If (illicit) drugs were legal.

[Moontanman]

9 minutes ago, koti said:

That is my point exactly Moon.

I am sorry I thought you were trying to say that THC withdrawal is a thing...  

[koti]

29 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I am sorry I thought you were trying to say that THC withdrawal is a thing...  

I’m sure there are some psychological aspects of THC addiction/withdrawal and that probably might be a thing but as you suggested its a different ballgame from hard drug addiction/withdrawal like heroin, crack or amphetamine. I’m trying to understand why its hard to distinguish between hard and soft drugs. Withdrawal symptoms are probably the most obvious difference. 

[CharonY]

46 minutes ago, koti said:

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.

The issue is of course that it is a) only looking at a part of the equation and b) it is highly dependent on the individual and as such c) there is no objective way to measure. For example, where do you draw the line of lethality of withdrawal. Do suicide attempts count? What about if death only occurs in patients with heart conditions? Or if death only occurs due to the type of detox treatments? What if the actual symptoms are only lethal when not managed properly? In that regard one could classify alcohol as hard drug, as withdrawals has a higher rate of death (ca. 6%), whereas with opiate withdrawal death is extremely rare. Some may think that opiate withdrawal is deadly, but whilst extremely uncomfortable deaths typically are caused by mistreatment (there reports, but no hard numbers that overdosing on replacement drugs may have caused complications) or not taking care of symptoms (e.g. not drinking enough).

Thus merely based on withdrawal symptoms opiate should be considered soft or at least softer than alcohol.

In fact, death due to withdrawal are often caused by secondary effects as e.g choking or water loss (due to vomiting and diarrhea, for example). And if you add things like devastation or harm to society things get even more complicated. Then the issue of hard vs soft has to take prevalence into account, impairment during use (e.g. drunk driving) etc.

Especially social aspects are a horrible measure. Crack is such an example, where it is considered a worse drug than cocaine (which is virtually the same psychoactive substance). However, since it was judged that the former has a worse impact on the population it carried a higher punishment (and according to some studies, the fact that in the US it was mostly aimed at African Americans, also played a more or less covert role). 

So again, what is the measurable value that you would like to use to classify the substances? Activity per mg? Addictive properties? Prevalence in use? How to quantify these values? How to quantify something as vague as social impact?

While things may seem trivial, they are clearly not. Too often societal impact appears fairly straightforward for issues and certain policies seem to make intuitive sense. Only way later, when we collect data do we realize that the assumptions were too simple and/or biased resulting in failures such as the war on drugs.

[Moontanman]

14 minutes ago, koti said:

I’m sure there are some psychological aspects of THC addiction/withdrawal and that probably might be a thing but as you suggested its a different ballgame from hard drug addiction/withdrawal like heroin, crack or amphetamine. I’m trying to understand why its hard to distinguish between hard and soft drugs. Withdrawal symptoms are probably the most obvious difference. 

 If you stop smoking pot suddenly you might experience some mild irritability about two weeks after your last joint, lasts a day or two and is so subtle most people miss it completely. oxycodone begins to make you feel like you are dying an hour or so after your next pill is scheduled and gets worse from there.i have extreme chronic pain and i would rather die than risk getting addicted to oxy again...    

Edited August 17, 2018 by Moontanman

[koti]

38 minutes ago, CharonY said:

 The issue is of course that it is a) only looking at a part of the equation and b) it is highly dependent on the individual and as such c) there is no objective way to measure. For example, where do you draw the line of lethality of withdrawal. Do suicide attempts count? What about if death only occurs in patients with heart conditions? Or if death only occurs due to the type of detox treatments? What if the actual symptoms are only lethal when not managed properly? In that regard one could classify alcohol as hard drug, as withdrawals has a higher rate of death (ca. 6%), whereas with opiate withdrawal death is extremely rare. Some may think that opiate withdrawal is deadly, but whilst extremely uncomfortable deaths typically are caused by mistreatment (there reports, but no hard numbers that overdosing on replacement drugs may have caused complications) or not taking care of symptoms (e.g. not drinking enough).

Thus merely based on withdrawal symptoms opiate should be considered soft or at least softer than alcohol.

In fact, death due to withdrawal are often caused by secondary effects as e.g choking or water loss (due to vomiting and diarrhea, for example). And if you add things like devastation or harm to society things get even more complicated. Then the issue of hard vs soft has to take prevalence into account, impairment during use (e.g. drunk driving) etc.

