Zero Tolerance or Harm Minimisation? (1 Viewer)

[katie tully]

Don't take it so personally. Often people quote something just because it reminds of something. I don't think he was aiming to school you in particular.

He made some very interesting general points. If you want to talk about the issues in general and stfu about yourself, that would be just great.

Well he obviously did considering his second point Dom.

 

[dieburndie]

It has nothing to do with the government. I think the amount of money spent on government incentives to push the idea that all drugs are evil and all drug users are evil could definitely be better spent.

I really didn't get why Stephen had to type all of that and address it to me, when I agree with 99% of it.

I don't know why I feel so strongly against the use of drugs, I just do. But given my stance on harm minimization and perhaps legalization, I think it's fairly irrelevant.

It was a post containing my general views on the issue, with your post providing the initial material to argue against. I don't really see the problem.

Even if you do agree with most of what I said, the position of the government and as a result of their propaganda most of society is the one I was disagreeing with.

 

[katie tully]

Whatever man, I read it as being directed at me and got

 

[katie tully]

re: This complete legalisation business.

Do you not agree that some employment sectors should still have the right to prohibit certain drugs from their employees?

Train drivers, truck drivers, doctors, heavy machinery operators, etc

 

[dieburndie]

Don't take it so personally. Often people quote something just because it reminds of something. I don't think he was aiming to school you in particular.

He made some very interesting general points. If you want to talk about the issues in general and stfu about yourself, that would be just great.

Exactly this.

Oh come on now, sir. You don't think that being a heroin bum causes a little economic disadvantage in itself? That's not my reason for posting. My reason for posting is for evidence. I don't nessecarily disagree with you and I find your stance admirable, but I do crave evidence for these sweeping assertions.

I don't support the premise of your question. Heroin users didn't become "bums" until governments forced them to become criminals in order to obtain their supply. It was originally used as a pain killer in the same way morphine currently is, and patients subsequently became addicted to it and from that point it would be prescribed to them by doctors. As long as they received their pure, relatively consistent dose, these heroin addicts typically lived normal lives with no further health, financial or social problems resulting from it. This was of course until the US government started the reprehensible War on Drugs, and incorrectly categorised it as a poison.

I'm not talking about heroin use in the current context, where of course it poses an economic disadvantage. As for my sources, as I don't have them on hand I'm not going to go to the effort of tracking them down for you. As I've already mentioned, the burden of proof is on those that believe heroin should be illegal. They need to provide evidence that it is harmful in pure, legal form, before the criminal context is introduced (Even though I wouldn't accept this as the basis for it being criminalised even if they could come up with it)

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I was under the impression that opiates, like all drugs I suppose, require ever increasing dosages to get the effect out of it that they want. Resistance and tolerance (I'm sure there's a word for it but it skips my mind) increase. This is fairly well known with morphine yes? So I'm supposing, without evidence, that heroin does carry this problem along with it, which you neglect to mention.

I'm being careful there because I'm not entirely sure what I'm saying is correct. And in any case, it was an aside from your main point which I agree with totally.

^_^

You are correct, but I didn't mention it because I don't consider it to be important or relevant. Why is resistance and tolerance a problem if the drug in question poses no further health risks? Even lifelong addicts who had built up such a tolerance that they required a dose several times that of one effective for a first time user were still taking an amount FAR below that required to kill them. Heroin overdoses only occur in the current criminal context because users have absolutely no idea how pure the substance they were supplied with is.

 

[dieburndie]

re: This complete legalisation business.

Do you not agree that some employment sectors should still have the right to prohibit certain drugs from their employees?

Train drivers, truck drivers, doctors, heavy machinery operators, etc

They should be allowed to impose whatever conditions on their employees they wish.

 

[SylviaB]

re: This complete legalisation business.

Do you not agree that some employment sectors should still have the right to prohibit certain drugs from their employees?

Train drivers, truck drivers, doctors, heavy machinery operators, etc

Well duh, we're libertarians and thus believe the government shouldn't tell people how to run their own companies.

