Interesting - Properties of Popular Drugs

[Graybeard]

GrayBeard, do you plan on responding to my post?

I have been elsewhere for a day or so. I have asked my Social Secretary to be more careful about scheduling visits to my son's graduation when you have asked a question. (The good news is that I have 2 sons and they have now both graduated, so I will be able to give you 24/7 attention.)

Yes. Portugal is upheld as a model. It isn't. There is a lot of propaganda floating around. See my comments above to joebblowers on the experiences of Switzerland, Sweden and now The Netherlands.

Basically, governments with little social conscience have decided that fighting drugs is (i) expensive, (ii) they have not got their heads around it and (iii) therefore they'll quit. (I do hope that they never get to the point as in Soylent Green where they do the same for murder.)

Abandoning any attempt a resolving the problem is a popular idea at a time when the economic situation is very poor. These governments do not want to spend any money on people who don't vote, or whose vote they can afford to lose. So... what do they do? They suggest allowing drugs and plant stories in the press. They find all the best points about one example. They know that the statistics have been manipulated and definitions have been changed and that thus comparisons and discovering reality are all but impossible.

I worked alongside a similar agency at one time; I was employed to make results support what the government wanted to happen. I was very good. Ministers could stand up in Parliament and make the most outrageous statements that were supported by selected statistics. Even if someone pointed out that they were selected, the Minister could simply argue that "They were selected after much debate and represent a firm policy for success." - you try and argue against that...

joebblowers above idiotically thought he knew my mind. He doesn't but he does not know the government's mind either and he has no idea what the end result will be of his proposals.

How many times in the past have you heard a politician say, "That idea was introduced by the other side, and now look what a mess we have."?

If I've not answered your question, I apologise. I am leaving this futile debate for the reasons given in my post above.

[Barracuda]

If I've not answered your question, I apologise. I am leaving this futile debate for the reasons given in my post above.

Those reasons, regardless of if they are valid, don't apply to what I have said. You just need to smoke a joint and relax.

[joebbowers]

I loved your War on Drugs post above, and I give you props for that, but this?  My god man...

I would be extremely dissappointed if anyone got into the habit of agreeing with me. I want you all to judge each of my posts on it's own merit.

[joebbowers]

I lost 120 pounds in about a year when I finally made up my mind to do it. I have no sympathy for fatties. I think it's all excuses. Eat fewer calories and exercise more. It's not rocket science.

It's pretty clear you didn't have a problem with carbs as some people do.

I'm not sure how you think citing exceptions is going to disprove the rule in general. This is a bad habit that a lot of people make around here, trying to show that something is wrong because it's not always right. We all know there are exceptions, that is obvious and doesn't really need to be said. For the vast majority of fatties, they simply need to stop making excuses, eat less and exercise more.

Sell your car and buy a bicycle. Take the stairs instead of the elevator. Drink water instead of soda. Low-fat frozen yogurt instead of ice cream. Stop eating meat. Eat more fruit and a LOT more vegetables.

If you haven't done all of those things and you're still complaining about your weight, you're just making excuses. The answer is right in front of you. My mom is constantly complaining about her weight and she has done none of those things despite my repeated suggestion.

[Seppuku]

Neither would I employ someone with facial tattoos. Neither would I employ someone who still lived with his parents and played Dungeons & Dragons.

Why not? Don't you think that's a little prejudiced?

So can... almost everything. Music, movies, books, sports, love, sex, food, alcohol. I can give you examples of every one of those things altering someone's behavior leading to the endangerment of self or others, and not just isolated incidents.

Music, movies, books? Are we talking about a direct effect or where one has been used as a scapegoat? Books: A Catcher in the Rye (murder of John Lennon), Music: Marilyn Manson (Columbine/other murders), Movies: Oldboy (Virginia Tech Massacre). And throw in video games too, like Manhunt and Grand Theft Auto. What is the actual cause of their behaviours, generally people go straight for those and yet end up ignoring the underlying problems involved, the real much deeper reasons.

If someone drinks and gets into a fight, we punish them for the fight. If someone drinks and causes an accident, we punish them for the accident. We punish those who do not drink responsibility. It would be ridiculous to punish everyone who drinks as if they've already caused harm. Yet when it comes to other drugs, the same logic does not apply?

