Are drugs REALLY a problem?

[FredClogs]

Silent1 said:

Blib, he was an addict in that he didn't have he decision to stop without withdrawals, he may not have fallen down the ladder but he was still and addict, I can see your point but it doesn't mean to be an addict you have to have fked everything up, typically there are more issues with those addicts.

There is only one kind of addict, that is someone who can't stop doing something, either due to compulsion or physical need.

Dragoncaviar's post is a good one but he has glossed right over why he stopped and what "problematic" situations he got himself into - one perhaps he's like his children to have a state sponsored run at? I doubt it. The first very real sign of addiction is denial.

[Dragoncaviar]

Blib said:

I disagree. For some people it is a disease. You are not an addict. You were a recreational user. You have no idea what an addict experiences.

Your use of heroin gives you no more insight into the mind of an addict than my use of a car gives me an understanding of the composition of petrol.

For the past seven years I've worked on the addiction treatment ward of a world renowned psychiatric hospital which specialises in this illness.. I've spoken to and worked with many hundreds of addicts over those years.

IMO, not only is it a disease for these people, it is a disease that begins well before they picked up their first drink or drug.

Your heroin use gives you no more insight into TRUE ADDICTION than any other non addict. You, as a mon addict have no idea about what goes on in the mind and body of one.

Having said that and been to the funerals of patients and others killed by the effects of this disease, I personally believe that all drugs should be legalised.

Addicts will feed their addiction come what may. Prohibition will mot stop them.

Edited by Blib on Thursday 3rd July 07:15

If you say so. However, the very real nicotine addiction I suffer from right now tells me otherwise. My seeming inability to just NOT have a cigarette first thing in the morning, even though I find the habit disgusting, know it's slowly killing me, and know the people I love hate it as well would suggest I know a thing or two about addiction.

The very real physical withdrawal symptoms I went through for a few weeks after my spells of shooting heroin also tell me otherwise. The jitters and shakes I suffered after tapering down from a 100mg+ a day diazepam addiction also told me otherwise. The month long physical hell I went through after a prolonged period of injecting o-desmethyltramadol and daily poppy pod teas also tell me that again, despite you not knowing the first thing about me and assuring me I know nothing of addiction, that actually, I do know a thing or two about addiction.

I don't have psychological issues or mental health problems. I'm generally a pretty healthy person. I think you're confusing people who have deeper issues in their lives and hide those issues through drug abuse and misuse for "addiction".

Addiction just isn't a disease. It's just not. We just have a mental health problem disguised as a drugs problem.

[Blib]

I have every respect for what you went through. However, heavy use and a difficult withdrawal does not an addict make.

I say once more, you have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER about what a true addict thinks and feels. Therefore, your opinions are just that. They have very little to do with true addiction. Just because you took heroin doesn't make you an expert in addiction. That is a fact.

I wish you well.

Edited by Blib on Thursday 3rd July 09:10

[FredClogs]

Dragoncaviar said:

If you say so. However, the very real nicotine addiction I suffer from right now tells me otherwise. My seeming inability to just NOT have a cigarette first thing in the morning, even though I find the habit disgusting, know it's slowly killing me, and know the people I love hate it as well would suggest I know a thing or two about addiction.

The very real physical withdrawal symptoms I went through for a few weeks after my spells of shooting heroin also tell me otherwise. The jitters and shakes I suffered after tapering down from a 100mg+ a day diazepam addiction also told me otherwise. The month long physical hell I went through after a prolonged period of injecting o-desmethyltramadol and daily poppy pod teas also tell me that again, despite you not knowing the first thing about me and assuring me I know nothing of addiction, that actually, I do know a thing or two about addiction.

I don't have psychological issues or mental health problems. I'm generally a pretty healthy person. I think you're confusing people who have deeper issues in their lives and hide those issues through drug abuse and misuse for "addiction".

Addiction just isn't a disease. It's just not. We just have a mental health problem disguised as a drugs problem.

all this whilst still "highly functional"? And yet you still support the state condoning and collecting tax revenue from addicts, be it nicotine, opiates or alcohol? How do you justify this? because pragmatism has to stop somewhere.

[Dragoncaviar]

Blib said:

I have every respect for what you went through. However, heavy use and a difficult withdrawal does not an addict make.

I say once more, you have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER about what a true addict thinks and feels. Therefore, your opinions are just that. They have very little to do with true addiction. Just because you took heroin doesn't make you an expert in addiction. That is a fact.

I wish you well.

Edited by Blib on Thursday 3rd July 09:10

I think you're totally wrong. I really do. I think heavy use and prolonged physical withdrawal is EXACTLY what addiction is.

I think what makes people fall off the bandwagon is traumas and psychological problems which make them want to run from life.