Especially social aspects are a horrible measure. Crack is such an example, where it is considered a worse drug than cocaine (which is virtually the same psychoactive substance). However, since it was judged that the former has a worse impact on the population it carried a higher punishment (and according to some studies, the fact that in the US it was mostly aimed at African Americans, also played a more or less covert role). 

So again, what is the measurable value that you would like to use to classify the substances? Activity per mg? Addictive properties? Prevalence in use? How to quantify these values? How to quantify something as vague as social impact?

While things may seem trivial, they are clearly not. Too often societal impact appears fairly straightforward for issues and certain policies seem to make intuitive sense. Only way later, when we collect data do we realize that the assumptions were too simple and/or biased resulting in failures such as the war on drugs.

To cut to the chase - what is your take on how the legislation related to drugs should look?

37 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

 If you stop smoking pot suddenly you might experience some mild irritability about two weeks after your last joint, lasts a day or two and is so subtle most people miss it completely. oxycodone begins to make you feel like you are dying an hour or so after your next pill is scheduled and gets worse from there.i have extreme chronic pain and i would rather die than risk getting addicted to oxy again...    

I have a fairly high tolerance of pain so fortunately I never got to be addicted to any pain killers but I have my share of experience with all the other drugs mentioned in this thread.

[Ken Fabian]

On 12/08/2018 at 10:36 AM, MigL said:

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.

We have roadside drug testing in Australia - it's a saliva test. It doesn't cover every kind of drug. Methamphetamines, cannabis, and MDMA but not opiates - (latter could be problems with tests distinguishing between opiate based analgesics and heroin - or consumption of poppy seeds).

Anecdotally the results appear to vary widely, with people who had smoked weed sometimes, to their surprise, passing the test and others claiming it picked up usage from days prior. Supposedly it should show usage within the past 12 hours but I'm not convinced the test used is consistently accurate and I'm not sure what the minimum concentrations detected are or if that minimum relates to any trialled and tested 'safe' versus 'unsafe' levels for driving ability. In my view it's primarily been a political move, to appease the many drinkers who are subject to testing and who want to share that experience with weed smokers and 'iceheads', and it works as yet more 'tough on drugs' style politicking.

Back to the question - I support legalisation across the board, ie legally available for sale to adults. Policing dealing with problem behaviour will go on, much the way they deal with drunks  but burglary and theft by addicts supporting their habits would be much reduced and 'drug enforcement' will focus on a much reduced illegal supply chain. 'War on drugs' resourcing can be turned to education and rehabilitation.

I'd also support ongoing research into addiction and searching for biochemical means of short-circuiting addiction's feedback loops; an effective medical means of dealing with addiction would be very welcome.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, koti said:

To cut to the chase - what is your take on how the legislation related to drugs should look?

As  I mentioned earlier, I do not think that a punishment scheme will help to resolve the issue. The justification of hard vs soft drugs (and associated punishment) is more of a distraction than anything else in my mind. It should be treated as any other public health issue and legislature should reflect that. Withdrawal symptoms or anything related to that only provides the illusion of objectivity. This only provides law makers with the possibility to take a hard stance against X, without actually resolving the issue itself.

 

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

 If you stop smoking pot suddenly you might experience some mild irritability about two weeks after your last joint, lasts a day or two and is so subtle most people miss it completely.

These are indeed withdrawal symptoms and as you mentioned are transient and the inconvenience is fairly minor. Nonetheless, they can be traced and are considered clinically relevant.

4 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

We have roadside drug testing in Australia - it's a saliva test. It doesn't cover every kind of drug. Methamphetamines, cannabis, and MDMA but not opiates - (latter could be problems with tests distinguishing between opiate based analgesics and heroin - or consumption of poppy seeds).

IIRC these tests (while quite often in use already) tend to give out false positives. Though to be fair, roadside alcohol tests are not that accurate, either. 

[Moontanman]

4 minutes ago, CharonY said:

These are indeed withdrawal symptoms and as you mentioned are transient and the inconvenience is fairly minor. Nonetheless, they can be traced and are considered clinically relevant.

Yes they are indeed withdrawal symptoms but they are personally irrelevant. It took my three tires to go cold turkey off oxycontin, each time was two weeks of vomiting, diarrhea, bone aches, sweats and extreme chills, severe depression, it felt like a super flue. Made me worried I might continue to live like that... Doctor wouldn't help, he insisted i needed to take the drugs but the panic attacks and hallucinations were more than I could take...

