If (illicit) drugs were legal.

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, koti said:

Is there a scientific distinction between say, a double cheesburger and heroin?

Yes, heroin withdrawal can kill you. Not getting a burger just makes you a bit grumpy.

Did you really need someone to tell you that?

[koti]

14 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

The distinction between "hard" and "soft" drugs is not based in science, it is largely political dogma.

 

19 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Yes, heroin withdrawal can kill you. Not getting a burger just makes you a bit grumpy.

Did you really need someone to tell you that?

Cannabis withdrawal will not kill you yet you assert there is no scientific distinction between "hard" and "soft" drugs.
I'm not sure I follow. 

Edited August 11, 2018 by koti

[Ten oz]

26 minutes ago, koti said:

Cannabis withdrawal will not kill you yet you assert there is no scientific distinction between "hard" and "soft" drugs.
I'm not sure I follow. 

"Hard" and "soft" are relative decriptions that have no scientific definition outside of perhaps describing the texture of physical objects. 

[koti]

25 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

"Hard" and "soft" are relative decriptions that have no scientific definition outside of perhaps describing the texture of physical objects. 

Okay, so cannabis, opiates and cheesburgers are in the same group of consumer products despite the differences in withdrawal symptoms because there is no scientifically sound distinction other than politically driven dogma.

Did I miss anything or does that sound right ?

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, koti said:

Okay, so cannabis, opiates and cheesburgers are in the same group of consumer products despite the differences in withdrawal symptoms because there is no scientifically sound distinction other than politically driven dogma.

Did I miss anything or does that sound right ?

3

Well, you certainly missed the point of this thread but don't worry you're not alone...

[koti]

16 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Well, you certainly missed the point of this thread but don't worry you're not alone...

Yeah, I think the rest of this thread will be better off without me...or maybe the other way around? I get mixed up so easily, please carry on. 

[dimreepr]

48 minutes ago, koti said:

Yeah, I think the rest of this thread will be better off without me...or maybe the other way around? I get mixed up so easily, please carry on. 

There is no better, there is just, is...

 

[koti]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

There is no better, there is just, is...

 

You are the master of nihilism dim, aren’t you. 

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, koti said:

You are the master of nihilism dim, aren’t you. 

Not on purpose...

[John Cuthber]

2 hours ago, koti said:

Cannabis withdrawal will not kill you yet you assert there is no scientific distinction between "hard" and "soft" drugs.
I'm not sure I follow. 

WTF are you on about?

(1 ) There is no scientific distinction between hard + soft drugs- the idea is sociopolitical.

 

(2)There is a difference between burgers and heroin.

 

But, since a burger isn't a drug, there is no relation between the two facts.

 

[Moontanman]

55 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

WTF are you on about?

(1 ) There is no scientific distinction between hard + soft drugs- the idea is sociopolitical.

So  there is no difference between caffeine, alcohol, Cannabis,  shrooms, LSD, Opiates, Peyote, Sage, and what ever you drink shoot snort or rub into your belly? 

 

55 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

 

(2)There is a difference between burgers and heroin.

Yeah one is a disgusting way to kill yourself the other kills orders of magnitude less but generally involves a needle... 

55 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

 

But, since a burger isn't a drug, there is no relation between the two facts.

 

Some would disagree but I am with you on this as long as a non drug can be addictive.... 

[MigL]

I thought this was a thread discussing pros and cons of legalization...

Whether a socio-political distinction, or a scientific distinction, the facts are that some drugs are more damaging to a society than others.
How far are we prepared to go with legalization ?
Pot is about to be legalized here in Canada, even though I'm not sure how I'd feel about a car full of 'smoke' behind me on the road.
But what about 'harder' drugs ( no matter how defined ) ?
I definitely don't want someone on hallucinogenics driving anywhere near me.

And I realize the law always makes a distinction based on socio-economic conditions of the perpetrators, but, in the case of so-called 'victimeless crimes' there is a huge distinction.
In the case of drugs the seller is always vilified while the user is often excused as they have no 'control' over their actions.
In the case of prostitution the 'seller' is often excused while the 'user is targeted more because they provide the market.
Should that line of thinking not be applied to the fight against drug use ?
Without a market there is no incentive for anyone to sell.

