Should Cocaine and Heroin be legalized along with Marijuana?

[Mathematician]

I also want to point out that alcohol's withdrawal symptoms are more physically taxing than even methamphetamine. Meth actually isn't really that physically addictive. Heroin, benzos, alcohol, and even some caffeine abusers will exhibit more symptoms of the body. It's just such a cheap, long-lasting "clean" feeling high that people think they can routinely use, but when you binge you try to prevent the comedown with more of the drug. The mental addiction is what gets people. Unlike other drugs like ecstasy where no matter how much more you put in your body you'll hit a definite ceiling, another dosage of meth will keep you going. You can push the envelope with meth, and it's actually really hard to overdose on compared to other drugs surprisingly.

I know people who use it recreationally without a problem, though. One or two times a month. Or they only take enough that they aren't tweaking. Yet society has labeled these people as a bigger problem than even alcoholics.

Drugs are not inherently "evil." (In fact everyone in the world does drugs - sugar, caffeine, etc.) Some just require more responsibility out of people, and a lot (but not most - most meth users never become addicts let's keep in mind) don't measure up. Punishing those who are responsible on drugs for the actions of a minority may as well lead us to ban other things like guns, violent media, etc.

People, not drugs, are the problem. The more we put forward the idea that "METH/COCAINE IS EVIL!" the less responsibility people take. People purposely don't fortify a will and play the victim because all their lives they've been told that these drugs epitomize slavery.

 

[Acim]

I concur.

 

[Falvlun]

Simply educating people doesnt solve the issue. We can educate people to be abstinent but that doesnt stop contracting HIV/AIDS.

Huh. That might be one of your problems right there. It has been shown that abstinence only education is not very effective or beneficial in reducing the transmission of STDs and pregnancies because kids are still gonna have sex. However, actually giving these kids frank, factual information about sex, STDs, and protective measures does reduce unsafe sex practices.

 

[Yerda]

Decriminalizing drugs don't solve the problem. All of these assertions are speculatory. Cocaine, Meth, and Heroin are highly addictive. Simply educating people doesnt solve the issue. We can educate people to be abstinent but that doesnt stop contracting HIV/AIDS. The point is controlling the issue, not stopping it. If you have updated evidence please show me. So far all I see is "all the evidence points to thus and so..." To me, a researcher, that isn't good enough.

If you are a researcher, then go look into it. Friedman covered the economics of prohibition and the costs of the drug war. That would be a decent place to start. Here he talks about the matter:

[youtube]nLsCC0LZxkY[/youtube]

Dr Ben Goldacre wrote this essay on the prescription of heroin. I like this wee snippet near the start:

Ultimately, the case I shall make is that heroin prescription is more effective, by all reasonable outcome indicators, than methadone; and that the reasons for its unpopularity have little to do with evidence of best practice, and much to do with our emotional and moral attitudes towards those who are addicted to drugs.

When it comes to learning about drugs and society you'll find that policy is more ideological than scientific.

 

[Vendetta]

@Acim you are in bold,

It addresses the problem(s). Solution will come from education, what exactly we are willing to teach, how often, at what stage of a person's life. As long as it is illegal, education can be had, but it can't be fair. We can't bring in people who are non addicts and who talk about benefits they receive from the drug, why the drug use doesn't automatically lead to negative / horrific consequences. I cannot think of anyone in current system that would be involved in that sort of education. While I can see persons who would be involved in that if it were legal and education was looking to be fair and well rounded.

First off, who would be educated? How would this be implimented? How do educate abusers who continually relapse?

What does speculatory mean? And which of Jaiket's? Really, all of them? Like where Jaiket says, "I saw your comments about families harmed by drugs. I have first hand experience of what it feels like to be a member of such a family" - that would be speculatory?

Speculatory as in theoretical statement. Personal accounts are good, but they are hardly a universal account of everyone's experience.

Yes. And yet some users are not addicts and/or they are able to function in our society. As obese people may function okay in our society. Other users (addicts) are able to function less or not function (well) at all.

