The War on Drugs

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1101

If not arresting, detaining and putting them into forced detox facilities.

Rehab doesn’t necessarily work if the addict isn’t ready to go clean. At a certain point drug use becomes the addicts entire world, everything revolves around how to acquire more crack, heroin, meth etc and a change to this newly percieved reality seems oddly terrifying, especially as drug use is typically a crutch/attempt to deal with deeper issues.

That being said, housing someone until they’re no longer dependent may have beneficial outcomes… I’m not sure if we have any data to go on though.

What I do know is that drugs are rampant in prisons here. If they can’t keep drugs out of prison, how can we keep them out of society?

1102

Holy shit! Are we referring to Atlantic occipital dislocation or… His head coming clean off.

That’s wild!

They did, but I don’t believe criminal charges were pressed.

It was worse than this. Purportedly they knew how addictive the drug was. The objective was to market a drug that the consumer would have to be on for life. Unfortunately they also marketed oxyocontin for “low back pain” and the likes advocated for aggressive dosing/high volume prescribing.

The result was kids and adults alike becoming dependent when prescribed the drug as oxycodone is considerably more addictive than say… Tramadol. It’s practically heroin in terms of how prone it is towards inducing dependence. The consequences associated with long term opiate use are numerous from hyperanalgesia (ironic as opiates are used to decrease pain), tolerance, osteoporosis, immunosuppression and hypogonadism. It’s a risk/reward analysis, some patients do require long term therapueitc use of opiates. Generally they’re better suited towards intermittent/occasional use.

I have a script for them (chronic pain) and use them occasionally on days when I’m in so much pain I can’t sleep/can’t go about my day. Such use negates the prospect of developing tolerance and is preferable to the long term, continual use purdue was advocating for.

With occasional use the worry regarding many of the long term effects incured are minimal to none.

1103

Also, on topic, there has been a program in Hawaii and what it found is that drug use and criminal recidivism is negatively correlated to certainty of punishment, not severity.

So that’s something to consider during this debate, because it has some obvious implications for policy.

2 Likes
1104

There have been a few inquiries conducted in Aus recently regarding drug use, how to deal with it/potential outcomes. The government spent billions on these enquires and practically adopted nothing regarding the advice given (they were hoping for a different outcome). I’ll post the data later

Portugul also seems like a good model for debate as they had such a horrific heroin problem prior to tackling the problem as a health issue as opposed to a criminal issue.

Granted sociocultural normalities differ from country to country. What worked in country X might not work in country Y.

Also I should state I don’t believe all drug use should be met with punishment. The majority of drug use I’ve been exposed to (observation) has been considerably low risk in nature. Outcomes have been better than binge drinking (associated with fights, risky sexual encounters, grave bodily injury, hospitalisation etc).

I don’t think say… Cannabis or MDMA etc should be illigal. Rather regulated and sold with a blanket ban on advertising. Public, unbiased and factual campaigns adknowledging the harms should exist as is present with tobacco. I don’t think such an approach would lead to a society of druggies, and data generally backs this. I think it’d lead to less harm incurred from tainted product and perhaps the potency of pot could be regulated. Cannabis should’ve never gotten to like… 35%THC.

1105

The latter. He was very thin necked, to be fair.

You are correct, I believe, but there are factors here that could warrant a finding of criminal behaviour.

My grandfather is on them nearly constantly as a result of a long career on building sites. Alas, sometimes the quality of life improvement from the pain relief is now at the point where it has to be done.

I am sorry to hear that, I’m glad you’ve found a strategy to manage the chronic pain, at least.

1106

From what I understand, meth users can actually kill off parts of their brains. There may be no rehabbing. Thanks again, deinstitutionalization of mental health.

1107

To an extent. From what I understand there have been other criminogenic consequences of the legalisation and the locals aren’t totally enthused.

Hard to say though, it’s a multifaceted problem with no easy solution.

