Libertine is Dangerous.

[Diogenes]

Ladajo,

The question was directed to Diogenes. He tends to avoid some questions or trains of thought. I don't find this open-minded in the least, but he claims to be such. According to his argument, the everyday perosn, including myself, will start doing drugs simply because they are available. I've countered, pointing out several drugs currently available to me of which I do none.

I am not avoiding when I am ignoring. The difference is not that I can't respond, it's that I don't see any merit to responding.

As far as you're not doing drugs is concerned, Physicists have no way of knowing which individual atom is going to spontaneously undergo fission, but statistically the lump of material is predictable. Just for the fun of it, what drugs do you have currently available which you do not do? Are they addictive, and have you tried them? Do you have friends enjoying them and urging you to try them?

If not, then why would you think that would be a reasonable comparison?

[MSimon]

Re: clandestine arts and criminals.

Look up the history of Lucky Luciano during WW2.

BTW. I'm addicted. To the most addictive substance known to man.

Tobacco. And it is legal.

Also note: for those susceptible, drug substitution is common among addicts.

Alcohol, pot, heroin and drugs in that constellation are more or less interchangeable.

Now if something is to be done about that alcohol prohibition is in order. Because - other than mothers milk (pot analogs) it is the starter drug for all the rest.

Also important is "polydrug use" - you can look it up.

If you are not addicted to alcohol the chance that you will become addicted to heroin are rather small.

Poly-drug use is the combination of two or more drugs with the intention of achieving a particular effect. In many cases, users take secondary drugs to balance out the effects of a primary drug. For example, many abusers of the drug ecstasy will smoke marijuana or drink alcohol to counter the bad feelings of ecstasy's comedown stage. Other common combinations are marijuana and alcohol, cocaine and alcohol, and LSD and ecstasy.

Some poly-drug combinations involve perfectly legal over-the-counter medications or other products. For example, Red Bull and other energy drinks are popular as elements in poly-drug formulas, as are cold medications like Nyquil and caffeine stimulants like NoDoz.

The Speedball Effect

Prescription opiates are a growing element in poly-drug use. The mixture of cocaine and heroin, also known as a "speedball," was once popular in the 70s and 80s but declined throughout the 90s. In more recent years, the combination is making a comeback with prescription opiates in place of heroin.

It's particularly popular in places where young people have access to these drugs, which is increasingly in suburban communities and on college campuses.

http://www.buprenorphine-detox.net/bupr ... people.php

Well according to that college should be banned as the greatest threat to our youth. With living in the suburbs as a comparable threat. So outlawing suburbia should be high on the list of prohibitions as well.

Poly drug use often carries with it more risk than use of a single drug, due to an increase in side effects, and drug synergy. The potentiating effect of one drug on another is sometimes considerable and here the licit drugs and medicines – such as alcohol, nicotine and antidepressants – have to be considered in conjunction with the controlled psychoactive substances. The risk level will depend on the dosage level of both substances. Concerns exist about a number of pharmacological pairings: alcohol and cocaine increase cardiovascular toxicity; alcohol or depressant drugs, when taken with opioids, lead to an increased risk of overdose; and opioids or cocaine taken with ecstasy or amphetamines also result in additional acute toxicity.[2] Benzodiazepines are notorious for causing death when mixed with other CNS depressants such as opioids, alcohol, or barbiturates.[3][4][5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poly_drug_use

[MSimon]

So we need to ban big cities and suburbs as vectors for drug use.

Since drug use peaks in the 15 to 25 year old cohort it might be wise to ban children as well. China has a one child rule. America needs a no child rule. To stamp out drug use.

If Americans stopped having children the drug problem might finally become manageable. Dry up the market.

Another alternative is the death penalty for pregnant women and the men who got them pregnant. Once there are no more children the drug problem eventually goes away.

A police state should do the trick nicely.

[CKay]

If you are not addicted to alcohol the chance that you will become addicted to heroin are rather small.

Hmm... I've known a few heroin addicts and can think of only one who had (previously had - people with opiate habits tend not to drink) a drink problem.

And, having watched several friends succumb, I'd say that heroin is way more addicting than drink. It's perfectly possible to drink alcohol everyday for months, or even years, without developing an addiction. The same can not be said for heroin.

[MSimon]

Another possibility is imprisoning children from age 15 to 25. All children. The current system is headed in the right direction in that respect but not nearly enough is being done.

The way the system is currently implemented black kids are pretty well protected. But white kids are not. We need to get more white kids in prison.

[MSimon]

If you are not addicted to alcohol the chance that you will become addicted to heroin are rather small.

Hmm... I've known a few heroin addicts and can think of only one who had (previously had - people with opiate habits tend not to drink) a drink problem.

And, having watched several friends succumb, I'd say that heroin is way more addicting than drink. It's perfectly possible to drink alcohol everyday for months, or even years, without developing an addiction. The same can not be said for heroin.

Actually the same can be said for opiates. Otherwise every one who used an opiate for pain relief would become an addict.

The US Navy gave me morphine for pain relief. I never became a morphine addict. Why was that?

