, do you want the man driving the school bus to be an addict who 7 hours earlier was lying on his sofa totally buggared after injecting heroin. Not saying it doesn't happen the now but incidents involving people under the influence of drugs will increase if they become more available.

 

Most addictions are totally selfish it's when the consequences of your own addiction effect other people that there needs to be laws in place. Which is why smoking is banned in pubs, the age to buy tobacco has been increased and why you can't drink under the age of 18.

[Fjool]

I do not for a moment suggest that we do away with all control. It is ridiculous to assert otherwise. I am in favour of the public smoking ban, and the age limits on purchasing these chemicals. I believe that they are appropriate, proportional and allow a degree of personal responsibility whilst affording protection to the vulnerable. These are good measures and to be encouraged.

 

Furthermore, I support zero-tolerance on driving under the influence. I also believe that diminished responsibility on grounds of drug use should not be a legal defence. Crimes are crimes and choosing to take a drug prior to committing a crime should not be any defence.

 

However, I don't support the notion that drug use is and of itself a criminal act; many users of many substances can be, and are responsible about it. You assume that a drug user automatically becomes a reprehensible evil-doer, but this doesn't reflect reality.

 

Conversely, there are already alcoholics and opiate addicts who cannot lead normal productive lives; this I do not dispute. I am not for a moment suggesting that changing our policies will solve every problem; merely that our current policies magnify the problems.

[JohanofNess]

Why not? What right does any one individual or collection of individuals have to deny another individual the right to do with and to their own body exactly what they please? Especially, as is the case here, their doing so does not have the slightest affect in any way on anyone else.

 

Your own body is the one and only thing can possibly have exclusive rights over, and those rights are ones everyone should fight to preserve until their last breath.

 

Tell you why not

 

Why should I get lung cancer off selfish smokers who force the ill health consequences of their addiction onto others

 

Why should I accept a drunk driver can kill me or mine because they wanted to get drunk and drive while incapable of doing it.

 

Yeah fine its your body but I'll not accept it if someone wheels that excuse out when their selfishness impacts on me in a negative way. Very few of us live a solitary existence.

[Ghostrider]

Most addictions are totally selfish it's when the consequences of your own addiction effect other people that there needs to be laws in place.

 

When an individual's addiction starts having consequences for others it is as a result of that addiction having gone beyond the addicts control, or by the addict handling their addiction in an inappropriate manner. Reaching such a state is not an inevitable consequence or even a consequence for a majority, of addiction, therefor a blanket ban cannot be justified on those grounds. In any case, we already have a whole raft of laws which cover just about any "consequence for others" likely to result in improperly controlled addiction, why do we need a duplicative law as well which by default is denying to more "others" than it is preventing those who will create consequences to others.

 

The actual act of ingesting "controlled substances" as we know them, and the state of being under the influence of said substance(s) in and of themselves cannot possibly be of consequence to anyone else but the person in question. Some people cannot handle that state of being, granted, but the problems caused by such people are not exclusive to themselves, the "consequences" they may be likely to create for others are created by all sorts of people in all states of mind every day.

[Ghostrider]

Why not? What right does any one individual or collection of individuals have to deny another individual the right to do with and to their own body exactly what they please? Especially, as is the case here, their doing so does not have the slightest affect in any way on anyone else.

 

Your own body is the one and only thing can possibly have exclusive rights over, and those rights are ones everyone should fight to preserve until their last breath.

 

Tell you why not

 

Why should I get lung cancer off selfish smokers who force the ill health consequences of their addiction onto others

 

Why should I accept a drunk driver can kill me or mine because they wanted to get drunk and drive while incapable of doing it.

 

Yeah fine its your body but I'll not accept it if someone wheels that excuse out when their selfishness impacts on me in a negative way. Very few of us live a solitary existence.

 

You shouldn't. These are examples of addictions improperly handled or gone out of control. You have the same right to clean air as anyone else if that's what you want, and it's generally accepted that someone out of their box on whatever is in no state to drive, and shouldn't be allowed to.

 

Passive smoking and drunk driving are arguments for regulation, which we have to some degree concerning those substances, they cannot be used as justification for total bans of tobacco and alcohol. By the same token their is a great deal of argument for the regulation of "controlled substances", but next to none to justify their blanket ban which we currently have.

[JohanofNess]

However, I don't support the notion that drug use is and of itself a criminal act; many users of many substances can be, and are responsible about it. You assume that a drug user automatically becomes a reprehensible evil-doer, but this doesn't reflect reality.

 

 

I make no assumption about drug use, I know guys who take drugs recreationally, nothing hard but illegal drugs nonetheless and in the main they are decent enough guys. Unfortunately living in Aberdeen the majority of my personal experience of hard drugs users is negative.