1 Like
1108

Methamphetamine when used at recreational dosages is subject to inducing dopaminergic neurotoxicity. It can be used as a second line treatment for severe ADHD, but it’s riskier than regular amphetamine/stimulant drugs. The dose used for ADHD is lower than recreational dosing. Desoxyn comes in 5mg tablets I think.

It should be noted in comparison to teetotalers the majority of the populace has been found (clinical literature) to have some level of ethanol induced brain damage. Alcohol is one of the most neurotoxic drugs available.

Dopaminergic dysregulation is an absolute bitch, and methamphetamine would theoretically be incredibly hard to kick as it’d be very difficult to feel normal again. Same goes with cigarettes, cocaine etc.

I reckon there are people who mange to kick meth though. @SkyzykS might know. I don’t know if he’s tried methamphetamine (not my business anyway), but perhaps he knows people who have quit. He’s a sponsor who deals with subjects of this nature.

1109

Did it once. Freakin hated it. Maybe it was bad chemistry, but not my kind of high.

I do know that it gets the hook in Deep, and I’ve only seen one person kick it for any length of time, but not before he destroyed what could only be described as a truly charmed life.

Could be limited exposure too though. I attend AA meetings primarily, but haven’t really heard any success stories from anybody else either.

3 Likes
1110

You gotta look at factors like geography and entry points, ratio of LEOs to the population, income, allowed use of prescription opiates etc. Asian countries generally refrain from using opiates as painkillers in hospitals so it’s hard to get black market supplies from local drug companies and doctors.

You notice Malaysia’s quite high on the list despite the mandatory death penalty for bringing in drugs? It’s near the Gold Triangle and shares the border with Thailand. Lots of entry points by sea also. Singapore is so small there’s virtually no way you can smuggle drugs in unless you have balls of steel. The ratio of LEOs to the general population is one of the highest in the world. And the death penalty is mandatory even for certain levels of marijuana.

Of course these stats are over different time periods and probably aren’t accurate and I’m too lazy to go get real stats lol. Just stating a couple of rationales.

For other countries like the Philippines and China, I don’t buy their stats for obvious reasons. Macau is at supposedly higher than the US. Where do you think they’re getting their drugs from lol? The bulk of fentanyl in the US is from China.

The trade routes to South Korea and Japan are a lot more complicated to navigate so they concentrate on S.E. Asia. Taiwan has secured it’s borders and other entry points from China over the decades for obvious reasons not limited to drugs.

Plus, the rehab centers in these countries aren’t like in the West. They are more like shitty prisons but you’re doing hard labor at the same time.

Yaba tablets are good shit btw. Heard from a friend.

My point is people who want drugs are going to get them no matter what it takes or how severe the punishment is. There’s not much legislation can really do. What is needed is the manpower to prevent the supply from reaching them and stamping out the cartels.

3 Likes
1111

Because yaba is literally low dose methamphetamine + caffeine. If taken orally it probably isn’t as toxic as the “ice” seen on today’s streets. Nevertheless it’s a highly potent stimulant and it’s highly addictive.

I think the death penalty is reserved for very large quantities. Regardless, people shouldn’t be put to death for cannabis… That’s just ridiculous.

At which point the question begs… Is this realistically plausible. If it is, how much will this cost (exorbitant sums of money). In the end does the benefit/risk analysis skew towards benefit or risk. People tend to think “drugs… Bad… Hurrr de derp”. They’re correct, but the consequence arising from extensive prohibition is also quite significant.

Can we really justify spending hundreds of billions each year to enforce… Cannabis prohibition? I don’t think so. By looking at data relating to the legalisation of soft drugs (and even the decriminalisation of hard drugs) the sky doesn’t fall, society doesn’t fall to the junkies etc. Incarceration rates drop, in Portugul HIV transmission and/or the spread of needle bourne diseases drop substantially as did public health burden associated with drug use etc.