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

I don't support the premise of your question. Heroin users didn't become "bums" until governments forced them to become criminals in order to obtain their supply. It was originally used as a pain killer in the same way morphine currently is, and patients subsequently became addicted to it and from that point it would be prescribed to them by doctors. As long as they received their pure, relatively consistent dose, these heroin addicts typically lived normal lives with no further health, financial or social problems resulting from it. This was of course until the US government started the reprehensible War on Drugs, and incorrectly categorised it as a poison.

Bahh. Come on now. You don't think that the lethargy and bummishness that heroin creates can cause economic disadvantage in itself? Consider alcoholics or methadone addicts. What of them? They're receiving a legal, regulated dose and one can hardly pass methadone recipients as normal members of society. To be sure, some of that is because they're still trying to get a hold of other addictive and illegal drugs (in the methadone case), probably heroin still as well, but part of it is not. Alcoholics have far higher unemployment and generally live in far less inviting class belts, etc.

As for my sources, as I don't have them on hand I'm not going to go to the effort of tracking them down for you. As I've already mentioned, the burden of proof is on those that believe heroin should be illegal.

No, it's on both sides. There isn't a hierarchy here where the pro-drugs people are on top and have no burden of proof. You do have that burden, and your opinion without evidence should be assumed as suspicious (unless it's accepted fact).

I'm totally pro-drugs, barring crystal meth and a few others, but I'm calling for a bit of sanity and fairness on this website, because it's becoming a bit one sided and dumb (hihi shodan). Let's not become lazy in our quest for a society that doesn't unreasonably restrict harmless personal consumption!

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

fking jews.

You stupid dickhead. You utter moron. I've been posting in every single one of these threads as a staunch supporter of the legalisation of all drugs (well, bar one or two). I know you read my posts because I always see you offering commentary on each, so don't use that as an excuse.

You're a fool who thinks his opinion is law, that's all.

Point is that you try to justify the legalisation of certain drugs because they're less harmful than nicotine and alcohol

I have not done that once. I have urged people to confront the hypocriisy of current drug legislation by answering the question: "Why are nicotine and alcohol legal when demonstrably less harmful and addictive drugs are not?"

and therefore must be legalised. That's a load of tosh. MDMA is less harmful than nicotine, yeah, but nicotine in the form of smoking is one of the most fucking dangerous drugs there is.

No shit sherlock.

I, the government, propose that we criminalise nicotine. You now don't have much of a case for the legalisation of the drugs you mentioned, since you thought they should only be legalised because nicotine and alcohol were too.

I did not. It's extremely frustrating that you keep making that straw-man argument when anybody should be able to clearly see that's not the argument I'm going for at all if they read my posts. I am sincerely asking you to just stop being a retard for a second and comprehend what people actually write.

For the record, I actually don't support tobacco being legal any more than I do ice, crack and heroine. I am asking for people, including governments, to take a good hard look at their drug legislation and rationalise it - remove inconsistencies. If their final decision is that all drugs (including tobacco) should be banned then at least it's consistent. I very much doubt that would happen, and instead there likely would be a long intelligent public debate about it. Right now, governments simply shove such issues under the carpet.

I think that arguments concerning choice and freedom are a much wiser approach. Provided that legalised drugs don't pose a threat to the freedom and safety of those who choose to steer clear (hello crystal meth & PCP).

Again I ask you to read my posts: I've never said otherwise. And since you bring up your own past posts, it's only natural I bring up mine: the ones I know you've read and in which I vehemently support various aspects of drug legalisation on the grounds of liberty. Why are you so hypocritical?

Now to confront various inaccuracies because, let's face it, I know moar about this than you.

No, you really don't Neb. Countless times in the past I've mentioned drugs and chemicals and you were woefully naive. You might have done one or two more later year organic chemistry courses than me but that's a poor substitute for molecular bio, biochem, and a spare copy of the Merck Manual laying around the house.

No it's not the most addictive nor the most harmful.

False. Nicotine most certainly is the most addictive commonly used recreational drug around and you've just done nothing to disprove it with that graph. Do you actually know what dependence means? Hint: it's not at all equivalent to addiction. merely one facet of it. Dependence is generally defined as the point at which your body produces a tolerance to a substance and where discontinuation of the drug produces negative withdrawal effects, often neurotoxic (e.g. stims and opiates).

Psychological dependence, in contrast, is how likely a drug is to produce generally psychological urges of need that leads to repeated use. How likely a drug is to 'hook' someone. Addiction as a whole is a combination of both these factors.

Catch all that? Good, here's a nice read for you: The Most Addictive Drugs

lol wtf? it's found in minute amounts and naturally produced GHB certainly IS NOT A DRUG. You stupid fuck.

*sigh* So you don't even know what the definition of 'drug' is now? Maybe you should go read some medical literature about GHB because I sure as fuck am not going to sit here trying to convince you that drugs can, in fact, be produced endogenously as well as exogenously.

Ok cool so GHB is good for those things (I'm supposing that what you've said is true). This is not a valid argument for its legalisation for recreational use. Keep in mind I think that it should be allowed recreationally, I'm just pointing out that you're a dud.

Thank you for another logical fallacy in the form of a straw man argument. I never, in fact, claimed that GHB's harmlessness is reason for it to be used recreationally. I produced this as evidence that it was less harmful than alcohol to highlight hypocrisy in current drug legislation.

hehehe. ecstacy is an amphetamine silly! you really don't know wot ur on about. tehehehehehe! :rofl:

Ecstasy isn't amphetamine, it's structural related to amphetamine because it has an amphetamine backbone. However, it's not produced from amphetamines and its mechanism of action focuses largely on the serotonin and oxytocin neurotransmitter pathways. Specifically referring to MDMA as an amphetamine (or worse, just amphetamine as is stupidly done in the media w.r.t. ice) is like referring to methylphenidate as an amphetamine (again, amphetamine backbone, but different mechanism of action), i.e.: stupid.

What the fuck does that even mean?

Ecstasy is typically used to augment raving via emotional warmth and speeding, rather than to achieve euphoria and chase a high (see why below). I did try using it for that but it's less than ideal and certainly nothing compared to dedicated psychostimulants (euphoria is a result of dopaminergic action, but ecstasy does not produces as much of this).

Do you have any proof of this? I'm not doubting it, and I'm interested.

Only anecdotal - my sister's ex was an eccy dealer and he was of the mind that people simply don't use it in that way (except in that people chew more to continue a night). Looking at the way it's used at ANU I certainly believe that's true. However, it ranks below marijuana in addictive potential (i.e. low) and since a large part of the addictive potential of the amphetamine class stems from re-dosing, it follows that ecstasy does not fit the normal pattern of the amphetamine family in terms of addiction (i.e. it's likely re-dosing is low).

I found two research studies on this specific area and the first states: "It appeared Ecstasy was not conducive to regular and frequent use, because tolerance was reported to develop to the positive effects of Ecstasy, while negative effects increased with use."

The article is here and you should be able to access the entire article via an ANU lab computer (though the sentence I quote is in the abstract): Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies

While the second details similar findings: "Acute pharmacodynamic tolerance was, however, evident, with a period between drugs being described as necessary in order to maintain drug effectiveness. This may help explain the low addiction potential of MDMA."

Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

re: This complete legalisation business.

Do you not agree that some employment sectors should still have the right to prohibit certain drugs from their employees?

Train drivers, truck drivers, doctors, heavy machinery operators, etc

Of course. But they already do that now for tobacco and alcohol It's not like legalisation means "GET HIGH AT SCHOOL, SMOKE WEED IN THE SUPERMARKET, TWEAK WHILE DRIVING". Many of the existing laws for alcohol and tobacco use could easily be adapted for other drugs.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

^ tl;dr, mainly because S.H.O.D.A.N. is a complete mongoloid.

I'm sorry we can't all be extremist militant Libertarians like you, Dom.

The burden of proof is on those wanting to ban something.

No, the burden of proof is generally on those wanting to change legislation. Get used to it, stop whining about it, and just get down to business and produce that proof when challenged or you'll never get anywhere.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

In a practical sense, yes. But this is not practical, I have no pretensions about actually changing anything. We are merely discussing the issue. In terms of winning the argument, the onus is on the proponents of prohibition to justify it.