Generally we punish them because they can limit the amount of alcohol they drink, it is possible to drink it without becoming addicted or feeling its negative effects, but it can be addictive and people can drink too much and over consume. Yes, the responsibility is on them for getting that drunk in the first place. I certainly think there should be something done to reduce the negative effects of alcohol, the problem is different people have different limits and at least barmen can refuse you alcohol if they think you've had enough (E.G. I got refused alcohol and was given a glass of water instead, even though I was still aways from my own limit). I don't think banning it is the right direction, because as far as alcohol is concerned there are probably better ways to reducing the problem than outlawing it (and thus creating other problems).

On illegal drugs, the negative effects can be from a single dose and not just from abuse.

Short term effects of Heroin:
Reduced mental function, slower rate of breathing (and can reach to the point of respiratory failure)
Long term effects of Heroin:
Scarred or collapsed veins. Pulmonary complications. Kidney Disease.
Short term effects of Meth (even in small amounts):
Hyperthermia, increased respiration. Increased heart rate and blood pressure. Cardiovascular collapse. Convulsions. Aggressiveness. Paranoia.
Long term effects of Meth:
Violent behaviour. Psychotic behaviour. Delusions and paranoia. Homicidal or suicidal thoughts.
Short term effects of Steroids:
Changes in behaviour.
Long term effects of Steroids:
Glaucoma, Cataracts, High-blood pressure, Heart Disease, Diabetes, Obesity, Acid Reflux, Cushing syndrome

I am not talking about overdoses either, because that's over consumption and over consumption happens with alcohol and food, so I don't think overdoses would be relevant. Also I've excluded anything caused by unsterilised needles or 'tampered' drugs (like how some put glass into cocaine)

These are something we do know about these drugs. I've picked 3 that stick out in my mind.


Also, if my uncle hadn't become addicted to drugs, he would have had a much better life and he wouldn't have schizophrenia either (yes, schizophrenia has been linked to drug use, even Cannabis), it has been a serious problem for him, nobody will employ a man with his mental stability, he has been in and out of mental hospitals, he has even attacked people (like my grandmother), he was constantly scrounging for money, he lives off of the government now because there's no way he can work. Last I heard things have been improving and he's getting off of the drugs. But the problem is, he only started out as an intelligent guy at university who tried drugs with his mates but it just escalated from there. Yes, he is responsible for his actions because he should have said 'no' to drugs in the first place. You might forgive him for being ignorant of the effects it might have, but these days we have a lot more information on the effects of drugs and it is widespread, some of it is propaganda, I agree, but not all of it.

Unfortunately, yes, there's the issue of organised crime an to be honest, I don't actually know the best solution here. Obviously we don't want more people taking drugs and at the same time we don't want organised crime. That is a difficult one I think, I think with the 2 options, the outcomes are negative ones. I don't think how we would deal with alcohol applies either, heck, some 'weaker' drugs might not apply either. Also, what'll happen to organised crime should the ban be lifted? I'm not convinced these people will just give up their life of crime and get an honest job, there's certainly other illegal things that can be smuggled and heck, illegal things people already make money off of, like illegal weapons. Would the decrease of drug smuggling mean the increase of other types of smuggling, like that of black market weapons trade?

[Gnu Ordure]

You are quite getting what I am saying. There is a poll, a poll amongst the learned sure, but it is still just a damn poll of opinion. These numbers are based on opinion, but they are being treated as if they are science. This isn't science, this is a popularity contest. A combination of an appeal to authority, the democratic fallacy, and appeal to popularity...all done to double digits after the decimal point accuracy to distract you from noticing it.

Indeed. They asked each doctor to rate each drug on a four-point scale and averaged the results. I'm sure a poll of WWGHA members with access to Wikipedia would produce similar numbers.

One thing I's like to know is, when these guys rated heroin, did they only consider illegal use of the drug, or did they consider legal use as well? That would affect the figures considerably, because many of the risks of illegal heroin concern contamination by other products and uncertain dosage, dangers which don't occur in a medical setting.

Here in Britain (but also in the US), the attitude towards drugs is often characterized by Orwellian doublethink which makes rational discussion difficult.

