Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Addiction - are all of the studies flawed?

Options
245

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    lizzyvera
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭lizzyvera


    The amount you have to take an addictive drug to become addicted varies from person to person.

    Lots of people binge drink. I would estimate that most young people do. Some become addicted, the vast majority do not and go on to live normal productive lives. That does not mean binge drinking is "safe", or that the addictiveness of alcohol is overstated by the media.

    That means, when we weigh up our right to drink as much as we want, against the known risk that some of our lives will be shattered by it, it seems worth it. That is not the same as "safe". I don't know what percentage become addicted through binge drinking, but I do know if the risk of seriously injuring yourself in work because of some practice was as high, it would not be allowed by H&S spoilsports.

    Taking any addictive drug is taking a risk. I would also like to point out that when you take opiates recreationally, the doses used as analgesics in hospital are not as effective becuase you will have developed a tolerence. Wait until you need opiates.


  • Options
    #33
    anonymous_joe
    Registered Users Posts: 9,255 ✭✭✭anonymous_joe


    Boston wrote: »
    Maybe it would work on another topic. But if you're arguing that a typically lethal substance can be used safely you better be talking from a position of authority and well able to back up those claims. You also better be able to detail exactly what you mean by safe and the circumstances when it is a valid assertion. Now both vinylmesh JC 2k3 have made some lazy, open ended, and tilted comments which leave a lot of room for interpretation. The reason they've done this is because they are not doctors and they can't actually comment with confidence. It's comments like "relative" which I really take umbrage with. Compared the Black Tar Heroin, Pure Heroin is "safe" but compared to a nice cup of Tea it isn't.

    I get what you're saying but if the forum is for lazy and unsubstantiated debating, then lets just merge it with the cuckoo's nest and have done with it.

    The first post reminds me of one I read on a football forum, where someone said that unless you'd played football at a high enough level, you couldn't comment.

    People are entitled to make general statements, and we shouldn't need to have a degree in medicine to comment.

    Regarding drug use and the dangers thereof - if you were to look at crime rates in this country in relation to violence and gun crime, and in countries like America, etc, you would find that a huge proportion of the crimes were caused by drugs. Often heroin. However, even more so than the drugs, the cause was the criminalisation of the drugs.

    If heroin was offered for sale cheaply and legally, with easy access to clean needles, etc, do you think drug related crime would go down in Dublin?


  • Options
    #34
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    Wasn't a general statement, nor was it offered as an opinion. It was stated as fact. Do you see the difference between saying "X footballer is crap" and what is being claimed?

    Also, opium feely available in countries such as Afghanistan to such a degree that people put it in their tea. It's still a huge problem in those countries.


  • Options
    #35
    lizzyvera
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭lizzyvera


    anonymous_joe wrote: »

    If heroin was offered for sale cheaply and legally, with easy access to clean needles, etc, do you think drug related crime would go down in Dublin?

    Drugs are difficult to make. Companies have massive overheads. Quality, safe and controlled drugs will never be cheap. Many real heroin addicts will never be able to integrate or get a job or manage a family or friendships. I imagine many of them would have to turn to crime anyway, with unemplyment as high as it is, how the hell would a heroin addict compete?! And whatever about crime, it will still destroy lives.

    I'm all for educated decision making and personal responsibility, but we all know some people aren't educated and some people don't make responsible decisions, especially when they are stressed or unhappy. Adding freely available heroin to the equation can only make things worse.

    I think your argument could apply to cannabis, but not an addictive drug.

    Needles should be free.


  • Options
    #36
    tbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    Boston wrote: »
    It's still a huge problem in those countries.

    that's interesting. What kind of problems - mostly health, or crime related?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    tbh wrote: »
    that's interesting. What kind of problems - mostly health, or crime related?

    http://swindlemagazine.com/issue12/opium-rehab/

    Social, political, and economic problems mainly.


  • Options
    #38
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Boston wrote: »
    JammyDodger: Since you,. not vinylmesh aren't medical professionals, you're in no position to determine what is a credible source. Please point out to me the per reviewed medical journals which are included in the " extremely well referenced" wiki article.

    Of course I'm not a medical professional, nor am I, with all honesty, in a position to determine what counts as a credible source. But, if we were to consign debate to the realm of professionals, a large number of forums on Boards wouldn't exist.

    I'm not sure of the validity of the references in that passage of that Wiki article, but it is referenced. If you have JSTOR access, you can certainly check up on the references, as all of the references refer to journals. As I've said, Wikipedia itself shouldn't be cited as a source, but the references it uses could be. Use an online journal search to look for the papers mentioned in the references.