I numbed myself for a long time and was perhaps "addicted" by your definition (though not physically) to cannabis, and had a period of 7 years of daily cannabis smoking where I simply used it to make all the sharp corners of life soft. I didn't see it as problematic, or an addiction. I justified it to myself as something I could stop if I wanted to, but I simply didn't want to.

Genuinely though, imho, AA and NA are cults, addiction isn't a disease, and we'd do far better to invest heavily into harm reduction and mental health services.

FredClogs said:

all this whilst still "highly functional"? And yet you still support the state condoning and collecting tax revenue from addicts, be it nicotine, opiates or alcohol? How do you justify this? because pragmatism has to stop somewhere.

Let's put it this way. The global illegal drugs market represents 1% of all global trade. A UN report said "the global drug trade generated an estimated US $321.6 billion in 2003." and the global GDP in that same year was $36tn.

So at the moment, 1% of global trade is totally unregulated. That 1% isn't going anywhere. Drugs are very real, people want them, and it doesn't matter how much the government tells them "drugs are bad, we will put you in prison if we catch you with them" ... people still buy and take drugs.

So why not accept that, rather than standing on some fictitious moral pedestal, focus on harm reduction rather than criminal sanctions, tax and regulate those substances and with the substantial extra income improve health care, education and welfare for those problematic users. Drugs would be purer, we would have control over who had access to them, the whole situation would be better for everyone.

[FredClogs]

Dragoncaviar said:

Let's put it this way. The global illegal drugs market represents 1% of all global trade. A UN report said "the global drug trade generated an estimated US $321.6 billion in 2003." and the global GDP in that same year was $36tn.

So at the moment, 1% of global trade is totally unregulated. That 1% isn't going anywhere. Drugs are very real, people want them, and it doesn't matter how much the government tells them "drugs are bad, we will put you in prison if we catch you with them" ... people still buy and take drugs.

So why not accept that, rather than standing on some fictitious moral pedestal, focus on harm reduction rather than criminal sanctions, tax and regulate those substances and with the substantial extra income improve health care, education and welfare for those problematic users. Drugs would be purer, we would have control over who had access to them, the whole situation would be better for everyone.

Firstly people do not want heroine as much as they did, its use has been declining for years as has all substance abuse, including new drugs like mephadrone, it appears in terms of the message drugs policy does appear to be working... (with the exception of cocaine - the must oft claimed to have "highly functional" users)

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/drug-mi...

And treatment of addiction is also getting better...

http://www.nta.nhs.uk/news-2012-annualstatistics.a...

I agree we shouldn't criminalise addicts, they are victims, but the crimes that go with heroine addiction (in the majority of cases - you seem to have self funded your habit, well done you) must of course be punished.

The best scenario would of course be if no one was addicted to anything, and the best way to ensure this is complete prohibition, that's not a moral position it's just a fact.

[otolith]

FredClogs said:

The best scenario would of course be if no one was addicted to anything, and the best way to ensure this is complete prohibition, that's not a moral position it's just a fact.

It's been tried. It doesn't work.

[Dragoncaviar]

FredClogs said:

Firstly people do not want heroine as much as they did, its use has been declining for years as has all substance abuse, including new drugs like mephadrone, it appears in terms of the message drugs policy does appear to be working... (with the exception of cocaine - the must oft claimed to have "highly functional" users)

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/drug-mi...

And treatment of addiction is also getting better...

http://www.nta.nhs.uk/news-2012-annualstatistics.a...

I agree we shouldn't criminalise addicts, they are victims, but the crimes that go with heroine addiction (in the majority of cases - you seem to have self funded your habit, well done you) must of course be punished.

The best scenario would of course be if no one was addicted to anything, and the best way to ensure this is complete prohibition, that's not a moral position it's just a fact.

You're citing UK Government and NHS (also UK Govt.) sources as proof that prohibition is working. This is akin to asking Norbert Reithofer whether BMW's are good cars. Of COURSE the government are going to say the failing approach they've been taking has been working. Turning around and admitting prohibition is a failure is just not an option for them.

Also, that takes snap shots of only the recent past. From 1996 - 2014. What about the years before, when the "Just say no" rhetoric and the "drugs are bad" mantras were even more prominent throughout global society? The haydays of crack cocaine and heroin. Compare the drug problems we have today with the drug problems we had in the 1950's before the 1961 UN single convention on narcotic substances and the 1971 misuse of drugs act ... and you'll see that drug use is still a significantly larger problem than it was when we treated addicts as individuals with a public health issue rather than as criminals.

As for your assertion that all levels of drug use are declining, including new drugs like [sic]mephadrone (not sure whether you mean methadone or mephedrone, but since you said 'new', I'm going to assume you mean mephedrone, the cathinone based stimulant rather than methadone, the opioid used in maintenance therapy) ... well again, that's just bks. Mephedrone didn't even exist until 2003, its use rapidly spiked in 2008 as people were looking for an alternative to MDMA during the great drought of 2008/2009, and then it slowly fell away as the supply of MDMA came back and all those people who wanted to get fked up but didn't want to break the law opted for different legal highs as the UK government scheduled mephedrone too.

There are no moral high grounds amongst drug users, just as there should be no low. Whether it's cannabis in the morning, heroin in the evening, or coffee in between, we are all using a chemical to subjectively enhance our experience of life, and there is nothing wrong with that. If you mug old ladies to feed your habit, you're an asshole. However it's the fact that you put your own pleasure above someone else's pain which is the problem. The drug is merely incidental.

Drug addiction is not a mitigating circumstance for committing crime. An explanation at best, certainly not mitigation. Criminals should be punished. Drug addicts should be helped so that they might avoid criminality.

[Ionkontrol]

GTIAlex said:

great post.

100%

This.

[Ali G]

For those who have little interest in picking up new (bad) habits, there may be more concern about the entire criminal infrastructure, and its destabalising effect, funded by those who enjoy their snorting.

And for those who may not have worked it out, I'm not that bothered if people wish to make life choices and chase whatever chemical gives them their joy/misery, provided the impact on others is kept to a minimum, and they are clued up on what they are doing.

Perhaps legalising the entire lot would be the way to go, and that would also include the entire supply chain. There may yet be an opportunity for the tobacco companies to diversify beyond e-fags.

[e21Mark]

Personally I agree that addiction is not a disease in the true sense of the word. However treating it as such, as a model for recovery, certainly works for many thousands of people. I know self-help groups such as NA and AA are often viewed with suspicion and Penn & Teller made a compelling case in the TV show, but at street level these are merely groups of addicts helping each other get a day clean. 12 step programs work and can allow people to make healthy choices for themselves. If you are an addict, once you use, you lose that choice.

Harm reduction or minimisation has failed. Methadone programs often mean an added addiction, as opposed to replacing Heroin, plus the increased half life means longer and often worse withdrawals.

I'm sorry but the idea of there being large numbers of functioning Opiate addicts is a hard one to swallow. No doubt, if you have the funds to buy your drug, you can avoid the usual crime etc but repeated drug use brings its own health issues. Especially those related to IV drug use. I guess Eva Rausing could be called a 'functioning addict' but who would wish that life on anyone?

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/12/millionair...

Society has a responsibility to protect its most vulnerable and for that reason I believe drug use should remain illegal. There is no doubt that the problem of addiction / drug use needs discussion but no-one sets out to become a drug addict. I also know addiction can effect all ages, colours, creeds and sexes.

Life is actually pretty good without the need to take any mood altering drug. You're not settling for less, or missing out, if you choose not to drink or take drugs. In fact, quite the opposite.

[FredClogs]

otolith said:

FredClogs said:

The best scenario would of course be if no one was addicted to anything, and the best way to ensure this is complete prohibition, that's not a moral position it's just a fact.

It's been tried. It doesn't work.

I don't have any figures but in pre WW1 Britain recreational opium and cocaine use were absolutely rife (it was legal and uncontrolled up to 1912 I think) they were literally mad for it, they even used to put opium in beer! I'd bet you that whilst the war on drugs and the criminilisation has undoubtedly created criminal cartels and enriched those willing to break the law, that in terms of numbers of actual users - prohibition has worked to reduce the number of people taking harmful drugs, and continues to do so year on year.

Interesting story from an opium addict (excuse the Daily Fail link)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2212353/Op...

[wombleh]

e21Mark said:

I'm sorry but the idea of there being large numbers of functioning Opiate addicts is a hard one to swallow.

I remember reading that during the Opium wars there were thousands of Chinese addicts who carried on a perfectly normal working life while smoking every day. Can't find any links to back it up, but I have a feeling it was making a point about the purity and lack of consistency in the criminally provided substances today being a large cause of the problems.

I guess it depends on how you define the word but it never sat right with me calling drug addition a disease. The description above that it's a mental health condition seems more accurate. It is a step that the user has chosen to take.

[Ali G]

Confessions of an English opium eater - De Quincey 1821

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/3369598-conf...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Eng...

Nothing new!

[otolith]

I wonder how prohibition compares to the decline in smoking?



As far as I can see, the main effect of prohibition is to increase the personal and social harm caused by drugs.

In principle, I think what people do with their own bodies is their own business, and state coercion is immoral.

[Dragoncaviar]

e21Mark said:

I'm sorry but the idea of there being large numbers of functioning Opiate addicts is a hard one to swallow. No doubt, if you have the funds to buy your drug, you can avoid the usual crime etc but repeated drug use brings its own health issues. Especially those related to IV drug use. I guess Eva Rausing could be called a 'functioning addict' but who would wish that life on anyone?

