Liberty Is Dangerous

[ladajo]

Apples and Oranges dude.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/s ... rugs-brain

When some drugs of abuse are taken, they can release 2 to 10 times the amount of dopamine that natural rewards do.15 In some cases, this occurs almost immediately (as when drugs are smoked or injected), and the effects can last much longer than those produced by natural rewards. The resulting effects on the brain's pleasure circuit dwarfs those produced by naturally rewarding behaviors such as eating and sex.16,17 The effect of such a powerful reward strongly motivates people to take drugs again and again. This is why scientists sometimes say that drug abuse is something we learn to do very, very well.

http://www.csun.edu/~vcpsy00h/students/drugs.htm

Amphetamines, Cocaine, and nicotine are the three common drugs which actually increase the natural neurotransmitter Dopamine in the brain. These drugs are considered stimulants. The problem with this otherwise advantageous effect is that when dopamine is released beyond natural homeostatic protection of the endocrine system, the body is not allowed to sleep or rest. The brain needs to go through its normal cycle of conscious states. If it becomes forced by continuous stimulants to bypass the states achieved during rest and sleep, the brain will force the issue. When this happens, the individual will begin to have waking dreams, a state almost identical to psychosis. Unconscious and extremely violent behavior is often exhibited.

We know that the same sort of mechanisms involved in the development of tolerance can eventually lead to profound changes in neurons and brain circuits, with the potential to severely compromise the long-term health of the brain. For example, glutamate is another neurotransmitter that influences the reward circuit and the ability to learn. When the optimal concentration of glutamate is altered by drug abuse, the brain attempts to compensate for this change, which can cause impairment in cognitive function. Similarly, long-term drug abuse can trigger adaptations in habit or nonconscious memory systems. Conditioning is one example of this type of learning, whereby environmental cues become associated with the drug experience and can trigger uncontrollable cravings if the individual is later exposed to these cues, even without the drug itself being available. This learned "reflex" is extremely robust and can emerge even after many years of abstinence.

Chronic exposure to drugs of abuse disrupts the way critical brain structures interact to control and inhibit behaviors related to drug abuse. Just as continued abuse may lead to tolerance or the need for higher drug dosages to produce an effect, it may also lead to addiction, which can drive an abuser to seek out and take drugs compulsively. Drug addiction erodes a person's self-control and ability to make sound decisions, while sending intense impulses to take drugs.

http://www.csam-asam.org/marijuanas-add ... ral-public

There are four separate lines of research that prove marijuana has all the characteristics of an addictive drug.

Neuroscientists have demonstrated that marijuana affects the brain's Reward Center in exactly the same way as all other known drugs of addiction.
Animal studies have demonstrated consistent patterns of behavior when THC, the main active ingredient in marijuana, is given twice a day for one week and then suddenly withdrawn
Clinical reports of humans reveal a similar pattern of withdrawal symptoms during the first weeks of abstinence, including

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 151451.htm

A team of Duke University Medical Center and Australian scientists has found that addictive drugs may have hijacked the same nerve cells and connections in the brain that serve a powerful, ancient instinct: the appetite for salt.

Some interesting studies here as well:
http://www.bnl.gov/medical/RCIBI/addiction.asp

Such this one doing brain imaging:
http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/PR_d ... ?prID=1355

Riding a horse is very much a different thing than playing Russian Roulette with drugs. The only concept shared is the idea of risk. And to that point, why live at all? As life obviously brings risk and death. It is a stupid argument.

Giving a child Cocaine has no relavence to putting them on a horse. Riding horses does not induce poor judgement. Taking Drugs induces reductions in ability to reason and perform valid judgements. Drugs also come with a tendancy to physically promote further use. This in turn encourages further dependancy, as well as increased (or in some cases permanent) periods of impaired function which in turn exponentially raises risk to the person involved and those around them as the cycle continues.

I also know that you think drugs are ok based on your statements. I do not think they are ok. You can believe as you wish and provide whatever encouragment you wish to all your friends and family to take drugs. That is your right. Odds are, if they take you up on it, their lives will collapse around them, and probably they will take some other folks down with them.
I think you could get it over quicker, just by bringing all these folks you know together in a room, and then you could turn out the lights and begin randomly firing a gun for 5 minutes. It would probably even give you a dopamine rush without having to take any drugs. What a bonus. Or, you could all go ride horses, where I predict a much lower loss rate, but you would still get the dopamine.

[CKay]

I also know that you think drugs are ok based on your statements.

Strawman - I said nothing of the kind.

I am certainly not 'pro-drugs' (a ridiculous notion).

I am against the criminalisation of drug use and drug users. I think it poor and inconsistent justice and, if harm reduction is the aim, counter-productive in the extreme.

I do not think they are ok.

Presumably that includes alcohol, yeah?

