Should we criminalize all dangerous behaviour consistently (1 Viewer)

[Raaaaaachel]

It seems we have a huge double standard when it comes to certain drugs which we don't apply to other equally dangerous behaviors. A scientific study analyzing data over many years by recently sacked UK professor David Nutt demonstrated the taking ecstasy is less dangerous than horse riding.

So should other activities that pose a danger that is comparable with, or greater than that of illegal drugs also be criminalized?

If not, why criminalize particular drugs, but not these other things?

Here is a list of things we would probably have to ban if we were to be consistent in our approach to banning harmful things and ban things that are at least as dangerous a marijuana and ecstasy:

Alcohol
Tobacco
Horse riding
boxing
rugby league and union
motorcycle riding
surfing
many prescription drugs
swimming at night
almost all forms of "extreme sports"

Imo I think a lot of people regard many of the aforementioned activities as more wholesome and socially acceptable than drugs. This relies on imposing our subjective cultural values and preferences on everyone. If the stated goal of drug prohibition is protecting people from harm, surely we should criminalize behaviors according to the amount of harm they can be scientifically demonstrated to cause, not according to whether most people happen to like them or not.

You could argue that these activities are "better" than drugs because many involve physical exercise. However, equivalent exercise could just as easily be gained from other much less dangerous pursuits.

Drugs may also have benefits, just as these other activities do. Many people regard taking drugs as an illuminating and spiritual experience. Many psychologists regard illegal drugs such as ecstasy and LSD as extremely useful for helping people understand their emotions, recover repressed memories and to deal with pain.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

unfortunately the drugs topic has been done to death here and all serious NCAPpers would agree with you 100% on the drugs thing (although for a variety of different reasons).

 

[John McCain]

Most Harmful Drugs

BBC NEWS | Health | Scientists want new drug rankings

 

[dieburndie]

Most Harmful Drugs

BBC NEWS | Health | Scientists want new drug rankings

It should be noted that this graph "assesses drugs on the harm they do to the individual, to society and whether or not they induce dependence". Such harms are often exacerbated, or even caused by the criminal status of some of the drugs in question. The scores given to heroin and cocaine are at least somewhat misleading.

 

[John McCain]

Yeah the methodology is extremely questionable.

Presumably they give a value out of 1.0 to each of the categories - personal harm, societal harm, dependence- and then total the 3 measure of these scores out of 1.0 to reach a total score out of 3.0

The assumption that personal harm, societal harm, and dependence deserve to be given equal weighting is questionable, and as you say the very notion of these harms is questionable and often exaggerated.

More to do, but still, heading in the right direction, and the graph is powerful voodoo. Arguing relative harms is the most robust evidence there is, though of course this could backfire and lead to a crackdown on booze.

 

[Raaaaaachel]

^Good points. Does anyone know if the scores given are for the drugs in their pure form, or for the street versions of the drugs typically obtained on the black market?

I'm most surprised by the low score for solvents.

Maybe it just means laughing gas, because I know that inhalants like gasoline, glue and air freshener are the most dangerous drugs available.

This is another reason why the drug war is a joke. When recreational drugs aren't available, people turn to even more destructive alternatives like huffing paint and gas.

 

[dieburndie]

^Good points. Does anyone know if the scores given are for the drugs in their pure form, or for the street versions of the drugs typically obtained on the black market?

Quantifying harms to individuals and society caused by the pure forms wouldn't be relevant or useful to their overall agenda, so I'm assuming street versions.

Also going on the fact that uncut heroin doesn't represent anything near that level of danger.

 

[SylviaB]

obviously the government shouldn't be able to tell people what chemicals they can and can't consume everyone agrees with you except iron the end

 

[Raaaaaachel]

Quantifying harms to individuals and society caused by the pure forms wouldn't be relevant or useful to their overall agenda, so I'm assuming street versions.

Also going on the fact that uncut heroin doesn't represent anything near that level of danger.

Agreed.

From everything I have read, heroin in its pure form has very low toxicity.

There are many reports of doctors who have become addicted to heroin and yet lead perfectly normal, productive, long lives because they have had access to a constant, clean supply of the drug.

I'm guessing almost all the "social" problems attributed to heroin would be caused by people committing crimes to pay for this drug which is increased in price by a factor of approximately 100 by the fact that it has been criminalized.

In its pure form, it is probably less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco.

 

[dieburndie]

Agreed.

From everything I have read, heroin in its pure form has very low toxicity.

There are many reports of doctors who have become addicted to heroin and yet lead perfectly normal, productive, long lives because they have had access to a constant, clean supply of the drug.

I'm guessing almost all the "social" problems attributed to heroin would be caused by people committing crimes to pay for this drug which is increased in price by a factor of approximately 100 by the fact that it has been criminalized.

In its pure form, it is probably less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco.

Indeed.