Fair enough, but I'm still wary of that argument because it often simply entrenches people further in the safety of knowing the government agrees with them so they don't feel they need to prove anything. It might make them stop posting in the thread perhaps (and I guess in that sense the argument is 'won'), but it won't change their mind. In that case it makes a lot of sense to go to the effort to dig up supporting data which they can't as readily ignore.

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

I have not done that once. I have urged people to confront the hypocriisy of current drug legislation by answering the question: "Why are nicotine and alcohol legal when demonstrably less harmful and addictive drugs are not?"

You did! You did it again! "In certain cases it's bewildering that the drug [marijuana/ghb] isn't already legalised" because "a lower social and individual harm than alcohol or nicotine" is involved.

This isn't a straw man, IT IS WHAT YOU SAID.

For the record, I actually don't support tobacco being legal any more than I do ice, crack and heroine. I am asking for people, including governments, to take a good hard look at their drug legislation and rationalise it - remove inconsistencies. If their final decision is that all drugs (including tobacco) should be banned then at least it's consistent. I very much doubt that would happen, and instead there likely would be a long intelligent public debate about it. Right now, governments simply shove such issues under the carpet.

My mistake for supposing that you advocated legalisation. My point still stands regarding your arguments though.

You advocated harm minimisation on the first page of this thread. Harm minimisation certainly doesn't involve the criminalisation of drugs. It tolerates the use of them in trade for less harm. YOU'RE ADVOCATING BEING MORE LENIENT ON DRUGS, and you're doing that because the CURRENT LEGISLATION IS INCONSISTENT, because NICOTINE IS LEGAL.

Fuck me, you stupid dickhead. It's not a strawman when you've SAID THESE EXACT THINGS IN YOUR POSTS! THAT ARGUMENT IS TOSH!

No, you really don't Neb.

yeh man i do.

False. Nicotine most certainly is the most addictive commonly used recreational drug around and you've just done nothing to disprove it with that graph. Do you actually know what dependence means? Hint: it's not at all equivalent to addiction. merely one facet of it. Dependence is generally defined as the point at which your body produces a tolerance to a substance and where discontinuation of the drug produces negative withdrawal effects, often neurotoxic (e.g. stims and opiates).

Psychological dependence, in contrast, is how likely a drug is to produce generally psychological urges of need that leads to repeated use. How likely a drug is to 'hook' someone. Addiction as a whole is a combination of both these factors.

ok guy. look i was trying to find an article by simon wills that i posted ages ago which i failed to find. mebbe ill go and borrow the book again. meanwhile, here's a site that disagrees with you about nicotine

Which Drugs Are the Most Addictive? - benowitz rating

by the way, you make no case against dependance = addiction. you just stated that addiction is a combination of the above factors, which you listed as physical and psychological dependance, which is exactly what the graph was based upon (by, surprise, surprise, professionals in addiction research). what was your point again? are you slightly confused, yes?

lol.

*sigh* So you don't even know what the definition of 'drug' is now? Maybe you should go read some medical literature about GHB because I sure as fuck am not going to sit here trying to convince you that drugs can, in fact, be produced endogenously as well as exogenously.

Hey man that's cool but we're debating harm minimisation/legalisation/zero tolerance here, so i'm pretty sure we're talking about the legal definition, and i'm pretty sure you knew what i meant anyway so suk my dik first sentence right here:

Drug - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(yeh it's cited by the WHO win)

Come on dude, why on earth did you bring up the fact that GHB was produced in the brain?

Ecstasy isn't amphetamine, it's structural related to amphetamine because it has an amphetamine backbone. However, it's not produced from amphetamines and its mechanism of action focuses largely on the serotonin and oxytocin neurotransmitter pathways. Specifically referring to MDMA as an amphetamine (or worse, just amphetamine as is stupidly done in the media w.r.t. ice) is like referring to methylphenidate as an amphetamine (again, amphetamine backbone, but different mechanism of action), i.e.: stupid.

I didn't say it is amphetamine, I said it IS an amphetamine. A phenylethylamine, if you will.

Straw man.

Ecstasy is typically used to augment raving via emotional warmth and speeding, rather than to achieve euphoria and chase a high (see why below). I did try using it for that but it's less than ideal and certainly nothing compared to dedicated psychostimulants (euphoria is a result of dopaminergic action, but does not produces as much of this).