[Moontanman]

1 minute ago, MigL said:

I thought this was a thread discussing pros and cons of legalization...

Whether a socio-political distinction, or a scientific distinction, the facts are that some drugs are more damaging to a society than others.
How far are we prepared to go with legalization ?
Pot is about to be legalized here in Canada, even though I'm not sure how I'd feel about a car full of 'smoke' behind me on the road.
But what about 'harder' drugs ( no matter how defined ) ?
I definitely don't want someone on hallucinogenics driving anywhere near me.

And I realize the law always makes a distinction based on socio-economic conditions of the perpetrators, but, in the case of so-called 'victimeless crimes' there is a huge distinction.
In the case of drugs the seller is always vilified while the user is often excused as they have no 'control' over their actions.
In the case of prostitution the 'seller' is often excused while the 'user is targeted more because they provide the market.
Should that line of thinking not be applied to the fight against drug use ?
Without a market there is no incentive for anyone to sell.

You do realise that legalization doesn't extend to driving right? 

[John Cuthber]

23 minutes ago, MigL said:

I thought this was a thread discussing pros and cons of legalization...

And there seems to be some debate about what we might want to legalise (or not).

If we can't even define a "drug" then we are going to struggle with a debate on legalising drugs.

32 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

So  there is no difference between caffeine, alcohol, Cannabis,  shrooms, LSD, Opiates, Peyote, Sage, and what ever you drink shoot snort or rub into your belly? 

The problem isn't that there are no differences, but that they are all different.

So putting some, but not all, of them into a category (like "soft") is arbitrary.

[Moontanman]

5 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

And there seems to be some debate about what we might want to legalise (or not).

If we can't even define a "drug" then we are going to struggle with a debate on legalising drugs.

The problem isn't that there are no differences, but that they are all different.

So putting some, but not all, of them into a category (like "soft") is arbitrary.

You have a point, the current system is meaningless... worse it actually spreads false information 

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

So  there is no difference between caffeine, alcohol, Cannabis,  shrooms, LSD, Opiates, Peyote, Sage, and what ever you drink shoot snort or rub into your belly? 

It's whatever the powers decide; it's arbitrary. In the UK, mushrooms could be consumed fresh at one time, then they made that illegal and put them in Class A i.e 'hard'.

Edited August 11, 2018 by StringJunky

[John Cuthber]

37 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It's whatever the powers decide;

And those powers are explicitly anti-science.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18099-david-nutt-governments-should-get-real-on-drugs/

[StringJunky]

45 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

And those powers are explicitly anti-science.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18099-david-nutt-governments-should-get-real-on-drugs/

Yes.

[MigL]

Of course it doesn't extend to doesn't extend to driving, Moony.
But if a police officer thinks I'm inebriated he gives me a breathalizer test to verify and takes my licence/impounds my vehicle.

How exactly does he verify that I'm stoned without doing blood work ?
Roadside technology doesn't extend that far yet, and that is ONE obstacle holding up legalization of pot in Canada.

[Ten oz]

In the U.S. drug overdoses killed over 70,000 people a in 2017. That is a 5 fold increase from the 90's. Illicit drugs specifically killed about 40,000 people in 2017.

Quote

 

 Drugs Involved in U.S. Overdose Deaths* - Among the more than 72,000 drug overdose deaths estimated in 2017*, the sharpest increase occurred among deaths related to fentanyl and fentanyl analogs (synthetic opioids) with nearly 30,000 overdose deaths. Source: CDC WONDER

https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates

 

I think making illicit drugs legal would help reduce the death. People would have access to more reliable sources of their drug of choice and would be able to use those drugs in safer environments. My concern is that legalizing the drugs doesn't address the increase in use (neither does keeping them illegal).  

[dimreepr]

12 hours ago, MigL said:

Of course it doesn't extend to doesn't extend to driving, Moony.
But if a police officer thinks I'm inebriated he gives me a breathalizer test to verify and takes my licence/impounds my vehicle.