For example, the media and the general public regard heroin as the worst drug in the world; extremely harmful with all kinds of side-effects, often lethal, always addictive. It has no redeeming features whatsoever, and deserves to be illegal in all circumstances. Most conservative Brits think heroin users and pushers are scum, and they personally would never consider using it.

On the other hand, there is diamorphine, legally used by the medical profession. Diamorphine is the most effective pain-killer known to science. It is almost entirely benign (used in the correct dosage) - the worst side-effect is constipation. If a Brit suffers a bone-fracture in a car-accident, they will be given diamorphine by the ambulance crew. Likewise, if one is suffering a painful terminal illness, diamorphine is used to ease one's death. And every year thousands of Brits are deeply grateful for its availability and its effects.

So, heroin bad, diamorphine good. Couldn't be simpler, right?

And yet... and yet... most Brits don't know that heroin and diamorphine are identical - they are simply different names for the same drug.

Orwell would be proud.

Gnu.

PS Americans aren't given heroin in hospitals. For complex historical and political reasons, you usually get given morphine instead of diamorphine. Same difference, because the human body metabolizes diamorphine into morphine as soon as it hits the brain. From wiki:

The pharmacology of heroin and morphine is identical except the two acetyl groups increase the lipid solubility of the heroin molecule, causing it to cross the blood-brain barrier and enter the brain more rapidly. Once in the brain, these acetyl groups are removed to yield morphine, which causes the subjective effects of heroin.

So morphine, which is derived from poppies, is a beautiful thing. It relieves pain, and it's not harmful. So the US legitimately buys loads of morphine from poppy-growing countries such as India, Turkey and Australia, and prescribes it to American patients in hospitals nationwide.

Whereas heroin is a bad, bad thing which must be eradicated. So the US burns poppy-fields in Afghanistan and suppresses heroin production, and puts people in jail at home for using it for fun.

This is cognitive dissonance on a national scale.


[Edit: If this post seems familiar, it's because I've posted it before.]

small typo corrected GB

[RNS]

I don't think there is any good reason to make "drugs" illegal and let alcohol stay legal. I'm curious as to where GrayBeard is getting his information from, since he has said some very... interesting... stuff.

Personally I have had to deal with the repercussions of certain substances being illegal. From my point of view, I felt like I was being oppressed for doing something that is not morally wrong and is not harming anyone (AFAIK). Not only this, but it has limited my future options, even though people can wreck themselves with other substances, which have been deemed appropriate for some arbitrary reason, and not face any consequences (other than the effects of taking said intoxicants).

People who want to keep drugs illegal should mind their own damned business and stop projecting their own bad experiences[1] and propaganda to limit people's freedoms. Please before having an opinion, actually base it on real life social situations and medicine rather than stories and personal feelings.

Here is a paper by Professor David Nutt, who was sacked from the home office shortly after creating his pamphlet, which he was hired to do.
http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus1714/Estimating_drug_harms.pdf

1.	or those of people they know

[Hatter23]

Appeal to authority is a lame reason to label something fallacious. Unless you or I have relevant scientific education in the matter, which we don't, looking to a legit authority's opinion on the matter is the best we've got. Everything damn thing about science you have learned was put into textbooks because it won a popularity contest among scientists.

So you are saying the laws of planetary motion being explained is the same as a multiple choice poll of learned peoples feeling on a subject, interest perspective.

[Barracuda]

Yeah, great, you managed to respond to my post. Too bad you didn't really say shit. Unless you have anything of substance to say, I am done pursuing your objection.

[Azdgari]

There is a difference between a poll of experts and the published results of their work.

[Barracuda]

Sure, but it's not that big. It still has a lot of value, more than anything else I've seen offered here.

If there are publications comparing these dugs I'd love to see it. Otherwise, when this is brought up it just looks like people are grasping at any reason not to trust the conclusions from the study (which, btw, was a published work).

[Barracuda]

 

Unfortunately, yes, there's the issue of organised crime an to be honest, I don't actually know the best solution here. Obviously we don't want more people taking drugs and at the same time we don't want organised crime. That is a difficult one I think, I think with the 2 options, the outcomes are negative ones. I don't think how we would deal with alcohol applies either, heck, some 'weaker' drugs might not apply either. Also, what'll happen to organised crime should the ban be lifted? I'm not convinced these people will just give up their life of crime and get an honest job, there's certainly other illegal things that can be smuggled and heck, illegal things people already make money off of, like illegal weapons. Would the decrease of drug smuggling mean the increase of other types of smuggling, like that of black market weapons trade?