Define "function" it is highly possible to function with liver disease but it doesn't necessarily mean you are healthy.



I believe it does. Depends on how 'simple' the education is. If it is of variety of, "don't do it," and that is totality of 'education' then I agree, "simply educating people doesn't solve the issue." If something in vein of mandatory class for say 5th graders, then 8th graders, then 12 graders, I think it could go long ways toward solution, especially if all facets of use and known consequences are allowed in curriculum. If only 'scaring straight,' then I believe people will try it, find out fear mongers lied, and use it while essentially learning from own experience just how addictive it is.

Mind you, education and usage are incredibly skewed by legality.

What is your point here exactly?

Similar, but analogy would fall short if asking crossover questions, such as, what would you suggest be made illegal to address the issue of contracting HIV/AIDS?

Furthermore, education is more like advertorial rather than formal education. Nor is your assumption that abstinence based on what others, including myself, are saying. Education doesn't mean (for me), we teach don't do it, but instead provide as much reasonable, known data as we have available (whether pro use or against use) and allow sensibilities of learners to be guide. Add this into environment where it is legal and peer education would be far different than it is now. Instead of the risky kids who are cool essentially explaining that society has lied to you about usage, it would be openly understood in way that I honestly can't compare it to anything current other than "making money" since we still live in world where we don't talk openly / honestly about legal substances, like alcohol and cigarettes.

We don't talk honestly about substances? Who is "we?" Education as I know it is pretty good at teaching kids about drugs. I don't think kids are prepared to know the pharcological effects of cocaine upon DA (Dopamine), and 5-HT. So education on the grade school and high school level must settle for comprehensive educational tools that students can grasp.

Prohibition (of alcohol) is related to this discussion. Even weed is related. You may concede that it is far less addictive, but there are people that vehemently disagree with you, and will you similar tactics to what you are using to insist it must stay illegal or we are in worse danger than that of drug war and mass use we currently have.

Come again?

 

[Vendetta]

Huh. That might be one of your problems right there. It has been shown that abstinence only education is not very effective or beneficial in reducing the transmission of STDs and pregnancies because kids are still gonna have sex. However, actually giving these kids frank, factual information about sex, STDs, and protective measures does reduce unsafe sex practices.

Yes but which age group? We can use a comparative group of kids between 12-15 compared to age group of 16-20 and we can see a difference in risky sexual behavior. The point is, is that kids in a younger comparison group (12-15) may engage in risky sexual behavior despite being educated on contractible sexually transmitted disease. Initially my point was education doesn't necessarily stop HIV/AIDs or other STD's its just means of awareness as you already know.

 

[Vendetta]

I also want to point out that alcohol's withdrawal symptoms are more physically taxing than even methamphetamine. Meth actually isn't really that physically addictive. Heroin, benzos, alcohol, and even some caffeine abusers will exhibit more symptoms of the body. It's just such a cheap, long-lasting "clean" feeling high that people think they can routinely use, but when you binge you try to prevent the comedown with more of the drug. The mental addiction is what gets people. Unlike other drugs like ecstasy where no matter how much more you put in your body you'll hit a definite ceiling, another dosage of meth will keep you going. You can push the envelope with meth, and it's actually really hard to overdose on compared to other drugs surprisingly.

I know people who use it recreationally without a problem, though. One or two times a month. Or they only take enough that they aren't tweaking. Yet society has labeled these people as a bigger problem than even alcoholics.

Drugs are not inherently "evil." (In fact everyone in the world does drugs - sugar, caffeine, etc.) Some just require more responsibility out of people, and a lot (but not most - most meth users never become addicts let's keep in mind) don't measure up. Punishing those who are responsible on drugs for the actions of a minority may as well lead us to ban other things like guns, violent media, etc.

People, not drugs, are the problem. The more we put forward the idea that "METH/COCAINE IS EVIL!" the less responsibility people take. People purposely don't fortify a will and play the victim because all their lives they've been told that these drugs epitomize slavery.