And I take it that you agree with strong criminal sanctions for drug users (fines, prison sentences, a criminal record that will follow them around for the rest of their lives) - all in order to protect them from themselves?

[ScottL]

Once you eliminate Alcohol and Tobacco death's from the drug numbers, you find there were more deaths related to helium, than the combined other drugs not listed. Interesting statistic and surprising.....helium? really? In 2010-11, drug deaths related to heroine, ecstasy, and amphetamines dropped, repeating the previous years' trend. The truth is, we focus on the extremes or use anecdotal evidence, not based on scientific research to back our wild-eyed claims.

Show me the reports with hard data and compare them to helium death, hanggliding, airplane crashes, etc. Give me a great statistical analysis of why we must continue prohibiting marijuana and why salvia is "ok." Numbers should speak louder than words in this forum.

[ladajo]

I also know that you think drugs are ok based on your statements.

Strawman - I said nothing of the kind.

I am certainly not 'pro-drugs' (a ridiculous notion).

I am against the criminalisation of drug use and drug users. I think it poor and inconsistent justice and, if harm reduction is the aim, counter-productive in the extreme.

I do not think they are ok.

Presumably that includes alcohol, yeah?

And I take it that you agree with strong criminal sanctions for drug users (fines, prison sentences, a criminal record that will follow them around for the rest of their lives) - all in order to protect them from themselves?

If you had been around here longer, you would know that while I am very much against legalization, you would understand that I am also in agreement that the current approach is not working. But I also do not claim to have a viable alternative. I have, with others here debated and explored various options to the status-quo, but have not personally settled on a workable alternative framework. The one that seems to me to have the most legs, is one of limited managed access. One that uses medical and counciling professionals, but in a manner that also removes the profit incentive for illegals. The counter-arguement to this, is that with any control, there will always be some sort of illicit market as folks try to get around the system.

Drugs are a difficult conundrum in that use promotes more desire and more use. In this conundrum is the fact that this self-promoting usage cycle also incurs deficits in a person's ability to function rationally which further exacerbates the problem. It is inherently a downard spiral with multiple order effects. The best seeming models are to prevent/limit access in the first place, and then for those exposed to educate and heal before it is too late. The trick is in the execution and the mulitple balances between the parts. By having stiff penalties for use/possession one hopes that this potential/actual pain will outweigh the calculus of benefits for use. However, as penalties compound, so does loss of access to a normal life, and paradoxically access to drugs increase due to social circumstance. But with limited or no-penalties, there incurs a higher risk for experimentalist population base, and potential increase in numbers of addictions and dependancies with the corrosponding longer term risks of life failure by these folks. It is all a balance.
I personally think that better long term strategies involve reduction/limit of criminal supply incentives via removing the profit incentive as well as massively stiff penalty, like death no matter what, or something of the sort. As well as extensive educational programs that target heavily the young to the studied effects and dangers of use and experimentation. But again, these are ideas that seem to have more promise than others in a comprehensive strategy.

Your statements previously indicate a desire to legalize, and that drugs are a personal choice. If this is not so, then clearly say what you want/think.

[Betruger]

Here is where I tap out (again). I learned a long time ago not to argue religion. Enjoy your drugs and try not to harm others. Also do not expect me to support any of my tax dollars going to social programs and medical that enable your usage or "recovery". Accept your personal risk, and do not expect to mitigate it at the expense of others.

Exact same thing can be said for assuming responsibility for anything that happens after willfully taking drugs. Why not outlaw any other such dangerous thing that also only starts with one bit of "free will" IE willfull tip of the first domino? Even if the domino sequence is much shorter - walking onto train's path, or (at opposite side of spectrum) working around asbestos, or paragliding... The obviously better, closer comparison is to alcohol. Or pot. Etc.

It all starts with willful choice to first use it, to initiate it. The fundamental sticking point here is the outlawing of free will.

But I also do not claim to have a viable alternative. I have, with others here debated and explored various options to the status-quo, but have not personally settled on a workable alternative framework.

It's a cultural problem, not a political one. Government is just not the right tool for the job.

[CKay]

Drugs are a difficult conundrum in that use promotes more desire and more use.

Hmm - it seems that you are conflating a whole host of different substances, with a range of very different effects, into this one entity 'drugs'.

Not all drugs promote desire for more use. Not all drug experiences are even enjoyable - for example, many who try LSD have no desire to repeat the experience (and LSD is certainly not physiologically or psychologically addictive). Not all drugs have the same effects on different people.

Some drugs can indeed, as you have said, affect one's ability to make reasoned decisions and can also create a desire for further use, which may well develop, first into psychological, then physiological addiction. Alcohol being a prime example and by far the most damaging in terms of its gross effects (deaths, chronic illness, violence) in Western society.