    If you wish to rebuke a referenced claim, either look through the references to determine their validity, or find a counter example which is equally well referenced.
    tbh wrote: »
    yeha I totally understand where you are coming from. The point is that this is the expand your horizons forum. I thought that this was going to be a forum where the status quo could be challenged. I understand that, in everyday life, the onus of proof is on the person challenging the perceived wisdom, but a lot of the time, that perceived wisdom is based more on culture than fact.
    I had hoped the the EYH forum would allow for a suspension of that onus of proof so that common perceptions could be challenged in the way that vinlymesh is doing.

    That is, or at least was, one of the goals of this forum. It's something that we encourage people to do, but we don't want users stating something as fact and not providing citations.
    Boston wrote: »
    I get what you're saying but if the forum is for lazy and unsubstantiated debating, then lets just merge it with the cuckoo's nest and have done with it.
    Boston wrote: »
    Wasn't a general statement, nor was it offered as an opinion. It was stated as fact. Do you see the difference between saying "X footballer is crap" and what is being claimed?

    That's a bit harsh, as that's obviously not what the forum is for. If somebody states something as fact, and doesn't provide references, they will be pressed for those references until they can back up their claim. If they can't, their claim will be disregarded.


  • Options
    #39
    tbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    Boston wrote: »
    http://swindlemagazine.com/issue12/opium-rehab/

    Social, political, and economic problems mainly.

    that's an interesting read, that one. thanks


  • Options
    #40
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    I believe with certain subjects you should really understand what you're talking about before you open your mouth. Medical opinions on drug use would be one of them. "I did heroin and it had no long term effects on me" is a personal opinion. "Heroin will have no long term effects on you" is a Medical opinion. Look at Jc 2k3's posts. He's offering a Medical opinion especially in relation to the addictiveness.


  • Options
    #41
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Boston wrote: »
    I believe when certain subjects you should really understand what you're talking about before you open your mouth. Medical opinions on drug use would be one of them. "I did heroin and it had no long term effects on me" is a personal opinion. "Heroin will have no long term effects on you" is a Medical opinion. Look at Jc 2k3's posts. He's offering a Medical opinion especially in relation to the addictiveness.

    Yah, you're perfectly right. Hopefully JC will be coming back to clarify his post, and as you can see I've pressed vinlymesh to provide evidence for the claim that opiates, specifically heroin, have, when in their pure form, negligible long term effects.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    lizzyvera
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭lizzyvera


    JC 2K3 wrote: »

    Opiates in pure form are actually more or less physically harmless to the human body

    I study pharmacology and that is not true. It permanantly down-regulates several nervous functions. Tolerance develops very quickly. You probably know someone who had an operation or cancer who developed some tolerance to opiates over a short time.

    Opiate addiction IS a physical effect, when we talk about opiate addiction we are talking about the irreversible effect addiction has on the dopaminergic "reward system" in the brain. It down regulates this pathway, by over stimulating it, so the neurons compensate. That is the part that causes problems. There is no separating the "physical effect" from the addiction, because addiction is the physical effect on neural architecture.

    This research has also been done on animals using very high standard, pure opiates. Brain activity can easily be monitored.


  • Options
    #43
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    -JammyDodger- wrote: »
    Yah, you're perfectly right. Hopefully JC will be coming back to clarify his post, and as you can see I've pressed vinlymesh to provide evidence for the claim that opiates, specifically heroin, have, when in their pure form, negligible long term effects.
    clarify that he is wrong? Or are we still going to propagate the view here that opiates in their purest forms are not harmfull?


  • Options
    #44
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Deleted User wrote: »
    clarify that he is wrong? Or are we still going to propagate the view here that opiates in their purest forms are not harmfull?

    I don't think he's wrong, but I do think that he has phrased his argument in an ambiguous fashion. His post is open to misinterpretation, and that's what I'm hoping he will clarify.


  • Options
    #45
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Clarification is actually simple.
    Opiates in their purest form are harmfull or they are not.

    Which is it?


  • Options
    #46
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Clarification is actually simple.
    Opiates in their purest form are harmfull or they are not.

    Which is it?

    It's not as simple as that.

    If it's as clear-cut as you're making it out to be, then would you refuse to take any opiate under certain circumstances? This isn't a black and white issue.

    Finally, I'm not arguing for or against the premise that opiates in their pure form are harmful or not, other posters are, but I'm not. I'm just the moderator, and I haven't taken, nor will I take, part in the debate.


  • Options
    #47
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    I'd only take an opiate under medical supervision.
    However I hope we both know that,that isn't what I and others are asking for clarification on here.