How exactly does he verify that I'm stoned without doing blood work ?
Roadside technology doesn't extend that far yet, and that is ONE obstacle holding up legalization of pot in Canada.

The legal status of the said drug changes nothing.

41 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I think making illicit drugs legal would help reduce the death. People would have access to more reliable sources of their drug of choice and would be able to use those drugs in safer environments. My concern is that legalizing the drugs doesn't address the increase in use (neither does keeping them illegal).  

Indeed, not to mention the potential tax revenue that would not only pay for health support for the addicts but could also help reduce the primary driver for drug abuse, poverty. While simultaneously freeing a huge amount, of people and money, that is currently spent on an unwinnable war; not to mention the suffering and deaths of the innocents caught up in the cartels/mafia/criminals that continue to profit on that suffering.

And all because people don't like other people self-medicating, which ironically is also a saving (in most countries).    

Edited August 12, 2018 by dimreepr

[CharonY]

On 8/11/2018 at 9:51 AM, koti said:

Okay, so cannabis, opiates and cheesburgers are in the same group of consumer products despite the differences in withdrawal symptoms because there is no scientifically sound distinction other than politically driven dogma.

Did I miss anything or does that sound right ?

Perhaps it helps to recognize that these terms mean different things in different contexts and as John pointed out, the one used here is mostly a legal-political distinction. If you look into scientific literature you will find that these distinction are also blurry there. For example, in some studies "hardness" is defined as likelihood of addiction, in which case nicotine, and alcohol would rank among the hard drugs and LSD and ecstasy among the soft drugs. Often, you won't even find a definition, rather the direct use of the legal terms. If you want to add cheeseburgers to the mix, you'd have to show me the type and amount of involved psychoactive substances. The point however, is that it is not a good way to decide on legalization, especially as the legal definitions are often vague and based on historic reasons (e.g. classifying drugs associated with certain ethnicity as hard, whereas categorizing more familiar ones as soft).

To OP: the fact that criminalizing drugs has not help to curb their abuse and puts users into legal jeopardy on top of health issues does seem to indicate that legal actions are useless to address this issue. Revamping drug abuse as  health problem is more likely to save lives by the fact that drug users can actually try to get help without facing the risk of legal challenge, for example.

 

Edited August 17, 2018 by CharonY

[koti]

53 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Perhaps it helps to recognize that these terms mean different things in different contexts and as John pointed out, the one used here is mostly a legal-political distinction. If you look into scientific literature you will find that these distinction are also blurry there. For example, in some studies "hardness" is defined as likelihood of addiction, in which case nicotine, and alcohol would rank among the hard drugs and LSD and ecstasy among the soft drugs. Often, you won't even find a definition, rather the direct use of the legal terms. If you want to add cheeseburgers to the mix, you'd have to show me the type and amount of involved psychoactive substances. The point however, is that it is not a good way to decide on legalization, especially as the legal definitions are often vague and based on historic reasons (e.g. classifying drugs associated with certain ethnicity as hard, whereas categorizing more familiar ones as soft).

 

I honestly can’t see whats blurry about nicotine or THC withdrawal not killing you whereas heroin or alcohol withdrawal possibly killing you. I sincerely cannot understand why it is so difficult to legislate drugs based on the devastation they do to the human body/mind/social constructs.

 

[Moontanman]

4 minutes ago, koti said:

I honestly can’t see whats blurry about nicotine or THC withdrawal not killing you whereas heroin or alcohol withdrawal possibly killing you. I sincerely cannot understand why it is so difficult to legislate drugs based on the devastation they do to the human body/mind/social constructs.

 

THC withdrawal? Really? I've never experienced such a thing, but I have experienced opiate withdrawal, hell on earth, cold turkey is the best description possible... 

[koti]

6 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

THC withdrawal? Really? I've never experienced such a thing, but I have experienced opiate withdrawal, hell on earth, cold turkey is the best description possible... 

That is my point exactly Moon.