But people still use it to get high, comrade.

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

I don't think your opinion is terribly outrageous, shodan, and i think we're locked into a debate about trivial issues now. still, i think that attempting to talk about drugs in relation to alcohol and nicotine is a big, inviting mistake.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

You did! You did it again! "In certain cases it's bewildering that the drug [marijuana/ghb] isn't already legalised" because "a lower social and individual harm than alcohol or nicotine" is involved.

This isn't a straw man, IT IS WHAT YOU SAID.

No, what I actually said, before you dishonestly added and removed various words, was:

In certain cases it's bewildering that the drug isn't already legalised (e.g. non-addictive drugs with a lower social and individual harm than alcohol or nicotine, such as marijuana, ecstasy, or GHB).

This clearly says I was bewildered by the status of certain drugs under current legislation. It was not an argument of any sort, Neb. It was an opinion and a reaction. That's why I'm calling your claims a strawman - you're reading from my posts things I never said; arguments I never made.

You advocated harm minimisation on the first page of this thread. Harm minimisation certainly doesn't involve the criminalisation of drugs. It tolerates the use of them in trade for less harm. YOU'RE ADVOCATING BEING MORE LENIENT ON DRUGS, and you're doing that because the CURRENT LEGISLATION IS INCONSISTENT, because NICOTINE IS LEGAL.

Uh, no, I'm advocating being more lenient on drug users for the following reasons (not one of which mentions nicotine or alcohol), which can be found in the second post above the one you originally attacked where I question the scheduling of GHB, marijuana and ecstasy relative to nicotine and alcohol. Here it is:

The main benefits of harm minimisation are, depending on the methods used (I'm gonna assume we're mostly talking about shit like heroine):
- clean drugs (no dangerous impurities)
- exact dosages and monitored dosages (far less chance of overdose)
- clean needles (no HIV, etc)
- less drug-induced stealing and accompanying crimes
- and this is the best one: lower relapse rates (people getting professional help instead of being arrested or forced to hide are far more likely to eventually quit).

You mention tax payer costs. Well, which would you rather do: pay less tax payer dollars on drug users because harm minimisation rehabilitates many and lowers crimes rates, or spend more tax payer dollars on criminalising and punishing drug users because zero tolerance requires massive amounts of police and jail funding?

On the other hand I'm also advocating drug legislation rationalisation for another, complementary reason: current laws are inconsistent.

So I desire two things: sensible drug laws (harm minimisation), and consistent drug laws (evidence-based scheduling & regulation)

Or am I only allowed to desire one of those things, hmm?

by the way, you make no case against dependance = addiction. you just stated that addiction is a combination of the above factors which you listed as physical and psychological dependance, which is exactly what the graph was based upon (by, surprise, surprise, professionals in addiction research). what was your point again? are you slightly confused, yes?

I actually made a mistake; Nutt included psychological dependence with physical dependence for his overall 'dependence' factor when the term dependence most often refers to only physical dependence. I apologise.

But back to the original point - that nicotine is the most addictive drug - the reason nicotine was not first in dependence in that graph is because Dr. Nutt's study includes intensity of pleasure as one of his 3 aspects of dependence, which does not seem logical, but oh well. Clearly Opiates and stimulants will be more pleasurable than nicotine, but then again, people generally don't smoke cigarettes to get high. On the other hand, something like ecstasy produces a very pleasurable experience but has a low dependence factor. It makes little sense to include pleasure in an assessment of dependence, especially as a separate factor to psychological dependence.

Also, a further nitpick: the graph was based on dependence and physical harm, not physical and psychological dependence. The graph also completely omits the social harm data of Dr. Nutt's study (for obvious reasons: 3D graphs are hard).

I don't think your opinion is terribly outrageous, shodan, and i think we're locked into a debate about trivial issues now.

Just now? We've been locked in trivial debate since you first took issue with my post.

still, i think that attempting to talk about drugs in relation to alcohol and nicotine is a big, inviting mistake.

Why? It's one of the best ways seed cognitive dissonance in the average person. They generally rely on government classification and legislation to form their opinions of drugs, yet you've just proven such classifications to be irrational, making them question their assumptions in future.