  • Options
    #48
    tbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I'd only take an opiate under medical supervision.
    However I hope we both know that,that isn't what I and others are asking for clarification on here.

    so you accept that it's possible to take opiates without dying or becoming addicted.


  • Options
    #49
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Clarification is actually simple.
    Opiates in their purest form are harmfull or they are not.

    Which is it?

    If you ignore the addictiveness and the corresponding physically effects along with the effects of damaged caused by the act of injecting and the disease risks, and the physiological and neurological impacts and focus exclusively of the damaged caused by additives, then pure Heroin is safe. Thats alot of ifs buts and ands. though.


  • Options
    #50
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    tbh wrote: »
    so you accept that it's possible to take opiates without dying or becoming addicted.
    No.


  • Options
    #51
    tbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    Deleted User wrote: »
    No.

    but you'd be willing to take them in hospital? Even tho you'd either die or become addicted? You also believe that anyone who takes an opiate - say heroin - will automatically become addicted to it, the first time they take it?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    tbh wrote: »
    so you accept that it's possible to take opiates without dying or becoming addicted.

    It's possible to take opiates and for them to have no effect what so ever, but those cases are extremely rare. Under medical supervision with constant monitoring it is possible to take opiates without becoming seriously addictive. However, even with short exposure times and small doses the body starts the process of becoming addictive. Anyone whose had morphine after an operation will tell you this.


  • Options
    #53
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    tbh wrote: »
    but you'd be willing to take them in hospital? Even tho you'd either die or become addicted? You also believe that anyone who takes an opiate - say heroin - will automatically become addicted to it, the first time they take it?
    This discussion is about unsupervised non prescribed opiates used for so called recreational purposes.

    To the best of my knowledge,I'm not aware of any doctor that would prescribe drugs for recreational purposes.


  • Options
    #54
    anonymous_joe
    Registered Users Posts: 9,255 ✭✭✭anonymous_joe


    lizzyvera wrote: »
    Drugs are difficult to make. Companies have massive overheads. Quality, safe and controlled drugs will never be cheap. Many real heroin addicts will never be able to integrate or get a job or manage a family or friendships. I imagine many of them would have to turn to crime anyway, with unemplyment as high as it is, how the hell would a heroin addict compete?! And whatever about crime, it will still destroy lives.

    I'm all for educated decision making and personal responsibility, but we all know some people aren't educated and some people don't make responsible decisions, especially when they are stressed or unhappy. Adding freely available heroin to the equation can only make things worse.

    I think your argument could apply to cannabis, but not an addictive drug.

    Needles should be free.

    Were the drugs made legally, then they could be taxed, allowing the state to profit from the illegal drug trade. Moreover, by removing the product from the criminals (the supply is finite, if Ireland bought the stuff straight from the Taliban (because let's face it, that's where it's coming from, sadly) then they couldn't get it) you'd only need to wait for the current generation of addicts to die (again, sadly, that's not the kind of thing that would take long, heroin addicts are not going to live for a long time.) those who can become addicted in the first place are a much more removed group of people.

    Right now, if I wanted to buy some heroin, I could. Any of us could. We'd have to go find a dealer, or whatever, but that wouldn't be too hard. At least if it was legalised, there'd be far less drug dealers around, because they wouldn't have the same markets to tap into, and thus the product could be limited in the amounts sold. For example, if only legal heroin was available, the government could weaken it significantly for all but the worst addicts and limit the amount a person could purchase per day.

    Legalised drugs tend to lead to reduced consumption and reduced crime. Look at Portugal.

    Oh and if opiates aren't dangerous, why is Michael Jackson dead? Wasn't he addicted to really strong opiates?


  • Options
    #55
    tbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    anonymous_joe wrote: »
    and thus the product could be limited in the amounts sold. For example, if only legal heroin was available, the government could weaken it significantly for all but the worst addicts and limit the amount a person could purchase per day.

    if you limit the quantity or quality of the drug that can be sold, people are just going to go back to the black market to make up the shortfall, and you're back to square one.


  • Options
    #56
    lizzyvera
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭lizzyvera


    If heroin was legal, and the amounts you could take were limited, there would still be a black market for people who want to abuse it.

    Methadone is legal and has a similar effect to heroin. Many other opiates are legal and controlled. There is still a street heroin problem. Other than the physical problems caused by addiction- addicts will still spend every penny they can on heroin and neglect themselves and their children. It would in no way solve the social problems for the addicts.