Anyone looking to read up on the legal and medical history of heroin should start with this very informative article by Nick Davies

Also worth mentioning is the success of heroin prescription programs for long-term addicts, having the effect of dramatic decreases in both criminal behaviour and health issues.
Heroin assisted treatment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32482014/ns/health-addictions/

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

no doctor bloody well becomes addicted to heroin - they become addicted to things like FENTANYL which are ten thousand times better

This is another reason why the drug war is a joke. When recreational drugs aren't available, people turn to even more destructive alternatives like huffing paint and gas.

Yeah right sure they do. Because there's no better substitute for meth than unleaded petrol (and at only $1.25 a litre bro!)!

This talk of how harmless heroin is has always bothered me a fair bit. Heroin didn't acheive its status by chance - it is a bloody powerful (and easily made) drug. Cutting it up and messing up concentration has surely contributed to a hefty amount of OD's but don't discount the inherent harm of self-administration of this thing. Having never taken it I can't comment, but I imagine that given the tolerance that builds that there's always going to be a feeling of "oh just a bit further this time", and we all know where that can lead in the case of depressants as powerful as these. Doctors are educated administrators of opioid analgesics and to compare them to street users as Rachel did is a little absurd.

The legalised injecting room is a fantastic idea given the tiny amount of people who use heroin in Sydney now. I don't buy into this business of "legalisation will not increase use" mainly because of intuition (lol) but also because of the whole oxycontin thing in the US. So yes, I believe that with heroin legalisation, use will go up, and I don't think that mass supervision of heroin injections is the way to spend money.

In essence, it's my opinion that heroin (and meth) are the two sole exceptions in my "legalise all drugs" stance because they are each far too harmful to justify it.

imho














Also, I'm nolt a crazy libertarian douche.

 

[Raaaaaachel]

This talk of how harmless heroin is has always bothered me a fair bit. Heroin didn't acheive its status by chance - it is a bloody powerful (and easily made) drug. Cutting it up and messing up concentration has surely contributed to a hefty amount of OD's but don't discount the inherent harm of self-administration of this thing. Having never taken it I can't comment, but I imagine that given the tolerance that builds that there's always going to be a feeling of "oh just a bit further this time", and we all know where that can lead in the case of depressants as powerful as these. Doctors are educated administrators of opioid analgesics and to compare them to street users as Rachel did is a little absurd.

Read the article dieburndie posted and the links in that article to numerous pieces of peer reviewed scientific literature and comments by doctors and scientists, all observing that heroin addicts who have access to pure drugs suffer NO damage to their internal organs, no brain damage, and no significant change in life expectancy even after using on a daily basis for decades.

You do not need to be a doctor to administer heroin safely. The ratio between an effective dose and a lethal dose for heroin results in a much higher safety margin than for alcohol and even paracetamol. If users can buy heroin knowing the exact size of the dosage, even addicts with a mature addiction who deliberately increase their dosages are very unlikely to die from overdoes unless they are intentionally trying to kill themselves.

I don't buy into this business of "legalisation will not increase use" mainly because of intuition (lol)

In Portugal rates of drug use have actually fallen despite all drugs being decriminalized.

However, even if rates of use did increase, health outcomes would still be far better because drugs would cause much less damage. After all, drug us per se is not a problem, it is only a problem if is hurting people.

Also, illegal drugs are a substitute for more harmful drugs like alcohol. So we may find people would take more ecstacy as a party drug instead of alcohol, and that as a result health outcomes actually improve.

In essence, it's my opinion that heroin (and meth) are the two sole exceptions in my "legalise all drugs" stance because they are each far too harmful to justify it.

I'd agree that meth is quite harmful, but its increase in popularity has been closely correlated with reduced supply of heroin. Once again, it is the substitution effect.

People who are dissatisfied with life seek an altered state of mind, not particular drugs. If safer alternatives (like heroin) are harder to come by, they don't quit drugs because the underlying problems that drove them to drugs still persist, instead they switch to more harmful alternatives (like meth).

Of course even with meth which is indeed quite harmful, it is still much less harmful when available legally.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Read the article dieburndie posted and the links in that article to numerous pieces of peer reviewed scientific literature and comments by doctors and scientists, all observing that heroin addicts who have access to pure drugs suffer NO damage to their internal organs, no brain damage, and no significant change in life expectancy even after using on a daily basis for decades.

I didn't really say that there were any harsh health effects along these lines, so yeah...

Although I will add the point that heroin users are generally bums - there are a few succesful users out there, but for the most part they're bums regardless. It's hard to maintain productivity if you're huddled in the corner on a high. If you believe in the social contract then you'll surely see why the government should want to prevent people from using drugs as harsh as these. Unlike marijuana and MDMA which cause no great addiction, drugs like heroin (and nicotine, for instance) have supreme addiction potential. It's not as if heroin use is a use-only-at-home-and-on-weekends drug in the same way that smoking cigarettes isn't. But whereas cigarettes don't really harm productivity, heroin does. So I can see why a government would want to limit heroin abuse based on that point.

If you're a crazy libertarian douche, maybe you don't agree with the social contract. Meh.

You do not need to be a doctor to administer heroin safely.

Yes, you do. There's a reason why when you come out of an operation they don't dump a vial of morphine on your table and say "enjoy!"

The ratio between an effective dose and a lethal dose for heroin results in a much higher safety margin than for alcohol and even paracetamol. If users can buy heroin knowing the exact size of the dosage, even addicts with a mature addiction who deliberately increase their dosages are very unlikely to die from overdoes unless they are intentionally trying to kill themselves.

Who the fuck abuses paracetamol - what a moronic example. Anyway, citation needed. Citation needed also to prove that the large gap in lethal to recreational dose nessecarily means that there would be no chance for OD's. The burden of proof is upon you - YOU'RE ATTEMPTING TO CHANGE OUR GLORIOUS STATUS QUO.

I concede though that IF everything you said was true then perhaps I'd rethink that part of the argument.

In Portugal rates of drug use have actually fallen despite all drugs being decriminalized.

In the US, the widespread availability of oxycontin has lead to a massive public health problem! Please quote me entirely next time!

^_^

And you talk about the increased availability of meth as opposed to heroin later on. That seems to indicate that use increases with availability yes? Meth is easy to make, and it's cheap, and it's been a lot easier to obtain in the last 10, 15 years or so. Kinda makes it seem as if increased availability leads to increased usage, amirite?

Also, illegal drugs are a substitute for more harmful drugs like alcohol. So we may find people would take more ecstacy as a party drug instead of alcohol, and that as a result health outcomes actually improve.

Cool! Except heroin isn't MDMA and heroin looks to be more, or along the same levels of harm (at a conservative estimate) as alcohol - meth far greater.

People who are dissatisfied with life seek an altered state of mind, not particular drugs. If safer alternatives (like heroin) are harder to come by, they don't quit drugs because the underlying problems that drove them to drugs still persist, instead they switch to more harmful alternatives (like meth).

Cool story love, except I'm suggesting that heroin is of greater harm and that's why I don't advocate its legalisation. You're acting as if I don't support legalisation of all the other drugs - that's not the case. Legalise everything but meth and heroin (probably PCP too actually) and let all the mentally unstable folk have fun on the safe alternatives rather than these harsh and dangerous substances that will do more harm to themselves and society, than good.

Of course even with meth which is indeed quite harmful, it is still much less harmful when available legally.

lol. like what, in a desoxyn tablet or something? Different dose and different administration. recreational ice is recreational ice. a packet of ice made by Pfizer is still going to be as harmful as the stuff that you get off the street unless it happens to be mixed with less harmful substances.

 

[John McCain]

The only junkie I ever met was a multi-millionaire who owned a monaro and a yacht.

As far as I'm aware the correlation between heroin use and yacht ownership is 100%.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

i met a junkie once

he tried to steal my wallet

 

[brent012]

The graph doesnt seem right? I don't know what they are ranking them on.

GHB is rated so low, yet many deaths have been linked to it. Marijuana is quite high up but afaik there are no deaths linked to it.

Additionally I cant see why alcohol is more dangerous then ketamine and amphetamines?

And to OP, no. Sports and other activites have an actual point to them, and most deaths/injuries related to them are accidental and not an attribute of the sport itself.

 

[dieburndie]

And to OP, no. Sports and other activites have an actual point to them, and most deaths/injuries related to them are accidental and not an attribute of the sport itself.

And what about those isn't also true for drugs?

 

[SylviaB]

And to OP, no. Sports and other activites have an actual point to them, and most deaths/injuries related to them are accidental and not an attribute of the sport itself.

-Sports are played for fun/enjoyment
-Drugs are taken for fun/enjoyment

-Injuries in sport are accidental and not part of the activity
-Negative health effects from drugs are accidental and not a part of the actual activity.

 

[brent012]

And what about those isn't also true for drugs?

There is no motive or point to drugs besides getting high/stoned/drunk etc. Majority of sports have a competitive factor to them aswell as offering a thrill or enjoyment for people who play them.

If one were to take all safety precautions with say riding a horse everyday for a few years, its very unlikely they would be injured at all. If they had been, it would most likely be minimal. The point of sports isn't to get injured but the very process of say getting drunk involves destroying your brain cells.


On the other hand if someone were to take ecstasy everyday for a few years, it's not certain (or likely i suppose) they would be dead but the amount of damage done would be considerable.

In conclusion there are too many variables that are almost impossible to control with taking drugs compared to say horse riding.

 

[-may-cat-]

There is no motive or point to drugs besides getting high/stoned/drunk etc. Majority of sports have a competitive factor to them aswell as offering a thrill or enjoyment for people who play them.

If one were to take all safety precautions with say riding a horse everyday for a few years, its very unlikely they would be injured at all. If they had been, it would most likely be minimal. The point of sports is not to get injured.


On the other hand if someone were to take ecstasy everyday for a few years, it's not certain (or likely i suppose) they would be dead but the amount of damage done would be considerable.

In conclusion there are too many variables that are almost impossible to control with taking drugs compared to say horse riding.

lol, bad example. Horse riding is so dangerous because regardless of whether you take all the precautions or not horses still freak the fuck out over nothing. You are pretty much guaranteed to have an accident at some stage.