Legalisation of drugs: yes or no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli

Re: #1 above: I get your point & no, I didn't mean a "reductio ad Hitlerum". I did mean to point out that the Nazi's instituted hygenic laws that were based on the idea that your body really doesn't belong to you but rather belongs to the State, and that you are just a cog in the machine (or a cell in a multicellular organism) and that the good of the machine (or organism) is paramount...

---

I usually object to references to Hitler outright because more often than not they're used in the service of demagogy. However, I guess that in this case it's not unreasonable to mention Nazism. Yours is very much a valid point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli

I wasn't aware of the prohibition on current politics discussion, so I'm sorry if I violated that rule, and I won't do so again.:(

---

Don't worry, I could tell you weren't deliberately disobeying a rule but rather unaware of it, so I just thought I'd tell you about it. It's a shame, though, because I'd like to know what you think of universal healthcare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

While that is one possibility, most people who die from drugs in the U.S. die not from the drugs themselves but from adulterants, which are usually used as fillers.

---

I presume you mean that most people who die from using illegal/recreational drugs die from included adulterants/fillers...

You need to provide evidence for that statement.

It is certainly true that some recreational drug users die from other substances that illegal dealers put in their products...e.g. strychnine and other bad stuff used to cut heroin and cocaine, methamphetamine mixed with cocaine, etc. Also, it's true that infectious agents can make their way into varoius drugs via contamination either by getting into the drugs themselves or by unsterile administration (botulininum toxin in black tar heroin; HIV and Hep C in cocaine and heroin). If you include all cases of infectious disease associated with illegal drug use, that may lead to a very large morbidity and mortality figure.

However, the morbidity and mortality associated with drugs like opiates, cocaine, and methamphetamine is pretty substantial, even after the effects of toxic adulterants and infectious agents are excluded. Heroin and other opiates kill by overdose cardiorespiratory toxicity. Speed and cocaine cause harm by cardiovascular effects (vasculitis, acute hypertension) that lead to stroke, cardiac arrythmia, and heart attack, all without the "benefit" of any adulterants. And I haven't even mentioned the effects on mental status, such as psychosis and depression...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli

Also, it's true that infectious agents can make their way into varoius drugs via contamination either by getting into the drugs themselves or by unsterile administration (botulininum toxin in black tar heroin; HIV and Hep C in cocaine and heroin)

---

I don't really have anything to add to the discussion here but I do have a question - are you saying that the drugs themselves can become contaminated with infectious agents such as Hep C or HIV? For example, the needle is clean somehow, but the heroin is not for some reason...can that happen? I mean it really doesn't matter - I was just curious because it just never really occurred to me that disease could be spread via the drugs themselves. Suppose you had some junkie who was resourceful enough to get his own needles somehow (say he just liked to get high) but got HIV anyway because the drug supply was contaminated. Is that what you're saying?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shalot

I don't really have anything to add to the discussion here but I do have a question - are you saying that the drugs themselves can become contaminated with infectious agents such as Hep C or HIV? For example, the needle is clean somehow, but the heroin is not for some reason...can that happen? I mean it really doesn't matter - I was just curious because it just never really occurred to me that disease could be spread via the drugs themselves. Suppose you had some junkie who was resourceful enough to get his own needles somehow (say he just liked to get high) but got HIV anyway because the drug supply was contaminated. Is that what you're saying?

---

Diseases in the supplied drugs isn't much of an issue - the likelihood of passing on HIV or Hep B/C through the drug itself is minute. Re-using needles is by far the biggest danger for intravenous drug users.

There will be some batches of narcotics which get contaminated by bacteria from poor practice; hospitals keep supplies scrupulously clean for a reason. It's easy to get blood-poisoning from dirty drugs. In the case of additives, the point isn't deliberate poisoning, because that's destroying the dealer's own market, but things used to cut the drug to the required weakness vary and can include ingredients which are lethal. Still, all the speticaemia and accidental poisonings added together wouldn't make 10% of the HIV cases, I'd imagine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shalot

I don't really have anything to add to the discussion here but I do have a question - are you saying that the drugs themselves can become contaminated with infectious agents such as Hep C or HIV? For example, the needle is clean somehow, but the heroin is not for some reason...can that happen?