    I'm all for personal responsibilty and making your own choices, but not with heroin. People aren't sensible enough for that kind of freedom. There is too much misinformation about drugs. You get people on either side telling lies like the evil uber conservatives saying "hash destroys your brain" and daft mislead libertarians saying "pure heroin is safe". Anyway, there is no personal responsibility or risk assessment when you are addicted- the very organ you USE for making decisions has been permanantly rewired by then!

    I hardly blame people who do get addicted, it's almost impossible to get honest unbiased advice or know who to listen to. The only place I can get good information on these drugs is in scientific journals which firstly, cost a lot to subscribe to and secondly, are scientific writings, so not everybody could read and understand them.

    Legalising cannabis would reduce crime and is another matter, because it is not addictive. The addictiveness of heroin is what causes all the problems.


  • Options
    #57
    lizzyvera
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭lizzyvera


    "disease theory of drug addiction that has been experimentally proven inaccurate"
    In what way exactly? I know it is incomplete, but inaccurate?

    What authors of what papers in what journals are you citing? I'll check them up tomorrow, I only have access in work.
    How did they do their experiments? I've done experiments myself based on it, not to prove the model but just to look at aspects of addiction.


  • Options
    #58
    Prof.Badass
    Registered Users Posts: 2,931 ✭✭✭Prof.Badass


    -JammyDodger- wrote: »
    Yah, you're perfectly right. Hopefully JC will be coming back to clarify his post, and as you can see I've pressed vinlymesh to provide evidence for the claim that opiates, specifically heroin, have, when in their pure form, negligible long term effects.
    My exact words were;
    vinylmesh wrote: »
    Every website I have gone onto in relation to this states that heroin (in it's pure form) has negligible long term effects on the body.

    I am not an expert in drugs, and was merely relaying what i had read on countless websites, the general consensus being that from a medical point of view heroin does not cause any noticeable harm to the body. I can give you links to all these websites if you want.

    As for tolerance, It can go down (rather quickly i would gather from stories of people dying from taking heroin after a period of abstainance due to decreased tolerance). I would have linked tolerance more with an increase in specific enzymes rather than any harmful effects on the body.
    lizzyvera wrote: »
    .

    I must conceed that I did not consider receptor down-regulation as I was thinking more of physical damage. I did not know it was permanent. I would have thought after a substantial period of decreased dopamergenic activity these recpetors would begin up-regulating again. Could you provide some evidence that this is permanent? i'm not doubting you-i'd just like to read into it more.

    I have certainly never heard of opiates permanently destroying people's functioning in a manner simmilar to that of methamphetamine.

    Surely all that would be required is for the user to be given a suitable dose of some opiate in order to feel normal again (according to many users the dose given in methadone maintainance has this effect). It would also be important to note that this would be people with proper addictions who have been taking heroin for a significant amount of time. I would think that this down-regulation would occur a lot more with chronic use and possibly not occur at all with occasional use.


    As an aside, did you know that nicotine has been shown to increase reward system sensitivity. Could be a possible treament perhaps (obviously in a more pure form than smoked cigarettes).

    http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v31/n6/full/1300905a.html


  • Options
    #59
    Prof.Badass
    Registered Users Posts: 2,931 ✭✭✭Prof.Badass


    Boston wrote: »
    Maybe it would work on another topic. But if you're arguing that a typically lethal substance can be used safely you better be talking from a position of authority and well able to back up those claims.

    You have just claimed that heroin causes death in most people who take it.

    Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? Can you link to any peer-reviewed journals containing this statement?

    Of all the claims made on this thread (including the one made by JC2K3), this is by far the most outrageous.


  • Options
    #60
    Prof.Badass
    Registered Users Posts: 2,931 ✭✭✭Prof.Badass


    lizzyvera wrote: »
    If heroin was legal, and the amounts you could take were limited, there would still be a black market for people who want to abuse it.Methadone is legal and has a similar effect to heroin. Many other opiates are legal and controlled. There is still a street heroin problem.

    imo, if there was a real alternative to street heroin available legally the black market would disappear. At the moment you need to be an addict already to get methadone legally.
    Other than the physical problems caused by addiction- addicts will still spend every penny they can on heroin and neglect themselves and their children. It would in no way solve the social problems for the addicts.

    From what i have read the prescription heroin programme in switzerland seems to be having a real positive effect on the addicts and their families.

    Legalising cannabis would reduce crime and is another matter, because it is not addictive. The addictiveness of heroin is what causes all the problems.

    Cannabis can be quite addictive. Obviously not in the same league as heroin, but i would definitely not describe it as "not addictive".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    vinylmesh wrote: »
    You have just claimed that heroin causes death in most people who take it.

    Did I? Odd that those arn't the words I used.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement