Trigger warning: Drugs

[Mangrove]

I've heard the argument before that 'if you had totally clean heroin, in controlled doses, administered correctly then it's not that dangerous'. There was one pharmacology professor (whose name escapes me) who raised a bunch of eyebrows by making the above case and telling his students that under those conditions, your worst problems as a heroin user would be impotence and constipation(!).

And all this may be true, and it may also be true that heroin isn't as damaging to the organs as, say alcohol. Still, to me it's a kind of pointless argument only because the 'clean, controlled, safe heroin' is to be found practically NOWHERE. [It's like when people start geeking out on too many popular science tv shows about physics. Yes, ok so we get that time travel is theoretically possible if you can do XYZ. Trouble is, XYZ is so phenomenally difficult to achieve, that at this stage of history it's not exactly a pressing conCERN.]

So 'clean heroin' might not be as problematic. But the real actual heroin that real actual people buy and use most totally is.

I get what Pergamos is saying. However, as I've suggested, being pedantic about the qualities of a particular molecule doesn't explain much about or help the daily reality of being an addict or being in the orbit of addicts as Nigel and myself have (and probably a whole bunch of other people here on PD.)

If you go back to Nutt's research that was linked a few posts ago, he most certainly included 'secondary harm' in his work. Harm is harm. Anyone who doesn't believe me, should invite an opiate addict to live in their home for a few months.

[Junkenstein]

Taking advantage of the apparent agreement on this chart, can i just point out that Cannabis is kind of in the middle, with its Dependency rating being on par with Amphetamine amd higher than other illicit drugs.

Where is alcohol?

[AFK]

Taking advantage of the apparent agreement on this chart, can i just point out that Cannabis is kind of in the middle, with its Dependency rating being on par with Amphetamine amd higher than other illicit drugs.

Where is alcohol?

Within spitting distance.

[AFK]

Taking advantage of the apparent agreement on this chart, can i just point out that Cannabis is kind of in the middle, with its Dependency rating being on par with Amphetamine amd higher than other illicit drugs.

And lower than some licit ones.
A few pages from now, you are going to remind us that cannabis should be evaluated on its own merits, so it's a moot point anyway.

it is, but it is a moot point many here seem to focus on.  Just wanted to point out that cannabis and alcohol aren't as far apart as many would suggest.

[Junkenstein]

Taking advantage of the apparent agreement on this chart, can i just point out that Cannabis is kind of in the middle, with its Dependency rating being on par with Amphetamine amd higher than other illicit drugs.

Where is alcohol?

Within spitting distance.

No. Try again.

[AFK]

I see it perfectly fine.  I also know that if one were to have placed the dot purely based upon the prevailing opinions that have been put forth in our various drug threads that it would be hovering around 0,0.


But in fact, the physical harm is within .5 of alcohol and the gap for dependency is even less.

[AFK]

In other words it IS addictive and it is NOT harmless.

[Cain]

-

[Junkenstein]

I see it perfectly fine.  I also know that if one were to have placed the dot purely based upon the prevailing opinions that have been put forth in our various drug threads that it would be hovering around 0,0.


But in fact, the physical harm is within .5 of alcohol and the gap for dependency is even less.

It shows how little you understand if you think the general feeling of the board would put marijuana at 0,0.

The point I was trying to help you see is that you seem proactive on the evils of drugs, yet I hear you say little or nothing against alcohol. Which is established objectively as more harmful.

But alcohol is fine because you have a beer occasionally.

LOGIC.

[Pergamos]

I think that Pergamos is essentially saying that he doesn't think that secondary harm that results from regular and frequent heroin use should be considered harm from heroin. I disagree, because by that logic we can also say that HIV is harmless because nobody gets sick from HIV, they get sick from secondary infections made possible by their HIV-compromised immune systems. Secondary physical harm is still physical harm, particularly when you're looking at an addiction rate of about 23% of all users.