I doubt it, unless there is any reason to think drug legalization would cause demand for black market weapons to go up (If anything I'd guess down, since it is shrinking the black market).

[joebbowers]

So, heroin bad, diamorphine good. Couldn't be simpler, right?

And yet... and yet... most Brits don't know that heroin and diamorphine are identical - they are simply different names for the same drug.

An excellent point, and I would add that pure Heroin does not cause any serious or dangerous side-effects. It is the contaminated street Heroin and the sharing of needles that causes all the health problems.[1]

In other words, legalized and regulated Heroin would cause far fewer deaths than current black market Heroin.

1.	Merck Manual of Home Health Handbook - 2nd edition, 2003, p. 2097

[Mooby]

PS Americans aren't given heroin in hospitals. For complex historical and political reasons, you usually get given morphine instead of diamorphine. Same difference, because the human body metabolizes morphine into diamorphine as soon as it hits the brain.

Actually, in the US we usually use hydromorphine over morphine, as it's about 6-8x stronger, has lesser side effects, and causes less dependence than both heroin and morphine.  Also, diamorphine becomes morphine in the brain, not vice versa.

[Gnu Ordure]

Also, diamorphine becomes morphine in the brain, not vice versa.

Duh. And that's what the wiki quote says as well. I've posted that post three times and not noticed the error... 

Actually, in the US we usually use hydromorphine over morphine

I'll take your word for that, but since hydromorphone is a derivative of morphine, my point stlll stands - though it wobbles a bit now.

[RNS]

Diamorphine is the most effective pain-killer known to science

I'm not so sure about this. Fentanyl would be one example of a more effective analgesic.

[jeremy0]

But the question is, "Why the hell would anyone want drugs?"

Indeed.  After seeing the effects of drugs, wtf is the attraction to it other than not being properly educated on the subject in the first place, before they try said drug?  All I can see is - party time! 

Ever since the invention of alcohol, nearly everyone has been getting intoxicated in some way.  My last remaining hitch is cigarettes.  And coffee.  I'll need to find things to replace that with.  Basically for me, it's just something to do, nothing more. 

[joebbowers]

"Why the hell would anyone want drugs?"

First, define drugs. That word covers a hell of a lot of different substances. Some of which are pretty harmless and others can fuck you up good.

But just because you can't understand why someone would want something is not a valid argument for preventing that person to have it.

[Bereft_of_Faith]

"Why the hell would anyone want drugs?"

First, define drugs. That word covers a hell of a lot of different substances. Some of which are pretty harmless and others can fuck you up good.

But just because you can't understand why someone would want something is not a valid argument for preventing that person to have it.

To add...
Some drugs are fun.  WTF is wrong with that?  Why are so many people afraid that someone else is going to have a good time?  I really can only speak about pot/weed, as I have done that before, but i remember it being a damned good time.

Further, re pot, it's a f-ing plant!  How dare anyone presume to make a plant illegal?  The people fighting to keep it so are misinformed.  It doesn't matter to them that the drug is less harmful than alcohol, they have decided that its' bad.  They trot out the usual arguments (gateway... won't someone think of the children...).  My lecture to my children when they were young was 'don't do pot because if you get caught with it, you'll be in for a load of trouble'.  That's it.  I never said the drug itself was bad.  (Kids turned out fine:  one smokes occasionally though has lost interest in it more recently, the other does not like either booze or smoke and abstains from both)

Lastly, I have a friend who has an eye condition exactly like mine, who has to get injections in his eye, just like me.  Unlike me  , he was terrified to the point of not even being able to stay still when the needle drew near.   You know what saved him?  Pot.  He'd smoke up before going to get his shot, and everything changed for him.  He was relaxed, and no longer feared the procedure.  When it was over, he was lighthearted and happy. (It used to take him days to emotionally recover).  Now the law forbade him from smoking this harmless yet vitally needed substance.  His resentment towards people pontificating about the evils of pot were just about boundless.  'F-ck them, those selfish myopic bastards' I'd hear him say.  I agreed.   epilogue:  He gradually developed the courage to face the needle w/o pot, but he would never have gotten there without its help.