Of course drugs isolated alone arent the problem. My point is to not enable usage. I don't care how many people you know that don't have a problem, I know (not personally) hundreds in comparison to those you know that have problems both physiologically and psychologically.

Most drug usage is done for a variety of reasons: life conditions, peer-pressure, curiousity etc. Like I was telling Acim just because you don't see a "physical" problem doesn't necessarily mean there isn't one. One of the most common issues concerning meth and cocaine is erectile dysfunction. Now, most men wont share this private information with their best friend concerning why they "can't get it up." Or what about tactile dysfunctions such as the feeling of "bugs crawling on you?"

So again my question to you and everyone else is what is the usage of meth and "not having a problem mean?" Because the way I see it, not having a problem may translate to me as some that is physically noticeable and that is hardly evidence that there isn't a problem. If your friends can't "get a hard penis" on daily basis during intimate activity, they most certaintly have a problem.

 

[Vendetta]

If you are a researcher, then go look into it. Friedman covered the economics of prohibition and the costs of the drug war. That would be a decent place to start. Here he talks about the matter:

[youtube]nLsCC0LZxkY[/youtube]

Dr Ben Goldacre wrote this essay on the prescription of heroin. I like this wee snippet near the start:

Ultimately, the case I shall make is that heroin prescription is more effective, by all reasonable outcome indicators, than methadone; and that the reasons for its unpopularity have little to do with evidence of best practice, and much to do with our emotional and moral attitudes towards those who are addicted to drugs.

When it comes to learning about drugs and society you'll find that policy is more ideological than scientific.

Sure, I'll look into it.

 

[Vendetta]

I encourage everyone to read this short article on the neurophysiological effects of Methamphetamine use

http://ucdirc.ucdavis.edu/people/papers/nordahl_salo_leamon_JNCN2003.pdf

 

[Valjean]

The problem with your logic is you cannot supervise what is easily accessible on the streets. Even if you could, the amount of resources and personnel would cost the State/Government tens of millions of dollars. Simply educating an addict isn't enough because at some point, you're going to have to depend on the reformed addict to not relapse.

A user could go to a clinic or Heroin parlor, get a pure drug of known dosage and a clean syringe, at little or no cost. Why would he then bother with expensive street pushers selling impure products of unknown dosages for high prices?

Cost to government? Narcotics are dirt cheap, plus you'd save money by eliminating the expensive externalities of crime, enforcement, poverty and public health problems.

It's not like this approach hasn't been tried already. I don't know why we're still speculating about it. We might as well speculate about the feasibility of heavier than air flight.

 

[Requia]

Um, the opposite effect occured :sarcastic

See, that's my point. The drug war is utterly useless at preventing drug use, or the social ills that come with drug use. You keep saying drugs are bad, and I agree, but the drug war hasn't done anything to contain the problem.

 

[Mathematician]

Of course drugs isolated alone arent the problem. My point is to not enable usage. I don't care how many people you know that don't have a problem, I know (not personally) hundreds in comparison to those you know that have problems both physiologically and psychologically.

Most drug usage is done for a variety of reasons: life conditions, peer-pressure, curiousity etc. Like I was telling Acim just because you don't see a "physical" problem doesn't necessarily mean there isn't one. One of the most common issues concerning meth and cocaine is erectile dysfunction. Now, most men wont share this private information with their best friend concerning why they "can't get it up." Or what about tactile dysfunctions such as the feeling of "bugs crawling on you?"

So again my question to you and everyone else is what is the usage of meth and "not having a problem mean?" Because the way I see it, not having a problem may translate to me as some that is physically noticeable and that is hardly evidence that there isn't a problem. If your friends can't "get a hard penis" on daily basis during intimate activity, they most certaintly have a problem.

Uhm, you know hundreds of people with problems because people without problems live normal lives.

I didn't say meth was safe or did not affect one's health. I said its withdrawal symptoms are psychological, not [for the most part] physical. Alcohol is both. You can die from alcohol withdrawals. You can't die from a meth withdrawal. Citing an article that describes the effects of methamphetamine use on the brain is kinda useless when we have millions of people who do just as much damage through alcohol and tobacco.