One last time - do you drink?

clearly say what you want/think.

I already have. I strongly believe that criminalising people for allegedly doing harm to themselves is morally wrong, inconsistent (why punish some risk behaviours - drug use - and not others - paragliding?) and counter-productive.

If I was in charge of UK drug policy, I'd decriminalise the issue and approach it as a medical problem. In other words, replicate what's been attempted, apparently with considerable success, in Portugal.

[Diogenes]

The argument that they have a right to do this is nonsense.

The INJURY that one person does to another with drugs, is introducing them to it. That one act sometimes has horrible consequences for the injured person.

I was introduced to paragliding by a friend.

It is, unfortunately, a dangerous activity - statistically far more dangerous than, for example, taking ecstasy.

Should paragliding be criminalised and those caught indulging in recreational aviation face punishment, prison even?

Good question. I have one rule for determining if something ought to be outlawed nationally. Does it constitute such a danger that it could threaten our ability to defend ourselves as a nation?

This Question regarding Drugs was answered in the Affirmative by the Real world experience that China had with addiction. Legal Opium importation started in 1758, and by 1900, 50% of the adult males in Manchuria were addicted to opium. By 1930, China was so weak economically and militarily that they could not even protect themselves from the much smaller Japan.

If Hang gliding can plausibly result in such an eventuality, then I would suggest as a matter of national security, the practice should be banned.

Do you think hang gliding could be a national security threat?

By the way, the natural progression of drug use is logarithmic, not linear. Ecstasy may be of low statistical significance at present, but allowing it and it's sister drugs would eventually produce a chart that looks like this:

Chests of Opium brought into China



As I have mentioned to MSimon before, if the practice of Summoning Demons was getting too many people killed, we would have to outlaw it. Some percentage of population death is tolerable. Too much requires active prevention.

[Diogenes]

I was introduced to paragliding by a friend.

It is, unfortunately, a dangerous activity - statistically far more dangerous than, for example, taking ecstasy.

Should paragliding be criminalised and those caught indulging in recreational aviation face punishment, prison even?

Locally we've had 5 young people die recently from taking E cut with PMMA, no recent deaths from paragliding.

1. Ecstasy cut with something else is no longer ecstasy (you can thank prohibition for creating a completely deregulated market that supplies contaminated drugs).

2. Like Scott said - that's just anecdotal evidence.

To make an informed judgement about the relative risks we'd need to know the numbers of ecstasy users vs. paragliders and the number of fatalities.

In the UK there are about 5,000 active paragliders with on average 2 deaths per year, gving a fatality rate of 1 death per 2,500. Compare that with around 30 fatalities per year out of roughly 1,000,000 mdma users, giving 1 per 33,000. Paragliding is an order of magnitude more dangerous!

Even equestrianism has a higher level of risk than ecstasy use - from WikiP:

David Nutt, a former chairman of the UK Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, stated in the Journal of Psychopharmacology in January 2009 that ecstasy use compared favorably with horse riding in terms of risk, with ecstasy leading to around 30 deaths a year in the UK compared to about 10 from horse riding, and "acute harm to person" occurring in approximately 1 in 10,000 episodes of ecstasy use compared to about 1 in 350 episodes of horse riding. Dr. Nutt notes the lack of a balanced risk assessment in public discussions of MDMA.

And here's some anecdotal evidence: only a couple of months back my friend told me of a local girl - one of his daughters friends - who was killed when her horse got spooked and reared up. Mum discovered her, family devastated, popular lass with a bright future ahead of her, etc.

So isn't it time we had a moral crusade against the evil horse riding craze that's robbing our kids of their future? And anyone who gets caught doing equestrianism should get a criminal record, repeat offenders banged up with murderers and rapists - it's for their own good!

Okay, I can see I wasted my time responding to you. It is not what you don't know that is the problem, it is what you THINK you know.

If you want to find out what ACTUALLY happens when you have legal drugs, look at China from 1758 to 1945. By the way, You Brits are responsible for utterly destroying that nation by your importation of drugs.


Here, educate yourself.

http://www.amoymagic.com/OpiumWar.htm

[Diogenes]

Sorry, but afaik there's zero evidence for such physiological dependency with mdma use (or cannabis, cocaine, lsd, ketamine, psilocybin...).

Here is where I tap out (again). I learned a long time ago not to argue religion. Enjoy your drugs and try not to harm others. Also do not expect me to support any of my tax dollars going to social programs and medical that enable your usage or "recovery". Accept your personal risk, and do not expect to mitigate it at the expense of others.

Police: Mom killed two children, two others and herself after taping herself smoking meth

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/16/mo ... z1jivKdxoX

You are right about it being a "religion." You can't argue with a person's faith. No matter what you point out which contradicts what they want to believe, they will simply become all the more zealous in their pronouncements.