In 2007, there were 500,000 oxycontin prescriptions filed in the 5 boroughs of New York. By 2010, that had risen to 1,000,000, which amounts to 1 prescription for every 8 people.

"In 2012, an estimated 493,000 persons aged 12 or older used a prescription pain reliever nonmedically for the first time within the past 12 months. This amounts to 1350 new initiates every day. ... Medical emergencies resulting from prescription drug abuse increased 132 percent over the last seven years, with opioid involvement rising 183 percent."



http://claad.org/rx-drug-abuse-stats/

In Florida the picture is much worse. The DEA says Florida distributors bought nearly 40.8 million oxycodone doses for the first six months of 2010, while every other state combined accounted for 4.08 million doses. Compare that with 2006, where Florida consumed 3.9 million grams of oxycodone, just over 10 percent of the 37 million grams distributed nationally.

Florida now prescribes 10x the amount of oxycodone than the rest of the US states combined.

Even those figures though ... do you have any idea how many junkies you can create from 37 million grams of oxycodone? The US has a prescription drug epidemic. The reason it's not as apparent and unpleasant as the heroin problem in Europe is because the drugs are regulated, controlled, and pharmaceutically pure.

e21Mark said:

Society has a responsibility to protect its most vulnerable and for that reason I believe drug use should remain illegal. There is no doubt that the problem of addiction / drug use needs discussion but no-one sets out to become a drug addict. I also know addiction can effect all ages, colours, creeds and sexes.

And it is for EXACTLY this reason that we need to stop drug prohibition. By ostracising drug addicts, we are doing more harm to the most vulnerable than anyone else. Again, PROHIBITION DOES NOT STOP DRUG ADDICTION.

We should look at WHY people become drug addicts, and then help at the root of the problem, rather than chastising them for the one crutch which helps them live an otherwise miserable life.

e21Mark said:

Life is actually pretty good without the need to take any mood altering drug. You're not settling for less, or missing out, if you choose not to drink or take drugs. In fact, quite the opposite.

It's fantastic that you feel this way. It really is, and I'm truly happy for you.

I don't feel this way at all. I feel had I never taken psychedelics, my life would have been profoundly different, and much less fulfilled for it. Psychedelics changed my life for the better, no-one will ever convince me otherwise on that fact. Seriously though, I'm very pleased you feel a sober life is totally fulfilling, but your experiences aren't the same as everyone else's.

[Eclassy]

Quite late to the discussion but why is cannabis a banned drug? I support the prohibition of chemically produced drugs like cocaine but why is a naturally growing plant banned?

[otolith]

Cocaine is extracted from the leaves of the coca plant.

[FredClogs]

Puff the magic DragonCaviar, to clarify are you describing the Florida situation as desirable? Or preferable to the current situation in the UK.

A zombie nation?

Seems to me opiates are good and a tad moreish why would anyone not take them if they were more readily available?

[Dragoncaviar]

otolith said:

Cocaine is extracted from the leaves of the coca plant.

And heroin refined from opium poppies. Even MDMA has its roots in the sassafras tree. Most drugs have their roots in nature somewhere.

There was even an acacia tree in New Mexico that was found to contain mescaline, nicotine, and methamphetamine, as well as a couple of other substances thought to be entirely man-synthesized before they turned up in this tree.

Eclassy said:

Quite late to the discussion but why is cannabis a banned drug? I support the prohibition of chemically produced drugs like cocaine but why is a naturally growing plant banned?

Well ... to steal a post I made a while back in a different thread ... it's all to do with William Randolph Hearst and Harry Anslinger ...

Hearst had invested heavily in the timber business to protect his other vested interests - newspapers. Of course this put him in a pretty powerful position with regards to distribution of propaganda on a national scale.

Anslinger, who had just become head of the DEA (known as the Bureau of Prohibition back then), and was looking to expand his authority, and control more than just opium and cocaine. So he teamed up with Hearst to distribute the "Reefer Madness" propaganda most of you will be familiar with. It was said that smoking cannabis made you violent and aggressive (something I think ALL of us see is absolute nonsense today), and at the heart of this, as well as vested business interests, was racism.

Hearst and Anslinger hated Mexicans. So, they were the obvious targets - those dirty mexicans and the filthy blacks with their killer marijuana from just over the border were the new threats to the United States.

It wasn't until the campaign was well under way that Du Pont and various other pharmaceutical companies also jumped on the bandwagon, and by the 1930's, Cannabis was an illegal drug in every state.

Interestingly, the Declaration of Independence is printed on hemp, and the first law the States passed with regards to Cannabis Sativa was one which insisted it was grown for its huge applications as a textile.