You're never going to ban alcohol. Let's just put that forward. Working from that, we soon realize that basically every illicit substance is comparable to alcohol or a lot "better" for you. And it's been addressed that legality and de-criminalization only helps people who need help.

If someone is addicted to fast food to the point of becoming obese, you don't punish them by throwing them in jail, and you don't punish the food establishments stacking in 900 calories. You get them help, put up public campaigns, and support healthy options. The same principle applies.

 

[Vendetta]

See, that's my point. The drug war is utterly useless at preventing drug use, or the social ills that come with drug use. You keep saying drugs are bad, and I agree, but the drug war hasn't done anything to contain the problem.

Well synthetic drugs are bad. Synthetic drugs usually are drugs with additional harmful chemicals that adversely affect the body. Marijuana alone isn't harmful. Cocaine alone if done in its purest form is not as harmful but then again cocaine constricts blood vessels. I don't think it's wise to do cocaine if the blood vessels in your cardiovascular system is constricted. Blood flow is kinda important there.

 

[Vendetta]

Uhm, you know hundreds of people with problems because people without problems live normal lives.

I didn't say meth was safe or did not affect one's health. I said its withdrawal symptoms are psychological, not [for the most part] physical. Alcohol is both. You can die from alcohol withdrawals. You can't die from a meth withdrawal. Citing an article that describes the effects of methamphetamine use on the brain is kinda useless when we have millions of people who do just as much damage through alcohol and tobacco.

You're never going to ban alcohol. Let's just put that forward. Working from that, we soon realize that basically every illicit substance is comparable to alcohol or a lot "better" for you. And it's been addressed that legality and de-criminalization only helps people who need help.

If someone is addicted to fast food to the point of becoming obese, you don't punish them by throwing them in jail, and you don't punish the food establishments stacking in 900 calories. You get them help, put up public campaigns, and support healthy options. The same principle applies.

I understand what you're saying. Don't criminalize addicts help them. If that is your position I have to say people do have available resources to help addicts. However relapse is a problem. Poverty, and being sent back into the neighborhood you were an active drug addict is a problem. How do you solve that? Its not simply saying yes, help addicts its a strenuous process. There aren't enough social workers and case workers to monitor everyones recovery.

With respect to Alcohol withdrawl about 20% of people die but this is severe alcohol withdrawl. You are talking about people who, in addiion to having this disease, also have another host of problems such as kidney and liver disease. Dilireum Tremens and seizures are common problems but I want to make it clear that this is severe alcoholism. You can die from cocaine one time.

 

[Acim]

You can die from flying on airplanes one time.

 

[Acim]

First off, who would be educated? How would this be implimented? How do educate abusers who continually relapse?

Educate people under 18, and over say 8 years old, about every 3 years. Consider education that is intended for people over 18. I honestly think balanced education (not slanted toward particular bias) on drugs is more important than most of what is taught in schools, since everyone is likely to encounter the issue or experience with a family member or relative. It ought to be treated as something that is more important than say 1 day of learning, and with the ridiculous bias we now afford to such education.

Speculatory as in theoretical statement. Personal accounts are good, but they are hardly a universal account of everyone's experience.

As long as you are saying such accounts are good, that is good enough for me. When it comes to learning in this area, especially for hard core users, personal accounts are going to carry more weight than anything I can think of, short of going against a person's will, in order to treat.

I can not think of any universal account that will address everyone's experience, with regards to drug usage.

Yes. And yet some users are not addicts and/or they are able to function in our society. As obese people may function okay in our society. Other users (addicts) are able to function less or not function (well) at all.

Define "function" it is highly possible to function with liver disease but it doesn't necessarily mean you are healthy.

Function equals: maintain good work habits, participate in community, maintain decent care of own self, be social

If only 'scaring straight,' then I believe people will try it, find out fear mongers lied, and use it while essentially learning from own experience just how addictive it is.