[StringJunky]

3 hours 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... 

A person can be severely psychologically addicted to cannabis such that it it consumes their whole waking life. In fact the psychological/habitual aspect is the main part of any drug addiction. With the exception of alcohol and barbiturates - in which unmonitored withdrawal can be lethal - the problem is mostly mental. Psychosomatic effects are very powerful and feel real to the afflicted and people feel genuinely ill but it's their mind and expectations driving the symptoms. Most physical addictions last about two weeks and then it's the mental side and habituation you have to deal with.

People who actively take drugs are not the best sources for objective discussion on this subject.

Edited August 17, 2018 by StringJunky

[Moontanman]

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

A person can be severely psychologically addicted to cannabis such that it it consumes their whole waking life. In fact the psychological/habitual aspect is the main part of any drug addiction. With the exception of alcohol and barbiturates - in which unmonitored withdrawal can be lethal - the problem is mostly mental. Psychosomatic effects are very powerful and feel real to the afflicted and people feel genuinely ill but it's their mind expectations driving the symptoms. Most physical addictions last about two weeks and then it's the mental side and habituation you have to deal with.

People who actively take drugs are not the best sources for objective discussion on this subject.

Who would be the best source? Someone who had never experienced it and had no clue? 

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, Moontanman said:

Who would be the best source? Someone who had never experienced it and had no clue? 

An ex-user would be far more reliable. Current users are liable to just say anything that supports their activity.

[Moontanman]

Just now, StringJunky said:

An ex-user would be far more reliable. Current users are liable to just say anything that supports their activity.

I was never a recreational user, that is an important distinction as well. 

[StringJunky]

2 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I was never a recreational user, that is an important distinction as well. 

True. 

[CharonY]

47 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Yes they are indeed withdrawal symptoms but they are personally irrelevant. It took my three tires to go cold turkey off oxycontin, each time was two weeks of vomiting, diarrhea, bone aches, sweats and extreme chills, severe depression, it felt like a super flue. Made me worried I might continue to live like that... Doctor wouldn't help, he insisted i needed to take the drugs but the panic attacks and hallucinations were more than I could take...

Well, in comparison it may very well be relatively irrelevant. But it is a difference to having no effect. Even (relatively) mild symptoms can hamper efforts to get rid of an addiction, for example. From limited studies cannabis withdrawal mimics the symptoms of tobacco withdrawal. 

 

[koti]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

As  I mentioned earlier, I do not think that a punishment scheme will help to resolve the issue. The justification of hard vs soft drugs (and associated punishment) is more of a distraction than anything else in my mind. It should be treated as any other public health issue and legislature should reflect that. Withdrawal symptoms or anything related to that only provides the illusion of objectivity. This only provides law makers with the possibility to take a hard stance against X, without actually resolving the issue itself.

How would that be implemented in practical terms? I presume a legislator legalising say cocaine in some way which you have in mind would want to eradictate all illegitimate sources of that drug on the market by making it pure and financially accesible to the users who are in need of it - say medical marihuana type of scheme but tighter (at least thats what I presume you would have in mind) I can tell you right now that I would be looking for ways to find access to that cocaine. I haven’t had any drugs for about 8 years and I’ve done them sporadically and recreationally in my earlier life managing to keep a lid on things but hell, you give me potential access to purest possible cocaine at a reasonable price and I’m pretty sure I’d start looking for it. How would you resolve the issue of people who would try drugs they would have never tried if it wasn’t for the fact that they’re legal? Alcohol is so devastating because its easilly accesable and cheap (compared to other drugs) I am aware that there are societies where legalizing hard drugs is a thing (Canada I think) but surely it can’t work in all societies?

Edited August 18, 2018 by koti

[Moontanman]

6 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Well, in comparison it may very well be relatively irrelevant. But it is a difference to having no effect. Even (relatively) mild symptoms can hamper efforts to get rid of an addiction, for example. From limited studies cannabis withdrawal mimics the symptoms of tobacco withdrawal. 

 

Do you have a link to those studies? 

[StringJunky]

8 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Well, in comparison it may very well be relatively irrelevant. But it is a difference to having no effect. Even (relatively) mild symptoms can hamper efforts to get rid of an addiction, for example. From limited studies cannabis withdrawal mimics the symptoms of tobacco withdrawal. 