I don’t think legalising and strictly regulating drugs not particularly prone to inducing addiction and/or serious adverse outcomes is that big of a deal. If we can handle alcohol and tobacco we can handle legalised MDMA, LSD, psilocybin, cannabis and whatnot.

It isn’t as if usage rates are decreasing despite ever increasing efforts to curb use/punish users. I’ve noticed many opponents to drug law reform tend to have ideologies steeped in hysteria and/or ignorance. This isn’t always the case, but many appear to have very little exposure and/or narrow minded views.

Of course there are risks involved, and a small fraction of users are prone to becoming dependent on cannabis (or substitute X), but the same can be said about alcohol and nicotine. It appears rather hypocritical to shit on the prospect of legalising something purportedly less risky due to initially unjust and unscientific law having been imposed. It’s laughable that some think the legalisation of say… LSD would somehow lead to an excess of crackheads and/or a stampede of mental illness. Alcohol induced psychosis is a known phenomenon, no one talks about that. For most LSD is something you take once or twice, you think “that was interesting” and that’s about it.

Evidence doesn’t support legalisation/decriminalisation leading to massive upticks in use. Legislature should take harm reduction/scientific evidence into account as opposed to individualistic interpretations of morality, religious influence and propaganda laden statements.

It should be noted that I’m not someone who is “into drugs” though I’ve had extensive exposure throughout my high school years/while travelling. I’ve seen horrendous consequences (including near fatal outcomes) stemming from binge drinking. I seldom saw the same outcomes with illicit party drugs aside from cocaine/ketamine (ketamine associated injuries). It isn’t just anecdote, if one looks up papers regarding scientific analysis and the pharmacokinetics of various recreational drugs it quickly becomes apparent booze is one of the more toxic substances available. The drinking culture in Aus is atrocious. It isn’t uncommon to see kids go on benders consisting of binge drinking for multiple consecutive days. Adults view this as normal behavior too.

A new meta analysis (granted flaws do exist within this type of paper) came to a conclusion challenging the notion of “safe drinking”/“healthy drinking”. Each singular standard drink consumed weekly was distinctly correlated with increased mortality rates. The only reason alcohol is accepted is because it’s been cleverly marketed and socioculturally engrained. I wouldn’t be surprised if alcohol is the next tobacco fifty years from now.

I think those who are unaware and merely take reports within the media at face value tend to think “if booze and cigarettes are legal, illicit substances must be so much worse”.

It should be noted blanket bans sometimes result in the synthesis of research chemicals, of which the pharmacokinetics are unknown. Certain analogues of MDMA are far more toxic than the parent drug. Certain substituted amphetamines/cathiones were also sold OTC for a while. In Japan vending machines sell “dagga herb” which is spice/synthetic cannabinoids which are far more toxic than cannabis itself.

When you ban one substance, another pops up. People will find a means to escape reality and/or alter their consciousness if they really wish to.

And on the news when they talk about the police making a massive drug bust “one ton of meth seized in victory for the law”… They’re not mentioning the ninety tons that got through.

There was a paper published looking at percieved heroin availability by addicts in correlation with drug busts made. They found no correlation between the two, indicating even the largest of drug busts instated via the police don’t put a dent in percieved availability within the recreational market.

1 Like
1112

I don’t know how this is quantified. You tell me if this is large.

Illegal traffic, import or export of:

  • Cannabis of more than 500 grams > May face the death penalty
  • Cannabis resin of more than 200 grams > May face the death penalty
  • Cannabis mixture of more than 1,000 grams > May face the death penalty
1113

Well in multiple states within Aus over 15 grams is a guaranteed criminal record and/or perhaps prison sentence.

I generally think of 1oz + as a large quantity. If you’ve got five ounces of hash or say twenty ounces of cannabis it’s fairly evident it’s for sale, not personal use.

1114

As for the rest of your post, I’m afraid I don’t have any answers other than what I stated. This is all too complex for me.

1115

Possession alone is enough in S.E. Asia lol. Quantity doesn’t even matter.

Ok, so it’s fairly large? Cos I don’t know what an oz is lol.

