http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2009/06/report-they-didnt-want-you-to-see.html
QuoteThe largest ever study of cocaine use around the globe was carried out in the early 90's by the UN World Health Organisation (WHO) and funded by the UN Inter-regional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI), but under pressure from the US its publication was suppressed when it became clear the report's findings were in direct conflict with the myths, stereotypes and propaganda that prop up the war on drugs
(http://www.borev.net/coke.jpg)
:awesome:
Oh sure, making cocaine as easily available as marijuana would be a great thing for the youth of America. I don't know why the report has to be suppressed. Give it sunlight and then tear it apart. I'll even volunteer my time to help.
Quote from: Broken AI on September 23, 2009, 09:40:02 AM
they mis quoted the report:
Quote"Health problem; from the use of legal substances, particularly alcohol and tobacco, are greater than health problems from cocaine use, yet make you into less of an insufferable cunt. At least stoners shut the fuck up.
It's the old use vs abuse thing really. Nail anything hard enough it will fuck you up. Anything.
troof.
I'm tellin' ya...that "Last Great White Hope" straight dope documentary on the War on Drugs was an eye-opener, to say the least. I still recommend it to everyone. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1033467/
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 23, 2009, 10:58:34 AM
Oh sure, making cocaine as easily available as marijuana would be a great thing for the youth of America. I don't know why the report has to be suppressed. Give it sunlight and then tear it apart. I'll even volunteer my time to help.
Lone voice in the wilderness, ITT.
Well, it also doesn't help that the report blanketly indicts pretty much any and all prevention programs. Like all we do is go into schools and brainwash kids. Maybe that's what they were doing in the 80s but we've learned a lot since then, and now everything we do is research based. And sure, I bet there are some adults who can handle their coke. Great. But, just based on my observations and experience, they seem to be in a special class, and not the norm.
Oh I would probably never advocate cocaine being made legal at this point--we just don't have the counselling and resources necessary, let alone the education available, for the repercussions of such a step. Yes, the US is too immature. :p
But I do think that KNOWING how our "drug culture" came about, knowing who mandated what and for what purposes historically, is important in how we forge ahead in the future.
the part I don't like:
QuoteThe United States Government considered that, if WHO activities relating to drugs failed to reinforce proven drug control approaches, funds for the relevant programmes should be curtailed.
We are paying you scientists to tell us cocaine is bad. If your research reveals otherwise, you're off the payroll.
It's like how in the 1960s they were finding that LSD was a useful treatment for autism, but the gov't pulled the plug because they only wanted to hear that LSD is destroying culture.
don't get me wrong, I think coke is a shit drug and I've seen it fuck people up proper. But supressing actual scientific research because it doesn't match the public agenda is straight up facism.
it's the dark ages all over again
Facism? Face-ism?
"FUCK YOU CRAMULUS, WE'RE ANNEXING YOUR FACIAL HAIR"?
Quote from: Cramulus on September 23, 2009, 02:17:09 PM
the part I don't like:
QuoteThe United States Government considered that, if WHO activities relating to drugs failed to reinforce proven drug control approaches, funds for the relevant programmes should be curtailed.
We are paying you scientists to tell us cocaine is bad. If your research reveals otherwise, you're off the payroll.
It's like how in the 1960s they were finding that LSD was a useful treatment for autism, but the gov't pulled the plug because they only wanted to hear that LSD is destroying culture.
don't get me wrong, I think coke is a shit drug and I've seen it fuck people up proper. But supressing actual scientific research because it doesn't match the public agenda is straight up facism.
it's the dark ages all over again
The Correct Cramulcycle
Cocaine makes people irritating and then I want to slap them, and I imagine I'm not the only one.
I've done it twice and hated the shit out of it both times. What a stupid fucking drug. I plan to tell my children that, when they're old enough to know what the hell cocaine is.
That's Sister Nigel's drug prevention plan.
i have always believed there was a difference between crack and snorting, and that as far as addiction goes crack (or injecting ) were way worse.. what kind of use are they talking about ? and at what social/economic level?
Quote from: Cramulus on September 23, 2009, 02:17:09 PM
the part I don't like:
QuoteThe United States Government considered that, if WHO activities relating to drugs failed to reinforce proven drug control approaches, funds for the relevant programmes should be curtailed.
We are paying you scientists to tell us cocaine is bad. If your research reveals otherwise, you're off the payroll.
It's like how in the 1960s they were finding that LSD was a useful treatment for autism, but the gov't pulled the plug because they only wanted to hear that LSD is destroying culture.
Details?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 23, 2009, 02:09:54 PM
Well, it also doesn't help that the report blanketly indicts pretty much any and all prevention programs. Like all we do is go into schools and brainwash kids. Maybe that's what they were doing in the 80s but we've learned a lot since then, and now everything we do is research based. And sure, I bet there are some adults who can handle their coke. Great. But, just based on my observations and experience, they seem to be in a special class, and not the norm.