 

Mostly, when people are experiencing "withdrawal symptoms" it's the effect of the body readjusting to the absence of the drug. Habitual users learn that if they repeat the dose at this point they can stave off that readjustment and then they eventually end up in that recurring addiction cycle. Even caffeinated coffee and tea consumption is the same; when the caffeine wears off, you feel edgy until you have another. The beverage doesn't give you "a lift" after a while using it, it just puts you back to what you think is 'normal'. 

[Moontanman]

7 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Mostly, when people are experiencing "withdrawal symptoms" it's the effect of the body readjusting to the absence of the drug. Habitual users learn that if they repeat the dose at this point they can stave off that readjustment and then they eventually end up in that recurring addiction cycle. Even caffeinated coffee and tea consumption is the same; when the caffeine wears off, you feel edgy until you have another. The beverage doesn't give you "a lift" after a while using it, it just puts you back to what you think is 'normal'. 

so you don't think you can slowly reduce the dose to avoid the extremes of withdrawal? 

[StringJunky]

9 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

so you don't think you can slowly reduce the dose to avoid the extremes of withdrawal? 

I was on about in the beginning, when someone starts taking drugs. The withdrawal then is basically a hangover, which then becomes something a user dreads and actively seeks to avoid by consuming more. Did you ever have anyone say to you that you need the "hair of the dog" to sort out your hangover, and then hand you another drink?

Yes, a controlled withdrawal is best in cases of long-term habituation.

Edited August 18, 2018 by StringJunky

[Moontanman]

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I was on about in the beginning, when someone starts taking drugs. The withdrawal then is basically a hangover, which then becomes something a user dreads and actively seeks to avoid by consuming more. Did you ever have anyone say to you that you need the "hair of the dog" to sort out your hangover, and then hand you another drink?

Yes, a controlled withdrawal is best in cases of long-term habituation.

Yeah I've had people do that, it doesn't work, in fact it always made me much sicker... 

[CharonY]

3 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Do you have a link to those studies? 

Off the top of my head there were two with Vandrey as first author, which had a very small cohort. A larger group was queried in a follow up. I will have to search a bit to find the precise references, though.

 

19 minutes ago, koti said:

How would that be implemented in practical terms? I presume a legislator legalising say cocaine in some way which you have in mind would want to eradictate all illegitimate sources of that drug on the market by making it pure and financially accesible to the users who are in need of it - say medical marihuana type of scheme but tighter (at least thats what I presume you would have in mind) I can tell you right now that I would be looking for ways to find access to that cocaine. I haven’t had any drugs for about 8 years and I’ve done them sporadically and recreationally in my earlier life managing to keep a lid on things but hell, you give me potential access to purest possible cocaine at a reasonable price and I’m pretty sure I’d start looking for it. How would you resolve the issue of people who would try drugs they would have never tried if it wasn’t for the fact that they’re legal? Alcohol is so devastating because its easilly accesable and cheap (compared to other drugs) I am aware that there are societies where legalizing hard drugs is a thing (Canada I think) but surely it can’t work in all societies?

Let's put it the other way round. Assume that we just punish any drug use severely. Does this drive down addiction rates? Empirical evidence shows that it is not the case. Rather, addicts just end up in jail, become poorer and once leaving institutions have massive relapse rates. In other words, punishing drug use does not reduce drug users, but in fact adds harm to a harmful situation. 

So what would change if we treat it as a medical rather than a legal problem? The focus here is to reduce drug related damages. Key is that possession for personal does not carry a criminal penalty in itself. For example, drug addicts would be targeted with rehabilitation rather than with criminal penalties. Trafficking and production could still be illegal (which probably would be considered decriminalization rather than legalization? not sure about the legal implications). Providing needle exchange and dispensaries have shown to limit deaths and spread of diseases. 

In Germany, for example it has been ruled that drug addiction or possession for personal use is not considered a crime and drug injection rooms were established. Likewise, treatment of addicts are covered by health insurance. Portugal has taken broader steps for decriminalization and at least for certain risk groups saw health benefits in terms of reduced HIV infections and drug-related deaths.

[koti]

10 hours ago, CharonY said:

Off the top of my head there were two with Vandrey as first author, which had a very small cohort. A larger group was queried in a follow up. I will have to search a bit to find the precise references, though.

 

Let's put it the other way round. Assume that we just punish any drug use severely. Does this drive down addiction rates? Empirical evidence shows that it is not the case. Rather, addicts just end up in jail, become poorer and once leaving institutions have massive relapse rates. In other words, punishing drug use does not reduce drug users, but in fact adds harm to a harmful situation. 

So what would change if we treat it as a medical rather than a legal problem? The focus here is to reduce drug related damages. Key is that possession for personal does not carry a criminal penalty in itself. For example, drug addicts would be targeted with rehabilitation rather than with criminal penalties. Trafficking and production could still be illegal (which probably would be considered decriminalization rather than legalization? not sure about the legal implications). Providing needle exchange and dispensaries have shown to limit deaths and spread of diseases. 

In Germany, for example it has been ruled that drug addiction or possession for personal use is not considered a crime and drug injection rooms were established. Likewise, treatment of addicts are covered by health insurance. Portugal has taken broader steps for decriminalization and at least for certain risk groups saw health benefits in terms of reduced HIV infections and drug-related deaths.

Would you agree that this aproach would not work in all circumstances and that the laws would need to be tweeked accordingly based on the environment we are implementing them in? IIRC, Portugal had a pandemia of heroin usage resulting in need to implement solutions by whatever means possible, these solutions would not be adequate in California or London. Berlin had its own story and I'm not sure which years you are refering to, possession of hard drugs are as far as I know very much illegal in Germany, there might have been programs to pass out needles and/or put people on methadone but that was in the 90's I think. If we can agree that the approach you are proposing would not be adequate in all circumstances then we need to find out what would be adequate, surely we cannot have varying laws implemented depending on factors. 

[John Cuthber]

14 hours ago, koti said:

heroin, crack or amphetamine. I’m trying to understand why its hard to distinguish between hard and soft drugs. Withdrawal symptoms are probably the most obvious difference. 

OK,

Withdrawal from those is bad- but that from heroin- which was widely touted as the most addictive-has been likened to a doas of the flu. (Obviously, people's experiences of both vary). It' s possible, but unlikely that someone will actually die from opiate withdrawal.
https://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/blog/yes-people-can-die-opiate-withdrawal

Cocaine and amphetamines have similar withdrawal symptoms
https://americanaddictioncenters.org/cocaine-treatment/withdrawal/
https://castlecraig.co.uk/resources/drugs/withdrawal-detox-timelines/amphetamine-withdrawal/

Nasty, but seldom fatal: withdrawal from any  of them is unlikely to kill you.

Alcohol withdrawal has a 25% death toll if untreated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delirium_tremens

So, it's very easy- by your criteria- to distinguish hard and soft  drugs.

Of the 4 substances mentioned in this post, (alcohol heroin, crack and amphetamine) only alcohol is a hard drug.

Is that categorisation helpful?

 

[koti]

 

16 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

OK,

Withdrawal from those is bad- but that from heroin- which was widely touted as the most addictive-has been likened to a doas of the flu. (Obviously, people's experiences of both vary). It' s possible, but unlikely that someone will actually die from opiate withdrawal.
https://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/blog/yes-people-can-die-opiate-withdrawal

Cocaine and amphetamines have similar withdrawal symptoms
https://americanaddictioncenters.org/cocaine-treatment/withdrawal/
https://castlecraig.co.uk/resources/drugs/withdrawal-detox-timelines/amphetamine-withdrawal/

Nasty, but seldom fatal: withdrawal from any  of them is unlikely to kill you.

Alcohol withdrawal has a 25% death toll if untreated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delirium_tremens

So, it's very easy- by your criteria- to distinguish hard and soft  drugs.

Of the 4 substances mentioned in this post, (alcohol heroin, crack and amphetamine) only alcohol is a hard drug.

Is that categorisation helpful?

 

Sure, this sounds a lot more reasonable than your previous post;

Quote

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

 

[John Cuthber]

6 minutes ago, koti said:

 

Sure, this sounds a lot more reasonable than your previous post;

 

Do you realise that alcohol is- in fact- classed as a soft drug?

That's because, in fact, the distinction is political, rather than scientific.
So, the two posts f mine which you quoted say exactly the same thing.

 

Why don't you understand that?

Also, if you use this definition then there are relatively few "hard" drugs - essentially barbiturates and alcohol- maybe some of the benzodiazepines too.

What's the  point in splitting drugs into 2 groups where almost all of them are "soft"?