1116

An ounce is 28 grams, and one would generally consider this to be quite a lot. One cannabis cigarette probably contains between 1/4 and 1/2 of one gram. Even less if it’s a cannabis resin + tobacco cigarette.

That’s been my experience, some use more. Especially in the United States.

1 Like
1117

Ok. I just want to understand what do you mean by legalization of drugs? (Let’s leave cannabis out of this. Everyone should have the right to get high. Yeah I said it. Get off my back, fucking boomers.)

Do you mean these drugs be allowed to be sold legally like tobacco and alcohol? If so, what kind of drugs? Opiates? Benzos? Hallucinogens? Stimulants? Dissociatives?

Not gonna judge nor argue, just want to know your actual position more clearly. As I’ve said, I have no solutions of my own other than eliminating supply as much as possible(strategically targeting entry points, trade routes and stuff like that, not pulling a Philippines*.), and proper rehab and and state provided mid-term support/assistance after that instead of incarceration.

*:

This has to be one of the most comical things I’ve ever read in the news:

“He said he now favored a new strategy. Rather than quickly arresting or killing low-level pushers and couriers, he wants to put them under surveillance in the hope they lead police to “big drug bosses”.”

Like FUCKING DUH. LOLOLOLOLOL.

2 Likes
1118

Not exactly, I’d prefer the sale of certain substances to differ from that of alcohol/tobacco. I’ll explain in a second

  • Hallucinogens. They’re amenable to inducing instant tolerance, after dosing LSD/mescaline/psilocybin it takes around two weeks on order for the same dose to garner an equatable effect. If continual use is attempted dosages need to exponentially increase following each subsequent dose. Within a matter of days it’d become almost impossible to afford/take X amount to “trip”. They’re not physically or psychologically addictive either. The prospect of cardiotoxicity mediated via 5ht2b receptor binding is a concern, though use is so acute I doubt it’s seriously of any concern.

Bad trips/adverse reactions can occur, but they’re typically transient and disorders like HPPD are extremely rare. They’re one of the safer recreational drugs one could take.

  • benzodiazepines… No, they’re too prone to abuse/have very high liability for inducing dependence. Furthermore, similar to alcohol withdrawal can kill.

  • opiates: no, same as benzodiazepines though withdrawl generally isn’t fatal. I’d prefer government handouts of maintenance dosages for hardened addicts who seriously can’t quit. It’s better than throwing them in prison or letting them overdose. Functional addicts do exist, and a maintenance daily dose of heroin/methadone doesn’t serve to get the user “high”. Rather it serves to give the addict enough to ward off withdrawl.

Stimulants: depends. I don’t think amphetamines/methamphetamine or cocaine could be legally sold without serious societal repercussions. MDMA on the other hand isn’t particularly toxic when used acutely (provided the individual is healthy to begin with). Other stimulants that could theoretically be legalised include modafinil/pro-drugs to modafinil, betel nuts and khat. The cardiotoxicity pertaining to cocaine is off the charts, I’ve highlighted the many, many mechanisms on other threads as to how cocaine damages the heart and predisposes one to arrhythmia/myocardial infarction (both acute and chronic use).

As to cannabis, it should definitely be legal with a caveat. Hyper-potent “35% thc pot” with only travel amounts of CBD probably shouldn’t exist. Hashish was always rather potent, but for flower like that to exist… And wax concentrate with 90%+ thc, that’s just insane. There’s a difference between “getting high” and being on another fucking planet (more on this later).

I don’t want a market for these substances (aside from cannabis) akin to the market we have for alcohol and tobacco. Blatantly marketing these products as commonplace past-times for the masses was probably a mistake. Granted I’d prefer pot become the drug of choice socially/at parties as opposed to alcohol. Pot may be more of a “veg out” substance, but cannabis doesn’t cause fights to break out. I’ve never seen someone break a bottle over the back of someone’s head because they smoked too much etc. Though I have very occasionally seen acute paranoia/psychosis.