 

[Cookie182]

To weigh in with a moral question:

Legalisation always throttles the paternalists with moral cues in regards to the 'immorality' of having no legal consequences in respect to users who can potentially harm themselves. If we don't offically state that we 'care' through law (by criminalising the activity) this is an immoral promotion of self-harm.

But how many people actually give a moral fuck when someone harms themselves "illegally" through drug use (under current system)? Is this harm somewhat less now, as we did our bit and they were simply deliquent and in an almost unsaid sense of retributive justice, deserving?

Does anyone actually care morally about the common drug user's genuine well-being or is the 'moral' need for criminalisation a simple opt out of responsibility?

I think JS Mill puts it best- assuming legalisation reduces all his "harm principle" to zero (ie theoretically there is now no greater social cost or harm on non-users):

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant."

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

This clearly says I was bewildered by the status of certain drugs under current legislation. It was not an argument of any sort, Neb. It was an opinion and a reaction. That's why I'm calling your claims a strawman - you're reading from my posts things I never said; arguments I never made.

I find it very hard to believe that the post in question wasn't an argument for the equilibration of drug laws to the more relaxed side. You posted in the most argument heavy section of an argument heavy website, after a handful of posts arguing the benefits of harm minimisation. If it wasn't an argument, I misread it, but I think I was right to read it as such.

But then...

Uh, no, I'm advocating being more lenient on drug users for the following reasons (not one of which mentions nicotine or alcohol), which can be found in the second post above the one you originally attacked where I question the scheduling of GHB, marijuana and ecstasy relative to nicotine and alcohol. Here it is:

blah blah blah

On the other hand I'm also advocating drug legislation rationalisation for another, complementary reason: current laws are inconsistent.

Why? It's one of the best ways seed cognitive dissonance in the average person. They generally rely on government classification and legislation to form their opinions of drugs, yet you've just proven such classifications to be irrational, making them question their assumptions in future.

and for the third, fourth or fifth time, i think that advocating the legalisation, or relaxation or whatever you want to call it, simply because other drugs are legal, is fallacious. it might appeal to dullards at first but when one breaks it down there's no meat on that bone.

But back to the original point - that nicotine is the most addictive drug - the reason nicotine was not first in dependence in that graph is because Dr. Nutt's study includes intensity of pleasure as one of his 3 aspects of dependence, which does not seem logical, but oh well. Clearly Opiates and stimulants will be more pleasurable than nicotine, but then again, people generally don't smoke cigarettes to get high. On the other hand, something like ecstasy produces a very pleasurable experience but has a low dependence factor. It makes little sense to include pleasure in an assessment of dependence, especially as a separate factor to psychological dependence.

I'm still confused as to your point. Are you saying that if we subtracted the pleasure ratings from each then tobacco would be at the top of this graph?

 

[SylviaB]

To weigh in with a moral question:

Legalisation always throttles the paternalists with moral cues in regards to the 'immorality' of having no legal consequences in respect to users who can potentially harm themselves. If we don't offically state that we 'care' through law (by criminalising the activity) this is an immoral promotion of self-harm.

So I take it you're for the prohibition of alcohol and tobacco?

But how many people actually give a moral fuck when someone harms themselves "illegally" through drug use (under current system)? Is this harm somewhat less now, as we did our bit and they were simply deliquent and in an almost unsaid sense of retributive justice, deserving?

If people want to take the risk of taking dangerous drugs, that should be their right.

Does anyone actually care morally about the common drug user's genuine well-being or is the 'moral' need for criminalisation a simple opt out of responsibility?

It's not the government's role to protect people from themselves. And legalising makes it safer and reduces the harm.
[/quote]

 

[Cookie182]

So I take it you're for the prohibition of alcohol and tobacco?







If people want to take the risk of taking dangerous drugs, that should be their right.



It's not the government's role to protect people from themselves. And legalising makes it safer and reduces the harm.

[/QUOTE]

Quite the opposite, I'm for complete legalisation- read my last paragraph. I was criticising the current 'moral thinking' in regards to paternalistic laws

 

[SylviaB]

Wow I feel silly. My bad.