The report is, if its real, from 1990, so it reacts pretty much entirely to 80s, its response shouldn't be surprising Also didn't they suppress research that DARE is ineffective? Thats still around as far as I know.
The report looks like BS though. Not one citation in the entire thing, and no data. Details on the methods are sparse as hell for such a large study. It mentions public perception in some places but gives no indication of whether or not that perception is right. I'd shove it under a rug too, its not useful the way its written, and its so sloppy its embarrassing. (which may be normal for WHO reports I suppose).
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 23, 2009, 05:05:05 PM
The report is, if its real, from 1990, so it reacts pretty much entirely to 80s, its response shouldn't be surprising Also didn't they suppress research that DARE is ineffective?
If so they did a pretty awful job of it. It seems to be pretty common knowledge these days. Although, some DARE programs will alter the programming and have infused it with more evidence based best practices.
And that is the way most Prevention funding is going. You have to use programming that is evidence based or you get no funding from the government. My program is fortunate in that it is mostly funded by non-government money so I have a bit more flexibility in how I deliver the program, although my program does have a healthy amount of research to back it up. We just aren't officially a model program just yet.
Quote from: Nigel on September 23, 2009, 04:51:48 PM
Cocaine makes people irritating and then I want to slap them, and I imagine I'm not the only one.
This.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 23, 2009, 05:05:05 PM
The report looks like BS though. Not one citation in the entire thing, and no data. Details on the methods are sparse as hell for such a large study. It mentions public perception in some places but gives no indication of whether or not that perception is right. I'd shove it under a rug too, its not useful the way its written, and its so sloppy its embarrassing.
This appears to be a common problem... If a report isn't properly documented, it's useless; and even if the conclusions are true, you can't use it as a basis for reference.
Quote from: LMNO on September 23, 2009, 07:34:55 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 23, 2009, 05:05:05 PM
The report looks like BS though. Not one citation in the entire thing, and no data. Details on the methods are sparse as hell for such a large study. It mentions public perception in some places but gives no indication of whether or not that perception is right. I'd shove it under a rug too, its not useful the way its written, and its so sloppy its embarrassing.
This appears to be a common problem... If a report isn't properly documented, it's useless; and even if the conclusions are true, you can't use it as a basis for reference.
Also, I'm going to rely on anecdotal evidence for this one, to wit: Every single person I've known that has done coke has completely gone to shit.
I've done coke.
PROOF ENOUGH FOR YOU?!
Quote from: LMNO on September 23, 2009, 07:52:09 PM
I've done coke.
PROOF ENOUGH FOR YOU?!
Well, you ARE the only case of coke-driven satyriasis that I've seen.
Quote from: LMNO on September 23, 2009, 07:52:09 PM
I've done coke.
PROOF ENOUGH FOR YOU?!
I also have done coke... though not often. I think that there may be no drug that will fuck up your life as much as there are people who have fucked up lives and drugs just make it worse.
I don't think I've ever used a drug regularly, caffeine aside. I've tried most things, once or twice, but I don't seem to really have a habit-forming personality.
Which is probably just as well, since there has been a history of alcoholism in my family.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 24, 2009, 06:55:06 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 23, 2009, 07:52:09 PM
I've done coke.
PROOF ENOUGH FOR YOU?!
I also have done coke... though not often. I think that there may be no drug that will fuck up your life as much as there are people who have fucked up lives and drugs just make it worse.
Yeah, I don't think that is correct at all. I've seen many a drug user in my time in this field and they come in every shape, size, socio-economic status, color, etc., etc., Yeah, you've got your losers who got into drugs and things got much, much worse. But you also have some "straight and narrows" who go off the path when drugs enter the equation.
RWHN, no troll: Do you consider the possibility that there are certain psychological/physiological development types of people that will become addicted to something, and just "need" to find the catalyst that satisfies that addiction?
I mean, when you have addictions to stimulants, narcotics, opiates, hallucinogens, nicotene, alcohol, caffiene, food, porn, online gaming, gambling, and adrenaline... and you also have an equally large number of people who have indulged and not gotten addicted...
Then is there a possibility that before the physical addiction takes hold, there is an underlying psychological aberration that facilitates the obsession with a particular physiological state?
Quote from: LMNO on September 24, 2009, 07:21:44 PM
RWHN, no troll: Do you consider the possibility that there are certain psychological/physiological development types of people that will become addicted to something, and just "need" to find the catalyst that satisfies that addiction?
I mean, when you have addictions to stimulants, narcotics, opiates, hallucinogens, nicotene, alcohol, caffiene, food, porn, online gaming, gambling, and adrenaline... and you also have an equally large number of people who have indulged and not gotten addicted...
Then is there a possibility that before the physical addiction takes hold, there is an underlying psychological aberration that facilitates the obsession with a particular physiological state?
Oh sure. I'm not disputing that at all. What I'm suggesting is that this is very apparent for some, not so apparent for others. So it is easy to say "well it's not the drugs, it's the stupid people", but as we all know, not all people are that self aware. But I also believe that there are people who don't have addictive personalities, become curious, want to test boundaries, and then become addicted because the substance they use is very physically addictive. What are the percentages of all these possibilities? This is something we are still learning as time goes on.
I'm very happy to hear that despite of the things you encounter in your job, you still have the attitued of "needs more research, but until then, let's deal with what's going on right now."
That is why I am very leary of repeat uses of things that are physically addictive. I know mentally I'm pretty secure, but I don't have control over my physiological reaction. And also why I generally do not use any (other) drug with anything approaching regularity.
WHO WANTS A PINT OF SCOTCH!?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 24, 2009, 07:57:52 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 24, 2009, 07:21:44 PM
RWHN, no troll: Do you consider the possibility that there are certain psychological/physiological development types of people that will become addicted to something, and just "need" to find the catalyst that satisfies that addiction?
I mean, when you have addictions to stimulants, narcotics, opiates, hallucinogens, nicotene, alcohol, caffiene, food, porn, online gaming, gambling, and adrenaline... and you also have an equally large number of people who have indulged and not gotten addicted...
Then is there a possibility that before the physical addiction takes hold, there is an underlying psychological aberration that facilitates the obsession with a particular physiological state?
Oh sure. I'm not disputing that at all. What I'm suggesting is that this is very apparent for some, not so apparent for others. So it is easy to say "well it's not the drugs, it's the stupid people", but as we all know, not all people are that self aware. But I also believe that there are people who don't have addictive personalities, become curious, want to test boundaries, and then become addicted because the substance they use is very physically addictive. What are the percentages of all these possibilities? This is something we are still learning as time goes on.
That certianly seems to be a possibility for Heroin use... I've seen some very similar reactions by what I thought were sane people.
But then, they used Heroin, so I'm not sure that my assessment of their mental state was at all correct... :kingmeh:
The field really focuses more on the person than the substance these days. It's another reason I hate the "War on Drugs" term because it really is a misnomer. My point of view isn't that drugs need to be illegal because the drugs are evil and bad. It's because the monkeys are, well monkeys, and screw themselves up with them, and cannot be trusted to not screw themselves up, to the detriment of their communities. Nevermind the angle of adolescents who are still developing physically, mentally, and socially who get thrown off track after getting mixed up with substances.
Well, I've also known people who use herion who have not damaged their personal or social lives, in the same way that I know weekend binge drinkers who have not damaged their social or personal lives...
... that is to say, I tack on a big "YET" to those statements.
Quote from: LMNO on September 24, 2009, 08:22:14 PM
Well, I've also known people who use herion who have not damaged their personal or social lives, in the same way that I know weekend binge drinkers who have not damaged their social or personal lives...
... that is to say, I tack on a big "YET" to those statements.
A very good point. I have yet to find a drug that was 'addictive' for me, but I decided to give heroin a wide berth, just in case. I imagine my personal perception colors my thoughts a bit ;-)
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 24, 2009, 08:26:57 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 24, 2009, 08:22:14 PM
Well, I've also known people who use herion who have not damaged their personal or social lives, in the same way that I know weekend binge drinkers who have not damaged their social or personal lives...
... that is to say, I tack on a big "YET" to those statements.
A very good point. I have yet to find a drug that was 'addictive' for me, but I decided to give heroin a wide berth, just in case. I imagine my personal perception colors my thoughts a bit ;-)
Rat -Heroin is addictive to you and everyone else I don't think it cares what your perceptions of it are. :wink:
A person being given legally prescribed opiates (say, in a hospital setting) will develop dependency very quickly. The level of usage need only be every few hours or so for a week. I know of a number of addicts who started out on legal meds for pain conditions & injuries and even 'under medical supervision' they ended up as total burnouts.
LMNO - maybe I'm not meeting the higher quality junkies but I have yet to meet a heroin user who hasn't made a total fuck up of their lives and wreaked all manner of havoc in their wake.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 24, 2009, 08:20:32 PM
The field really focuses more on the person than the substance these days. It's another reason I hate the "War on Drugs" term because it really is a misnomer. My point of view isn't that drugs need to be illegal because the drugs are evil and bad. It's because the monkeys are, well monkeys, and screw themselves up with them, and cannot be trusted to not screw themselves up, to the detriment of their communities. Nevermind the angle of adolescents who are still developing physically, mentally, and socially who get thrown off track after getting mixed up with substances.