Other substances could be sold at pharmacies, unbranded in plain packaging. Pharmacists would inform users of the risks associated with use and pamphlets/warning labels would be attached to the boxes sold. Drugs would be sold in single dose units with an allotted amount designated per person per year (say six dosages of MDMA per year). Dosing wouldn’t be akin to buying enough to have a massive roll or a far out psychedelic experience, but enough to have a good time.

The problem with attempting to eliminate supply is when supply is strained dealers tend to cut/substitute and sell falsified product (e.g putting methamphetamine in MDMA, putting nbome in LSD, putting fentanyl in heroin etc).

You can say “but this is terrible, then drugs will be available”… Yes, they will. But people use regardless, and they’re using unsafe/potentially lethal product. We’re generally talking about substances less harmful than alcohol/tobacco, and data indicates legalisation doesn’t equate to an uptick in use, and may equate to a reduction in use in youths.

Why do I feel so strongly about this? Because I’ve seen adverse outcomes associated with what I infer to be a failed war on drugs. If drug use was decriminalised at the very least you wouldn’t see kids at festivals downing six or seven pills at once upon sighting police/sniffer dogs. If drug use was decriminalised we wouldn’t have a mass portion of our indigenous population locked up with permenant criminal records in due part to minor, nonviolent drug offences etc (I can go on and on).

I don’t want these substances openly advertised/branded. If people are going to use what I would infer to be relatively low risk substances regardless, I think it’d be better if they acquired a quality controlled, pure product… And purchase wouldn’t support cartels and/or criminal syndicates who are involved in all sorts of nefarious shit.

Deterrants via legal action aren’t working where I live. Is it really worth arresting/imprisoning otherwise potentially law abiding citizens and spending billions per year over substances that are arguably less harmful than booze? There are plenty of otherwise conducive members of society who take a pill every now and then. Taking a substance at a festival/nightclub or party for the fun of it doesn’t equate to being a degenerate.

image

Drug harm scale taken from a study published within the lancelet. Level of harm ranked by predisposition for inducing physical+psychological dependence, harm induced to the user and societal harm induced

Finally… GHB (disassociatives). This is an interesting one as there is a stigma/a lot of hysteria surrounding the use of GHB as a date rape drug. The truth is the substance is fairly similar to alcohol regarding effects induced but it isn’t extremely cardiotoxic, hepatotoxic, neurotoxic etc like alcohol is. It’s easy to overdose on, the therapueitc window is narrow and an unregulated market means dose per batch may differ (very dangerous when the difference between overdose/a good time is rather small). This could actually be sold in the form of diluted beverages, the effects are akin to alcohol without the hangover. But generally no… I don’t think ketamine, PCP etc should be legal, the GHB thing was just an interesting idea I thought of. I reckon GHB could theoretically be legal if it was very strictly controlled (regarding how much someone can consume on a given night).

There will be and has been a lot of pushback against my body of thought, especially by conservatives. That’s fine, everyone is amenable to their own opinions.

But when you’ve got an event called schoolies where roughly 1/3rd + of students take MDMA, 6+% of the generalised populace has taken meth (figure is higher for rural areas), something needs to be done… We need to think outside of the box.

Schoolies is the festival kids go to after graduation

https://m.qt.com.au/news/who-isnt-on-stuff-schoolies-are-drinking-less-but-/3580437/

Granted the article is sensationalised, schoolies isn’t as bad as they’re making it out to be. Violence isn’t common and when it does happen it’s usually alcohol fuelled. The crowd is typically 17-18 years old. It should be noted I don’t believe alcohol is falling out of style at schoolies either, rather I think drug use is rapidly becoming more and more common amongst say… the 17-25 age range.

1 Like
1119

Appreciate you taking the time writing that long and coherent post.

2 Likes
1120

Yes, I misspoke. I meant detained.

Yeah, I unfortunately know people in this situation

Realistically you can’t.

1 Like