Cocaine

Steyr 556 wrote: »

There is a huge difference. Is the doctor going to give a patient a prescription (which is very rarely nowadays) for medical cocaine and say, yeah, fire into 2-3 grams of that this weekend within a short time span, you'll be grand. Try not to drink too much in case you produce cocaethylene in your system and damage your heart. Or possibly damage your kidneys. Or ruin your nose.

There is a vast difference between ethical and responsible use of medical cocaine and how it is deployed by trained professionals versus the average person taking it to have fun. In one case, it is used to treat. In another, it is used to have fun without the knowledge of how it will effect your body short-term/long-term or ignoring it. Medical cocaine is not given as a psychoactive substance - though inevitably there will be effects felt in the system.

This has no meaning/relevance in this topic whatsoever, this is just a subjective viewpoint on something . However it does go back to a point I made that some people seem to think that this is about good/bad people on one level. You abuse drugs "you are morally corrupt", which is such a regressive attitude to addiction and even people who dont use drugs responsibly. All this does it marginalize and isolate people who use drugs and maybe makes people who dont take drugs feel a bit better/smug about themselves.

Why is this an ethical question ? So a person that drinks or eats or smokes or even works themselves to death (or health issues) is of a higher moral fiber because society has arbitrarily deemed that some things are illegal/legal ? That is a extremely flawed stance to take which not only doesn't help but really is a "well I dont do drugs so I am a good person" kind of logic. This seems to happen alot where people who dont engage in something take some pleasure in having a pious stance simply because it suits them, not because its objectively sound reasoning

I'm not arguing this, smoking is terrible and I would say 99.9% of medical professionals agree.

So if we take your "ethically responsible" approach to using drugs, you think every smoker in the world is ethically irresponsible ? Which in turn makes every country and every person in it "ethically irresponsible" for allowing the legalization of tobacco to continue ? Whats the difference between tobacco killing and effecting people to cocaine/Heroin?

Great question. Where is such a study? I've had a look myself for such information. Either the studies have yet to take place, a long enough time span hasn't passed to collect the data, or it's underway and unfinished. It's all very well to point out the latter btw without actually having a look yourself. If you have any data I'd gladly look at it.

I think thats a bit of a disingenuous statement to make, there are plenty of studies and information out there about countries who have taken different approaches. A simple google check would you find you:

http://www.drugpolicy.org/resource/drug-decriminalization-portugal-learning-health-and-human-centered-approach




https://www.reuters.com/article/us-swiss-drugs/swiss-drug-policy-should-serve-as-model-experts-idUSTRE69O3VI20101025

https://www.thenation.com/article/switzerland-addiction-prescribed-heroin/

There is alot more information about this easily available online if you are prepared to accept that there are benefits to alternatives then what we currently have in terms of addressing drugs.

Why is the drug user sacrosanct in all of this?

It's been already stated here before - there is a very specific strategy that has yet to be pursued by police and the judiciary in this country which would bring an end to the drug crisis in this country - go after the user.

There's some kind of collective naivete amongst drug users and campaigners that they have the right of the market (supply/demand) to have drugs. No, they don't. .

There is no "bringing an end to this drug crisis", how do you not see that? How do you not see that our laws create alot if not most of the problems we see today, especially the violence.

As long as there is a market for cocaine, you will have gang violence, you will have the importation of guns with every drug shipment, you will have gangs battling each other trying to dominate the market and innocent people being gunned down when they get in the crossfire.

Legalise it, someone pays to subsidise the service, the drugs, the addiction therapy and counselling, the rehab, just so they can continue to indulge themselves?

With controlled , legal drugs (cocaine/heroine) there is few if any drug gangs left because there is no market to sell their drugs to. There are few, if any, drug related crimes because those addicted do not need to steal or mug to feed their addiction. There are no gun crimes because nobody is fighting for turf that doesnt exist.

All you do, is switch all resources/funds from drug enforcement to drug rehabilitation and supports. We are subsidizing drug users by having to monitor and arrest them.

Again, your sentiments appear to be based mostly on what you think of people who take drugs (its about their moral fiber), not on what is the best approach to take on this topic.

Countless times I read in the newspapers individuals being caught with drugs - large quantities- and who plead in court - I owed someone money, I was an addict, and somehow judges take this as a defence and take it into consideration. Users or dealers need to know, if you are caught with illegal class A drugs, it's 5 years imprisonment or massive fine.