---

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. The needles and other injection paraphrenalia can be infected, and often are (shared needles. etc.), but the drugs themselves can get contaminated with bacteria or bacterial toxins (like Botulinum toxin) or viruses (Hep B/C and HIV).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Diseases in the supplied drugs isn't much of an issue - the likelihood of passing on HIV or Hep B/C through the drug itself is minute. Re-using needles is by far the biggest danger for intravenous drug users.

There will be some batches of narcotics which get contaminated by bacteria from poor practice; hospitals keep supplies scrupulously clean for a reason. It's easy to get blood-poisoning from dirty drugs. In the case of additives, the point isn't deliberate poisoning, because that's destroying the dealer's own market, but things used to cut the drug to the required weakness vary and can include ingredients which are lethal. Still, all the speticaemia and accidental poisonings added together wouldn't make 10% of the HIV cases, I'd imagine.

---

I agree with your points...unsterile needle use and injection practice is certainly the cause of most infections (Hepatitis, HIV, bacterial abcesses and septicemia). Toxic effects of drug adulterants are significant but less frequent causes of mortality than inconsistent concentrations of the drugs themselves. Quite a few cases of overdose occur when an addict injects exceptionally "pure" heroin, for example. Sometimes this is "accidental," but I've seen cases where addicts have died from "hot shots" of really "pure" dope that was probably supplied to them by dealers with a homicidal intent.

And no one doubts that unclean injection practices are responsible for the high rate of hepatitis and HIV in injection drug users. But it is also clear that viruses and bacteria have contaminated the drugs themselves. We've seen the same thing with tatooing (especially in places like prisons), where the tatoo equipment and even the ink itself have been contaminated with Hepatitis and HIV.

This whole subject is complicated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Endon

(Discussion started in http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=44659)

- Is the criminalisation of drugs an obstacle to freedom or a necessary measure?
- Is drug consumption to be compared to alcohol, and its criminalisation to the Prohibition in the beginning of the 20th century? Or maybe to tobacco, which is being increasingly restricted and taxed for being addicting and harmful for others than the consumer?
- Should a distinction be made between so-called light and heavy drugs in relation to an eventual legalisation?

Have your say!

---

1- Making drugs criminal may be more complicated than the law would like us to believe, but legal=okay in everybody's mindset. These stupid people who bang on about 'freedom'- why do you think you got told not to get into cars with strangers? It's for your own safety- and everyone else's. If you ran out in front of a car, sure you're 'free' to do that, but it's the ripple effect.

2- Alcohol can be taken in moderation. Drugs cannot be taken in moderation. Alcohol isn't physically addictive, only occasionally mentally- whereas drugs are both. We don't say: 'Hmm, I think I might have a couple of pills to go down with my roast dinner.'

3- Maybe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

1- Making drugs criminal may be more complicated than the law would like us to believe, but legal=okay in everybody's mindset.

---

No, and again, this is proven by cigarettes. Nobody, smokers or not, believes cigarettes are harmless or okay, despite their legality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

These stupid people who bang on about 'freedom'- why do you think you got told not to get into cars with strangers? It's for your own safety- and everyone else's. If you ran out in front of a car, sure you're 'free' to do that, but it's the ripple effect.

---

I can't say that I've seen anyone claiming legalisation of drugs is about freedom, because they're free to do them whether or not the taking is legal.

It's about commonsense, reducing harms and decriminalising the drug-takers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

2- Alcohol can be taken in moderation. Drugs cannot be taken in moderation.

---

Fallacy. Drugs can indeed be used in moderation and I can show an easy example: Carl Sagan. One of the greatest geniuses of humankind, Sagan used to have an occasional joint and that's all.

He is by no means alone, but is the best-known example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

Alcohol isn't physically addictive, only occasionally mentally- whereas drugs are both.

---

Sorry, but this is another fallacy - two of them in fact. Alcohol is physically addictive, which is why alcoholics are almost impossible to treat, while many drugs are not at all physically addictive - marijuana being the best example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

We don't say: 'Hmm, I think I might have a couple of pills to go down with my roast dinner.'

---

This is of no relevance, because wine is drunk with dinner not to get drunk on, but to encourage the flavours of the meal, which is why only a barbarian would drink port with chicken or sauterne with fillet steak.