I had the idea the other day of an "abuser's license". To get alcohol and tobacco, at the moment, one requires a picture ID with date of birth and an adequate age. Up those parameters, require different applications for different drugs, include promise not to share or fuck up, and there, something easy but limiting.
Quote from: yhnmzw on September 25, 2009, 04:08:39 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 24, 2009, 08:20:32 PM
The field really focuses more on the person than the substance these days. It's another reason I hate the "War on Drugs" term because it really is a misnomer. My point of view isn't that drugs need to be illegal because the drugs are evil and bad. It's because the monkeys are, well monkeys, and screw themselves up with them, and cannot be trusted to not screw themselves up, to the detriment of their communities. Nevermind the angle of adolescents who are still developing physically, mentally, and socially who get thrown off track after getting mixed up with substances.
I had the idea the other day of an "abuser's license". To get alcohol and tobacco, at the moment, one requires a picture ID with date of birth and an adequate age. Up those parameters, require different applications for different drugs, include promise not to share or fuck up, and there, something easy but limiting.
How about the person would have to show proof of neurological immunity to the substance in question?
Quote from: GA on September 25, 2009, 06:24:41 AM
Quote from: yhnmzw on September 25, 2009, 04:08:39 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 24, 2009, 08:20:32 PM
The field really focuses more on the person than the substance these days. It's another reason I hate the "War on Drugs" term because it really is a misnomer. My point of view isn't that drugs need to be illegal because the drugs are evil and bad. It's because the monkeys are, well monkeys, and screw themselves up with them, and cannot be trusted to not screw themselves up, to the detriment of their communities. Nevermind the angle of adolescents who are still developing physically, mentally, and socially who get thrown off track after getting mixed up with substances.
I had the idea the other day of an "abuser's license". To get alcohol and tobacco, at the moment, one requires a picture ID with date of birth and an adequate age. Up those parameters, require different applications for different drugs, include promise not to share or fuck up, and there, something easy but limiting.
How about the person would have to show proof of neurological immunity to the substance in question?
Then there's absolutely no point. I was imagining recorded, graded exposure under controlled conditions, and certification in first aid.
Quote from: Mangrove on September 24, 2009, 11:25:46 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 24, 2009, 08:26:57 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 24, 2009, 08:22:14 PM
Well, I've also known people who use herion who have not damaged their personal or social lives, in the same way that I know weekend binge drinkers who have not damaged their social or personal lives...
... that is to say, I tack on a big "YET" to those statements.
A very good point. I have yet to find a drug that was 'addictive' for me, but I decided to give heroin a wide berth, just in case. I imagine my personal perception colors my thoughts a bit ;-)
Rat -Heroin is addictive to you and everyone else I don't think it cares what your perceptions of it are. :wink:
A person being given legally prescribed opiates (say, in a hospital setting) will develop dependency very quickly. The level of usage need only be every few hours or so for a week. I know of a number of addicts who started out on legal meds for pain conditions & injuries and even 'under medical supervision' they ended up as total burnouts.
LMNO - maybe I'm not meeting the higher quality junkies but I have yet to meet a heroin user who hasn't made a total fuck up of their lives and wreaked all manner of havoc in their wake.
or, you have and since they hadn't made a total wreck of their life and wreaked all manner of havoc in their wake, you just didn't know you'd met a heroin user.
TBH, that's pretty much the only drug I haven't tried so I'm not speaking from experience, but I've known casual users, much the same way I've known people who blew a gram of coke on weekends, or people who eat shrooms or acid whenever they go camping, or people who get plastered drunk every friday night and still manage to carry on normal, reasonably productive lives that had a neutral or positive impact on their communities. Point is that, as with almost anything, the extreme cases tend to get the most attention.
ECH,
I see what you're saying about the 'occasional' user though all the junkies I've encountered of late all started out that way. I don't doubt that there are people who use it from time to time and aren't overly bothered by it. The trouble is, it's a Russian Roulette - who knows who/when that person crosses the threshold from 'casual' into 'regular'. So to clarify my original statement: I don't know any regular heroin users who haven't created a huge amount of trouble for themselves and others.
I'll spare PD.com the gory details for now, but unfortunately Mrs Mang & I have had to witness the effects of heroin and the whole culture that goes with it at very close quarters. (Anyone who has had to endure protracted & regular interactions with junkies will know what I'm talking about.)
no argument there.
junkies are even worse than hippies.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 28, 2009, 01:00:46 AM
no argument there.
junkies are even worse than hippies.
Agreed.
Not that I've met one yet, but the only thing I can think of that would be worse would be a Wiccan Junky.