[Mooby]

hydromorphone is a derivative of morphine, my point stlll stands - though it wobbles a bit now.

Yes, there are a lot of morphine derivatives.  Each of them works a little differently due to differences in timing of onset, duration of effect, routes of administration, and side effect profile.  Thus, even though it is a decently sized class, only a handful of these are clinically relevant in any given medical setting, each with slightly different indications.

The main ones used in the US are:
- Codeine
- Dihydrocodeine
- Hydrocodone
- Oxycodone
- Morphine
- Hydromorphone
- Oxymorphone
- Methadone
- Fentanyl

Yeah, we like our codeine derivatives.

[Samothec]

I'm not sure how you think citing exceptions is going to disprove the rule in general. This is a bad habit that a lot of people make around here, trying to show that something is wrong because it's not always right. We all know there are exceptions, that is obvious and doesn't really need to be said. For the vast majority of fatties, they simply need to stop making excuses, eat less and exercise more.

Your personal experience does not make the rule except for you. Almost no one simply decides to lose weight - your experience is the exception. If it we're for the rest of your post (not quoted) where you finally show you have a clue, I would say you were lying about having been overweight.

In the 70s and 80s the basic rule of dieting was cut out the fat and cut calories. And America ballooned up because those ideas are wrong. Low-fat products were made by reducing the fat content but increasing the carbohydrate content, especially sugar. Carbohydrates are easily metabolized into fat. Cutting calories tells the body it is in a food-deprived evironment so the metabolism shifts to a low, very efficient state where it is easy to store calories as fat for later use. So when the dieting person goes off the diet, they are almost guaranteed to gain weight back. Usually gaining more than they lost in the first place.

These the facts, which you clearly don't know, make up the rule for the majority. You are an exception. This was part of why I told you to do some research. Instead you make false claims.

Now add in the fact that food is a comfort for many people and you've got at least 90% of the population covered. The addicts who chose food instead of drugs or alcohol and odd people like you make up the other 10% or so.

Normal people need something more than just a simple decision because they have habits and psychological needs that must be changed which is a long process that takes diligence. A concerted effort several times each day, not just one decision.

[joebbowers]

You're right, I'm wrong. Eating less and exercising more is obviously stupid. Americans are fat fucks despite their strict low-fat diets and regular exercise. They certainly don't eat too much junk food and spend too much time sitting down. When I decided to get off my ass and start exercising and cut out almost all the fat and sugar from my diet, I lost a ton of weight, but those two facts are obviously completely unrelated.

The TV Show the Biggest Loser, which has helped literally thousands of people lose massive amounts of weight by eating less and exercising more is obviously full of freak occurances. More study must be done to explain how they are actually losing the weight, as diet and exercise clearly have no connection to weight loss.

[joebbowers]

So we're smiting for sarcasm now? That's good to know.

[Hatter23]

So we're smiting for sarcasm now? That's good to know.

If you must know I smited you because you stated a strawman argument through hyperbolic demeaning over the top sarcasm. Actually I more agree with you than disagree on your position here, but your venomous treatment of the person you were debating with, who did nothing to deserve it, was vile.

You've been told about your attitude multiple times, how poorly you treat people, and yet seem to be unwilling to modify it. You talk about self improvement, yet you aren't doing it for your behavior.

And I'm guessing I will now be the target of your derision and scorn, because nobody can ever seem to disagree with you and not receive it.

[Samothec]

Joe,
It would be nice if you actually read what I wrote. I have repeatedly said yes to exercise. What I said no to was the moronic statement of just cutting calories. I have repeatedly, from the start, said a change in what one eats to healthier foods is needed and a reduction only if you are actually eating more calories than you need.

Your apparent reading comprehension of my posts in this thread is extremely poor.

I don't understand why you are behaving this way. You expessed a lot of hatred for overweight people (and no empathy in spite of supposedly having been overweight). So much so, that I wonder if you had an underlying cause for gaining the weight (like many people) but while you have lost the weight you have not lost the underlying cause. And now that unresolved issue seems to be manifesting in other ways. I don't know what psychotherapy resources are available where you are living in China but you should seek some help for those issues.