No, I am saying that the graph is not well made because it is putting the harm due to addiction on a different axis and then putting that on the same graph.  It's like making a graph that ranks cars on fuel consumption and exhaust produced.  Harm from addiction is going to eclipse physical harm from the drug itself unless the drug itself is insanely physically harmful (like, say, krokodil)

[Pergamos]

I've heard the argument before that 'if you had totally clean heroin, in controlled doses, administered correctly then it's not that dangerous'. There was one pharmacology professor (whose name escapes me) who raised a bunch of eyebrows by making the above case and telling his students that under those conditions, your worst problems as a heroin user would be impotence and constipation(!).

And all this may be true, and it may also be true that heroin isn't as damaging to the organs as, say alcohol. Still, to me it's a kind of pointless argument only because the 'clean, controlled, safe heroin' is to be found practically NOWHERE. [It's like when people start geeking out on too many popular science tv shows about physics. Yes, ok so we get that time travel is theoretically possible if you can do XYZ. Trouble is, XYZ is so phenomenally difficult to achieve, that at this stage of history it's not exactly a pressing conCERN.]

So 'clean heroin' might not be as problematic. But the real actual heroin that real actual people buy and use most totally is.

I get what Pergamos is saying. However, as I've suggested, being pedantic about the qualities of a particular molecule doesn't explain much about or help the daily reality of being an addict or being in the orbit of addicts as Nigel and myself have (and probably a whole bunch of other people here on PD.)

If you go back to Nutt's research that was linked a few posts ago, he most certainly included 'secondary harm' in his work. Harm is harm. Anyone who doesn't believe me, should invite an opiate addict to live in their home for a few months.

It becomes less barstool deserving if you take into account that without prohibition clean controlled safe heroin would be available.

[Junkenstein]

I've heard the argument before that 'if you had totally clean heroin, in controlled doses, administered correctly then it's not that dangerous'. There was one pharmacology professor (whose name escapes me) who raised a bunch of eyebrows by making the above case and telling his students that under those conditions, your worst problems as a heroin user would be impotence and constipation(!).

[...]

So 'clean heroin' might not be as problematic. But the real actual heroin that real actual people buy and use most totally is.

I'm certain I read the same study, as that's my exact understanding as well.

I'll third this. If anyone cares I'm pretty sure I've got it on an external drive somewhere.

[Junkenstein]

I see it perfectly fine.  I also know that if one were to have placed the dot purely based upon the prevailing opinions that have been put forth in our various drug threads that it would be hovering around 0,0.


But in fact, the physical harm is within .5 of alcohol and the gap for dependency is even less.

Also, note proximity of alcohol to STREET METHADONE.

Think about that when you're talking about what's in "spitting distance"

[AFK]

I see it perfectly fine.  I also know that if one were to have placed the dot purely based upon the prevailing opinions that have been put forth in our various drug threads that it would be hovering around 0,0.


But in fact, the physical harm is within .5 of alcohol and the gap for dependency is even less.

It shows how little you understand if you think the general feeling of the board would put marijuana at 0,0.

The point I was trying to help you see is that you seem proactive on the evils of drugs, yet I hear you say little or nothing against alcohol. Which is established objectively as more harmful.

But alcohol is fine because you have a beer occasionally.

LOGIC.

Start a thread about alcohol and we can talk about it.  All of the past drug threads have centered on the marijuana legalization question.


I also get paid to do underage drinking prevention, so trust me it is something I pay attention to on a daily basis.

[AFK]

I see it perfectly fine.  I also know that if one were to have placed the dot purely based upon the prevailing opinions that have been put forth in our various drug threads that it would be hovering around 0,0.


But in fact, the physical harm is within .5 of alcohol and the gap for dependency is even less.

Also, note proximity of alcohol to STREET METHADONE.

Think about that when you're talking about what's in "spitting distance"

Yep, alcohol is nasty stuff.