[Fjool]

the majority of my personal experience of hard drugs users is negative.

Could this be because the well-behaved ones are sitting quietly somewhere, not causing any trouble?

 

(As an aside, all this really rather belongs in the other drugs thread. Please stand by while splitting and re-merging takes place...)

 

(*** Mod - Merge complete; thank you for your patience ***)

[JohanofNess]

the majority of my personal experience of hard drugs users is negative.

Could this be because the well-behaved ones are sitting quietly somewhere, not causing any trouble?

 

Or I have never encountered a well behaved one

[Styles]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,,1746407,00.html

 

This is a good article on the truth about ectasy, instead of the imotive rubbish people spout that know nothing about it.

 

Police fail to quell Britain's appetite for dance drug

 

The availability and use of ecstasy is increasing steadily despite a fivefold increase in police seizures, according to new research

 

David McCandless

Tuesday April 4, 2006

The Guardian

 

The availability and use of ecstasy is increasing steadily despite a fivefold increase in police seizures, according to new research.

The study, published yesterday in the Journal of Psychopharmacology, is the largest survey of its kind, examining official figures for consumption, availability, police seizures, arrests and deaths between 1994 and 2003.

 

Young Britons are still by far the leading consumers of MDMA in Europe and the second largest worldwide, after Australia. An estimated 750,000 regular users consume about 26m tablets a year, although the researchers concede that this is probably an underestimate. In the EU, only the Czech Republic, Estonia and Spain come close.

 

The last decade has also seen the age of initiation dropping steadily. While one in 10 of 15- to 34-year-olds has tried the drug, drug charities in some parts of the country are reporting children as young as nine replacing alcohol with ecstasy as a social lubricant.

 

This trend is due in part to falling prices. In 1994, an ecstasy pill cost £16.50 on average. This had dropped 70% to £5.30 in 2003. Today, the price matches that of a pint of beer, £2.50.

 

The study also confirms the folklore among drug users that ecstasy pills are getting weaker. The average amount of MDMA per tablet has dropped by a quarter over seven years from 100 milligrams to 74mg; 100mg is generally considered the lowest amount to get the full effect.

 

The lower strength of pills makes them potentially more dangerous. "Users taking one of today's weaker pills are not happy with the result so they take two pills," says the author of the study, Fabrizio Schifano, an honorary lecturer at St George's Hospital, Tooting. "So instead of taking 100mg they take 140."

 

MDMA has an effect on the body known as "non-linear pharmacokinetics". This means taking two pills does not simply double the dose. It triples or even quadruples the level of the drug in the blood. "So there will be moment when the blood level will increase massively and unexpectedly," Dr Schifano said. "The user may enter a chain reaction that may prove very dangerous."

 

One surprise in the statistics is a drop in the number of ecstasy-related deaths. In 2002 there were 78 recorded. In 2003, that fell to 48 and the figure is believed to have dropped further in the last two years.

 

"It is difficult to say why this is happening," Dr Schifano said. "We need to see how this pattern develops over time."

 

In mainland Europe, ecstasy-related deaths remain rare, with 26 reported across the continent in 2004, compared with the UK's average of 40 a year. This disparity may be due in part to better recording procedures in the UK.

 

Effects of ecstasy

 

MDMA is one of the most intensely studied recreational drugs in history. But despite thousands of research papers and studies, scientific evidence on the side-effects remains inconclusive.

 

Death by overdose

 

Undoubtedly, large amounts of ecstasy can lead to over-heating which in turn, in rare cases, can trigger fatal heat stroke. Many factors contribute: number and strength of pills taken, environment, alcohol-consumption, body weight - but women seem more at risk. The bulk of ecstasy-related deaths around the world have been young women.

 

Water-poisoning

 

Panicking users, fearing they are overdosing, drink too much water and provoke hyponaetraemia (water-poisoning). Leah Betts died after drinking 14 pints in just 90 minutes. The recommended amount of water to drink per hour is one pint.

 

Toxic reactions

 

Much of the reports of toxic reactions are muddled with overdose or water-poisoning deaths. There is no clear evidence that some people suffer allergic reactions to ecstasy. However, around 10% of Western users do lack a key liver enzyme CYP2D6 needed to break down MDMA. This may make them more sensitive to the effects and more prone to accidental overdose.

 

Depression

 

Many weekend users report a mid-week mood dip. This is suspected to be related MDMA's effect on serotonin, but hard evidence is lacking. In heavy users, dips can turn to crashes and depression. However studies suggest this effect reverses after a 2-3 month abstinence.

 

Positive effects

 

Users still claim "long lasting improvements in self-awareness, self-esteem, openness and insight into personal problems", reports the study from the University Of Louisiana. In the US, research continues into the use of MDMA-assisted psychotherapy to treat Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.