And do not confuse habituation with addiction. We have a cure for habituation - detox.

So why do some who have been detoxed go back to use? Well they have pain that is not currently being treated. PTSD mostly.

And if you knew something about the subject you would know that the NIDA considers genetics a factor in addiction. Accounting for about 50% of the reason some people are addicted. The other 50% is trauma. So you need the right genetics plus trauma to become an addict. And the genetics involved only affects 20% or so of the population.

This is part of the reason heroin was at one time an over the counter drug. The first 10 people it was tried on did not become addicted (and the thought was "whoopee - a non-addictive opiate"). Not an unusual result if you consider that only 10% of the population is susceptible to addiction (genetics + trauma).

But yeah. A war on the traumatized is the moral thing to do in a "Christian" nation.

[ScottL]

Ladajo,

The question was directed to Diogenes. He tends to avoid some questions or trains of thought. I don't find this open-minded in the least, but he claims to be such. According to his argument, the everyday perosn, including myself, will start doing drugs simply because they are available. I've countered, pointing out several drugs currently available to me of which I do none.

I am not avoiding when I am ignoring. The difference is not that I can't respond, it's that I don't see any merit to responding.

As far as you're not doing drugs is concerned, Physicists have no way of knowing which individual atom is going to spontaneously undergo fission, but statistically the lump of material is predictable. Just for the fun of it, what drugs do you have currently available which you do not do? Are they addictive, and have you tried them? Do you have friends enjoying them and urging you to try them?

If not, then why would you think that would be a reasonable comparison?

I am now living in Los Angeles, so availability has risen. I could access tons of over the counter drugs or street corner drugs, all easily accessible. Huffing glue is addictive, I could do that too if I were so inclined. I assume there is an addictive component, but aside from 2nd-hand inhilation and the last month of High School trying weed, I am currently not using or intend to use. I do have friends actively using, but no "peer pressure" (pushing) to use as well.

Summary, I'm in a city with high availability, around people who currently use, but are not pushing, and I'm still as clean as one would expect. I haven't seen any increased desire to do them, and I feel it'd take a physically threatening force to use them. I'm inclined to believe that I will remain in my no-use state for the remainder of my foreseeable life.

* Side note: I'm glad you avoid questions like "So you support education on the topic?" and view them as having no merit. Education in your eyes has no merit....lovely.

[CKay]

The US Navy gave me morphine for pain relief. I never became a morphine addict. Why was that?

Probably because you only had a short course for acute pain relief - not repeated doses every day for several weeks. People who are prescribed opiates for chronic pain relief very often go on to develop physiological opiate dependence.

I'm all for decriminalising all drug use. But I also think it's important to neither over-exaggerate nor underplay the harms and risks associated with different drugs.

And, from what I've seen, heroin pretty much deserves its bad rep.

I'd bet my house that the proportion of regular drinkers who go on to develop alcohol dependency is far, far lower than the proportion of regular heroin users who go on to full blown heroin dependency.

[CKay]

So why do some who have been detoxed go back to use? Well they have pain that is not currently being treated. PTSD mostly.

With heroin addicts who've been clean a while, the first high is temptation enough - they know that their tolerance will be lower than when they were last using, so the high will be correspondingly spectacular.

[ladajo]

Nice logical fallacy rant Simon. One of your better ones the last couple of years.

It is true, if there were no people, there would be no people addicted to drugs. I fully agree.

[CKay]

Nice logical fallacy rant Simon. One of your better ones the last couple of years.

It is true, if there were no people, there would be no people addicted to drugs. I fully agree.

Oh right... when Simon wrote:

Since drug use peaks in the 15 to 25 year old cohort it might be wise to ban children as well. China has a one child rule. America needs a no child rule. To stamp out drug use. [...] If Americans stopped having children the drug problem might finally become manageable.[...] Another alternative is the death penalty for pregnant women and the men who got them pregnant. Once there are no more children the drug problem eventually goes away.[...] A police state should do the trick nicely.[...] We need to get more white kids in prison.

instead of just interpreting all that at face value, on my first reading I stupidly attributed an ironic subtext that I guess is not there.

That's almosts as dumb as someone failing to detect irony, even where that ironic intent is clearly flagged up with obviously extreme and ridiculous statements.

Poe's Law in action.

[CKay]

woops - unintended post

[ladajo]

As his normal MO, Simon likes to use extreme counter-irony to make his point for extremity on the other end of the argument. In his case complete legalization for all.

It is a standard rant pattern he uses when others post reasonable points and actual study/research to back up the point being made.

He likes to use an automatic shotgun to shut down opposition once he runs out of clear counters.

Notice that he has yet to address the point about his population usage data which is clearly not the current national numbers. The last time he did this was when he claimed that teens have been consistantly finding access to controlled drugs easier. The current national study says the opposite, teens have reported a national recurring down trend in access.

Always fun.

I agree with you that education is key. But to my surprise, the note in the last national study about education seems to imply that the liberal control of education and media is promoting drug use to students. It does not seem that the education system is on board with the dangers of drugs use, given the correllation shown between more education and more drug use. I found it intriguing.