I don't persist because I believe I can change any of these robot's minds, but to insure that they have opposition to their false theories. Onlookers might be able to see and understand the evidence I present, and to that degree some good might be accomplished.

[Diogenes]

So why do we jail those who are "hit by the bullets fired into the air"?

Because they are infected with the bullet firing disease.

[Diogenes]

I also know that you think drugs are ok based on your statements.

Strawman - I said nothing of the kind.

I am certainly not 'pro-drugs' (a ridiculous notion).

I am against the criminalisation of drug use and drug users. I think it poor and inconsistent justice and, if harm reduction is the aim, counter-productive in the extreme.

I do not think they are ok.

Presumably that includes alcohol, yeah?

And I take it that you agree with strong criminal sanctions for drug users (fines, prison sentences, a criminal record that will follow them around for the rest of their lives) - all in order to protect them from themselves?

Said the horse thief to the Judge "I think it is unfair that I should be hung for stealing a horse." To which the Judge replied: "You are not being hung for stealing a horse, you are being hung so that horses might not be stolen."

Deterrence is the theory upon which our entire criminal justice system is based. If you do not comprehend how it works, you should perhaps learn more before you opine.

[CKay]

You Brits are responsible for utterly destroying that nation by your importation of drugs.


Here, educate yourself.

http://www.amoymagic.com/OpiumWar.htm

Hmm, not patronising at all, eh?

Sorry to disappoint, I'm fully aware of that pretty shameful part of British history (it is but one of many).

And sorry to further disappoint, but I'm not willing to accept any guilt by association ("you Brits") for something that happened over 200 years ago!

[ladajo]

Drugs are a difficult conundrum in that use promotes more desire and more use.

Hmm - it seems that you are conflating a whole host of different substances, with a range of very different effects, into this one entity 'drugs'.

Not all drugs promote desire for more use. Not all drug experiences are even enjoyable - for example, many who try LSD have no desire to repeat the experience (and LSD is certainly not physiologically or psychologically addictive). Not all drugs have the same effects on different people.

Some drugs can indeed, as you have said, affect one's ability to make reasoned decisions and can also create a desire for further use, which may well develop, first into psychological, then physiological addiction. Alcohol being a prime example and by far the most damaging in terms of its gross effects (deaths, chronic illness, violence) in Western society.

One last time - do you drink?

clearly say what you want/think.

I already have. I strongly believe that criminalising people for allegedly doing harm to themselves is morally wrong, inconsistent (why punish some risk behaviours - drug use - and not others - paragliding?) and counter-productive.

If I was in charge of UK drug policy, I'd decriminalise the issue and approach it as a medical problem. In other words, replicate what's been attempted, apparently with considerable success, in Portugal.

Fundamentally, Risk behaviours that place others at risk are wrong. For example, if you want to sit in a corner and eat rat poision, have at it. If you want to encourage others to eat rat poison, then you should be held accountable. it is the difference between suicide and murder. I personally do not have an issue with suicide. I have an issue with suicide when it is brought about by the criminal acts of others. I do not fault someone directly for checking out. But I do ask why?
The flaw in your argument is that taking drugs is not incurring risk to others. This is where we disagree. While LSD may not be addictive, its use certainly does place others at risk. The user has absolutely no rational control over themselves, and thus puts them in a position to say toss themselves out a window and land on someone below.
I, for example, have no issue with paragliders. Unless they choose to do so in a manner that involuntarily risks others, like only doing it above a childrens school during play time. Or as another example, driving fast and racing around in a car. Doing it through a city at traffic hours deserves punishment and consequence, whereas doing it on a track with other racers does not. Everyone there accepts mutual risk voluntarily and on equal terms.

I do drink. And I do so in a manner, and with folks who mutally accept the risk incurred. Which in my case is minimal and well managed. If I do drink in excess, and I do incur involuntary risk to others in doing so, I fully expect to be accountable for it. That is why I limit how much and where I drink. Drinking is more moderate and much less of a risk than drugs. My having a beer while I cook on my BBQ is much less risk than my dropping a tab while doing so. Two different animals. And, in case you haven't noticed, lack of responsible use of alcohol is a crime.

[CKay]

If you do not comprehend how it works, you should perhaps learn more before you opine.

Ouch.

(Yep, sorry to disappoint once more, but I well know the horse stealing quote. I would be tempted to engage you in a discussion of utilitarianism, Bentham and Mill, vs Kant's Categorical Imperative - but seeing as you seem quite incapable of anything approaching polite discussion, I think I'd rather not bother. )

[CKay]

I do drink. And I do so in a manner, and with folks who mutally accept the risk incurred. Which in my case is minimal and well managed.

So taking drugs is okay, so long as the user assesses and takes the appropriate measures to minimise risk?