Lots of people say, "Hmm, I think I'll have a joint after that fine meal."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

.2- Alcohol can be taken in moderation. Drugs cannot be taken in moderation. Alcohol isn't physically addictive, only occasionally mentally- whereas drugs are both. We don't say: 'Hmm, I think I might have a couple of pills to go down with my roast dinner.

---

Physical dependance is defined as the appearance of withdrawal symptoms when the substance is suddenly discontinued. Anyone who has ever known an alcoholic knows that alcoholism is not just a mental disease, but is severely detrimental to the body as well.

I apologize, but I have to wonder where you are getting your information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mariamosis

Physical dependance is defined as the appearance of withdrawal symptoms when the substance is suddenly discontinued. Anyone who has ever known an alcoholic knows that alcoholism is not just a mental disease, but is severely detrimental to the body as well.

I apologize, but I have to wonder where you are getting your information.

---

Alcohol certainly is addictive and can lead to a physical dependence and an abstinence ("withdrawal") syndrome, which in its extreme state is referred to as delirium tremens, or the "DT's."

It is important to distinguish psychological "addiction" from physical "dependence." Addiction refers to a psychological need and craving for drug effects that leads to continued use despite adverse impact on the user's life. Physical dependence means that the user experiences specific uncomfortable physical symptoms when deprived of the drug. Using these definitions, cocaine, amphetamines, opiates, alcohol, and nicotine are considered to be both addictive and dependence inducing. Marijuana and some other drugs are just addictive.

Nick

This thread is making me really sad. Some of the statements that are posted here are not correct, and I know that a lot of people in my community and my country are not informed, or they're given wrong information pertaining to drugs and their effects. If people actually knew what they were talking about instead of spewing facts that they read from some pamphlet issued by some suspect organization, they might begin to realize how little sense the current drug policy actually makes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shalot

This thread is making me really sad. Some of the statements that are posted here are not correct, and I know that a lot of people in my community and my country are not informed, or they're given wrong information pertaining to drugs and their effects. If people actually knew what they were talking about instead of spewing facts that they read from some pamphlet issued by some suspect organization, they might begin to realize how little sense the current drug policy actually makes.

---

It is sad how much propaganda is accepted as fact. I suppose that's why people use propaganda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shalot

This thread is making me really sad. Some of the statements that are posted here are not correct, and I know that a lot of people in my community and my country are not informed, or they're given wrong information pertaining to drugs and their effects. If people actually knew what they were talking about instead of spewing facts that they read from some pamphlet issued by some suspect organization, they might begin to realize how little sense the current drug policy actually makes.

---

Shalot,
Which posted statements on this topic do you consider to be incorrect?Were you referring to any of my posts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli

Alcohol certainly is addictive and can lead to a physical dependence and an abstinence ("withdrawal") syndrome, which in its extreme state is referred to as delirium tremens, or the "DT's."

It is important to distinguish psychological "addiction" from physical "dependence." Addiction refers to a psychological need and craving for drug effects that leads to continued use despite adverse impact on the user's life. Physical dependence means that the user experiences specific uncomfortable physical symptoms when deprived of the drug. Using these definitions, cocaine, amphetamines, opiates, alcohol, and nicotine are considered to be both addictive and dependence inducing. Marijuana and some other drugs are just addictive.

Nick

---

Okay I see your point here. My mistake.
I suppose I should be more thorough in my terminology.
However, my point is that alcohol is physically ...hmm... damaging.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mariamosis

Okay I see your point here. My mistake.
I suppose I should be more thorough in my terminology.
However, my point is that alcohol is physically ...hmm... damaging.

---

But can be good for you in moderate amounts. I never did develop alcohol dependence. Why, I don't know, but both my father and myself drink wine for bad hearts, and my doctor advised gin and tonic for my cramps from wheelchair sitting.

Alcohol is as much a food as a drug, which is why I side with the libertarians on this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mariamosis

Okay I see your point here. My mistake.
I suppose I should be more thorough in my terminology.
However, my point is that alcohol is physically ...hmm... damaging.

---

Actually I did not think you made a mistake...I was referring to the post from kelby_lake you had quoted...:)