If that is the case, I strongly feel it need to be addressed. I, as stated, feel that awareness and education is a foundation to controlling problems. On the complete legalization point, I am still very much thinking that is a bad idea. I do see some merit to explore a partial control system, like alcohol, but how to implement that idea effectively remains elusive for me.

I, as I have staed many times, do not believe the current programs and controls are effective. If anything, they are holding the line, although there have been periods of "improvement". Just not sustained, nor truly dramatic.

I also fully agree, that in any given population with access to addicitive drugs, there will be a percentage that will abstain (for various reasons), there will be a percentage that "experiments", and from the percentage that "experiements" there will be a percentage that become lifetime users, and in those a goodly number will eventually develop some level of addiction. Within the addicted group, there will be a good percentage where the addiction eventually impacts in measurable terms not only thier own lives, but the lives of others, as well as create burden to society. This is that part that for me creates the base issue to roll back up the chain.
The fundamental sticking point, is where in the chain do you seek to disrupt, and to what degree given the risks?

[Diogenes]

Ladajo,

The question was directed to Diogenes. He tends to avoid some questions or trains of thought. I don't find this open-minded in the least, but he claims to be such. According to his argument, the everyday perosn, including myself, will start doing drugs simply because they are available. I've countered, pointing out several drugs currently available to me of which I do none.

I am not avoiding when I am ignoring. The difference is not that I can't respond, it's that I don't see any merit to responding.

As far as you're not doing drugs is concerned, Physicists have no way of knowing which individual atom is going to spontaneously undergo fission, but statistically the lump of material is predictable. Just for the fun of it, what drugs do you have currently available which you do not do? Are they addictive, and have you tried them? Do you have friends enjoying them and urging you to try them?

If not, then why would you think that would be a reasonable comparison?

I am now living in Los Angeles, so availability has risen. I could access tons of over the counter drugs or street corner drugs, all easily accessible. Huffing glue is addictive, I could do that too if I were so inclined. I assume there is an addictive component, but aside from 2nd-hand inhilation and the last month of High School trying weed, I am currently not using or intend to use. I do have friends actively using, but no "peer pressure" (pushing) to use as well.

Summary, I'm in a city with high availability, around people who currently use, but are not pushing, and I'm still as clean as one would expect. I haven't seen any increased desire to do them, and I feel it'd take a physically threatening force to use them. I'm inclined to believe that I will remain in my no-use state for the remainder of my foreseeable life.
.

You are talking about availability in the abstract. You are saying that stuff is obtainable, i'm asking you if it is Around you, in your near vicinity, and available for your use. You are also ignoring the fact that it is illegal, and that there is a currently existing social onus for using that stuff. You seem to be unable to see how a social change (legalization) will affect the social onus.

Think for a moment if Cocaine were as legal as alcohol. Ask yourself if you would take a drink of the one, why you would feel an onus against taking a hit of the other? From what i've seen, The Coolest parties in Los Angeles pretty much always have a little blow on a table somewhere.

If it weren't illegal, I expect it would be as popular as Alcohol, but it is a relatively small segment of the population that likes to live dangerously.

* Side note: I'm glad you avoid questions like "So you support education on the topic?" and view them as having no merit. Education in your eyes has no merit....lovely.

I ignored this because it is not clear what you are suggesting. I personally think the best education regarding drug use can be had by watching people wreck their lives from using. *I* know people that have died from drugs. If you can figure out a way to get that kind of knowledge into a class room, then sure, i'm all in favor of "education."

But if you are referring to some sort of Abstract presentation where someone gets up and just talks at a bunch of people, I consider that to be mostly a waste of time. It is as useful to people as are Psychiatrists in curing mental illness. (To my knowledge, none has ever successfully cured a Mental problem.)

The problem with educating people about drugs is that the issue is too subtle and slow for most people to "get it." The REASON'S for drugs being bad don't show up right away. Sometimes it takes YEARS before what is wrong with it becomes apparent, and people nowadays are just too impatient to figure things out before jumping in feet first.

As another example of the same sort of problem, I have long said, the 24th and 26th amendments were a mistake, but it has taken DECADES for what is wrong with those amendments to manifest itself. Unfortunately, enlightenment has not spread wide enough to stop the coming disaster.

[Diogenes]

The US Navy gave me morphine for pain relief. I never became a morphine addict. Why was that?

Probably because you only had a short course for acute pain relief - not repeated doses every day for several weeks. People who are prescribed opiates for chronic pain relief very often go on to develop physiological opiate dependence.

I'm all for decriminalising all drug use. But I also think it's important to neither over-exaggerate nor underplay the harms and risks associated with different drugs.

And, from what I've seen, heroin pretty much deserves its bad rep.

I'd bet my house that the proportion of regular drinkers who go on to develop alcohol dependency is far, far lower than the proportion of regular heroin users who go on to full blown heroin dependency.

Are you familiar with what happened in China? Did you know that by 1905, 50% of Adult males in Manchuria were addicted to opium? (Or so says various sources.)

If you decriminalize, why would you think the same thing that happened to China wouldn't happen here?