Given your behavior and an advocacy for deregulation of drugs, I wonder if you have traded drugs for food in what you consume to comfort yourself. That is only speculation but it would explain some of the problems you seem to be having.

[jeremy0]

So we're smiting for sarcasm now? That's good to know.

If you must know I smited you because you stated a strawman argument through hyperbolic demeaning over the top sarcasm. Actually I more agree with you than disagree on your position here, but your venomous treatment of the person you were debating with, who did nothing to deserve it, was vile.

You've been told about your attitude multiple times, how poorly you treat people, and yet seem to be unwilling to modify it. You talk about self improvement, yet you aren't doing it for your behavior.

And I'm guessing I will now be the target of your derision and scorn, because nobody can ever seem to disagree with you and not receive it.

Hatter - after my experience trying to 'usher people and the populus in the right directions', and seeing them fail over and over, would make me say f### it and be vile to people.  So I enjoy Joe's vile-ness.  But I'm not much for a fun argument, so I'll try and enjoy the read...

Personally, I think Joe just realizes how f'ed up everyone is, and likes f'ing with 'em... 

[Hatter23]

Hatter - after my experience trying to 'usher people and the populus in the right directions', and seeing them fail over and over, would make me say f### it and be vile to people.  So I enjoy Joe's vile-ness.  But I'm not much for a fun argument, so I'll try and enjoy the read...

Personally, I think Joe just realizes how f'ed up everyone is, and likes f'ing with 'em... 

The thing is, there's an element of honesty to Joe, of putting a pin in people's self righteousness and self appointed sainthood that I think this place needs. I like that.  However he then takes it two steps further than the putting a pin in the ego balloon to using people like a punching bag and becoming an ego monster unto himself.

[joebbowers]

When have I ever used anyone here as a punching bag? Others insult me far more often than I insult others. I very, very rarely use personal attacks and when I do it is only in addition to a solid logical argument, never in place of one as many others do. I typically just state the facts and people get offended by it.

Did you read what Samothec has actually written to me here? Repeatedly calling me stupid, ill-educated on the issue, saying I lied about my personal weight loss history, telling me I need therapy and suggesting that I'm on drugs. And yet I'm the one who gets smited for my attitude for sarcastically pointing out that most people are fat because they're lazy, which is the plain truth.

[jeremy0]

Joe puts out there plain, cold, facts.  That's what I like about it.  When it's opinion, it's also very blunt.  Sorry he doesn't sound too compassionate, and people take insult to it - but he is correct - people insult him much more than he actually insults others.

If you look at what Joe usually posts, the words are strong.  He uses strong language.  He doesn't bother to appease everyone's emotions.  It usually follows from a very logical mind that we don't necessarily care what you think about us - we just have a logical point to make and we make it, very bluntly.  That usually leads people to backlash on that point, especially if they don't understand what you are saying.

If I want to bash on people, I will.  I recently did that - and it just proved my point.  They resorted to picking apart technicalities in grammar and use of language to try and say that I wasn't intelligent.  I just laughed - that's pretty stupid.  Also, I pointed out that my intelligence is rather average in that area, but they didn't listen to that before or after the fact.

People get in a habit of just skimming through posts to get what they want out of it.  My posts jump around because my mind jumps to different topics while I'm writing.  That makes me a poor writer - you have a hard time understanding what I mean.

Joe tends to use strong language, that usually seems offensive when actually the intent is to point out logical reasoning.  Because people are poor with logics, problem solving, and other areas, they have a hard time understanding people like Joe's point of view.  And because they get irritated that he is usually right when he is pointing something out, well there goes the attitude and joke-telling.  He's just not fitting in with you circle-jerkers...

That said, I am amazed that we can do all this arguing, and all I see from Joe is more and more supporting evidence to his claims; while the other side just resorts to argumentative strategy in order to make themselves look and feel better.  So the question then becomes - who is actually the egotist?  Joe, who is trying to achieve a common understanding given the information he has been exposed to, frustrated by people that don't understand?  Or the arguer, who acts like a child and uses social strategies in order to place themselves back onto the pedistal?  I would say the latter is actually the ego balloon...