Mind you, education and usage are incredibly skewed by legality.

What is your point here exactly?

That balanced education, in the long term, will cure society of the illness that drug abuse causes. And that needs to occur where everything is legal.

We don't talk honestly about substances? Who is "we?" Education as I know it is pretty good at teaching kids about drugs. I don't think kids are prepared to know the pharcological effects of cocaine upon DA (Dopamine), and 5-HT. So education on the grade school and high school level must settle for comprehensive educational tools that students can grasp.

We being society and educators.

I think we are poor at teaching kids about drugs. Everything I've seen in past 40 years is in vein of "scared straight." I think that is fine to have in overall curriculum of drug use and serves a purpose, but is one facet. It is possible to use any drug in moderation, and also possible that people use drugs for a wide variety of reasons, not the least of which is seen as beneficial / enjoyable. While there are addicts who may've started out that way and then went into downward spiral, I think it is honest to present accounts where usage doesn't always lead there. I am talking about being honest, and not talking about 'glorifying drug use.'

Again, I don't drink, but I've met some real live social drinkers. People who don't binge, who don't use it to get drunk, who don't use it in any way that is irresponsible. Far more often than not, people I've met don't fall into that category. And in my experience, that stems from early usage and not realizing other ways to use / enjoy. I really really think that binge drinkers have no clue on what a social drinker looks like.

When it comes to mind altering substances, I think one thing western society simply misses is the use of a shaman type resource. Someone who understands the properties of the drug and can act as suitable guide throughout the process, including understanding how that drug plays a role after its use (meaning, it is not something to dabble in when seeking escape or entertainment). And yet, I believe vast majority (like upwards of 95%) are using just for those two reasons - escape and recreation. That's fine, in terms of 'let's present balanced education' about usage, but less fine, when we provide information that says some of those people turn into addicts, since we live in society where escape and entertainment are fairly high priorities.

 

[Otherright]

There are vast differences between marijuana and cocaine and heroin. Marijuana is close to harmless, not completely, but close. Cocaine and heroin, on the other hand, are incredibly dangerous drugs.

Although I haven't since college, I don't see a problem with others using marijuana.

 

[Vendetta]

You can die from flying on airplanes one time.

Silly comparison......Next!

 

[Mathematician]

The likelihood of dying from a single line of cocaine is very, very, very small. Obviously someone who has an existing heart or cardiovascular condition is at risk, but given the fact so few people die from cocaine compared to alcohol (percentage-wise and numerically), it's really not a concern. One is more likely to acquire a brain hemorrhage out of nowhere.

The most common cause of immediate death results from:
- Allergies. But one can be allergic to ethyl alcohol, peanuts, grass, etc. Or...
- The adulteration of cocaine through the black market. Either a person is unfamiliar with what "strong cocaine" actually feels like since they've only experienced baby powder with traces of the drug, or the cocaine is mixed with more dangerous albeit cheaper/legal drugs. These deaths are a direct result of the law prohibiting drug usage and can be prevented. They also account for almost all the deaths due to ecstasy (mixing it with speed, meth, etc.)

Keep in mind that cocaine use has gone down in recent years after the budget increased by a factor of 16, but "bath salts" containing newer, sometimes more dangerous drugs like mephadrone have sprung up in its place. The government then six months later has to ban these drugs, and the cycle continues. Meth's resurgence in the 1990s is often blamed on the Drug War going after amphetamines and MDMA in particular in the late 1980s.

 

[Barcode]

I am certaintly against cocaine and meth usage even if we [hypothetically speaking] legalize it with monitoring. There is nothing safe about these two drugs. There is a psychiatric term addicts use called "chasing the dragon." Addicts who try a drug once and have that euphoric episode continually use the drug to achieve that same high.

As Vendetta rightly mentioned, even on a single use can be deadly. Although it is rare, the effects of cocaine usage are immediate. Do addicts need help? Sure. But I also believe that people who decide to use these drugs even for recreational purposes should also be punished to dissuade them from wanting to try the drug.