This is what needs to happen immediately in order to take the oxygen out of the fire of the current drug crisis. What your advocating is a crutch that turns into addiction

Again, none of this happens if drugs are treated differently. Maybe the next time you read a story like this you should do some research and educate yourself more on "the war on drugs". Its an unnecessary , failed war that has racist, xenophobic and corrupt undertones to the strategy and it has created a war out of nothing.

I am going to finish off with some questions because I am sure if you have as strong opinions as you appear to have, that you have looked at all sides, not just evidence or information that supports your sentiments -

- Why do you think is Heroine/Cocaine Illegal s opposed to alcohol/tobacco? (Hint: google racist , corrupt FBI agent Harry Anslinger and why Nixon targeted these drugs and the influence it has on the rest of us)

- What evidence can you provide that shows that decriminalizing drugs makes things worse ?

- What evidence can you provide that shows the current status is a better alternative ?

- How much of the violence in drugs is caused by how we manage the problem ?

- What exactly do you understand about addiction or even abusing a mind altering substance (alcohol, medication, illegal drugs) that makes you think its a moral/ethical question of character ?

Yes, decriminalizing drugs will have some negative consequences. People will probably try more drugs but people will also have more of an opportunity to recover from addiction, use quality drugs that lead to less health issues (mental/physical), people will have a far superior understanding/knowledge of drugs (as it wont be illegal and people can discuss it openly) and there is no need/market for drug gangs if people can get it on prescription. Does that not sound more favourable to what we have right now ?

Also , you never responded to my question. You posted up information about a UK report that "revealed the number of in-patients with a primary diagnosis of "mental and behavioural disorders due to use of cocaine" has risen by more than 90 percent in the last four years.". Do you think people who take drugs are more likely to suffer mental and behavioral disorders by being made criminals/societal outcasts (with little to no prospect of every recovering) or by getting rehabilitation and support ?

Steyr 556 wrote: »

Read over your own posts Drumpot, this is what that section was in response to. I'm not going to go round in circles arguing the differences between medical use of a drug versus recreational use. I've been very clear, it's black and white. I think you need to look at medical ethics in order to grasp the difference between the medical versus recreational side of drug use. In particular, look up beneficence and non-maleficence.

What has this got to do with Heroin/Cocaine being illegal versus other drugs that have been accepted by society ? Perhaps I am not understanding your specific point here? If you are taking a chemical for non medicinal purposes whats the difference other then society has chosen to ban one and accept the other. I really am not sure I understand what your point is on this.

I've never said that.

Drinking or smoking yourself to excess or death is disgusting. It is not acceptable in society and has an immense cost to families, the medical system, law, policing, courts and so on.

Smoking tobacco is going to be made illegal in our life time and the sooner the better. Nicotine is an incredibly addictive and destructive substance. I don't think it should be legal. Countries across the world have been grappling with the adverse health effects for users for years, costing millions of lives. It should never have been made legal in the first place and it just goes to show the immense difficulty in rolling back something like this once it is made legal.

Tobacco and cocaine as stimulants have very similar effects on the brain's reward system. Both are extremely addictive. However, the likelihood of overdosing on a cigarette is marginal. There is a chance that you could overdose with cocaine and heroin, there is a chance you could go into a psychotic state with cocaine, with heroin your breathing could slow down so much you get brain damage. These are much more powerful drugs that change peoples consciousness considerably.

You are discussing a hypothetical world that has banned Smoking in a way that has had no negative consequences so until we see how that looks and works out you are just talking pie in the sky stuff.

People are not machines and cannot be reprogrammed as such. Prohibition doesn't and hasn't worked because humans have always at some stage turned to mind altering substances for recreational reasons. It is not unethical or immoral to do that just because its not something you condone.

Campaigners will argue for assisted injection sites or places where you can use drugs under supervision so as to prevent overdosing but this is just helping the addiction continue and not helping addicts. Look at the Fentanyl crisis, especially in Vancouver. Naxolone kits are widely distributed to addicts and all that happens is they OD, get administered a naxolone dose and continue. People know they can just keep going with their addiction.

Addicts need to be helped off drugs, not to continue taking them to indulge themselves.

You see I believe there is a contradiction in this paragraph. I agree that addicts need to be helped off drugs, but I also believe part of that is with support and may involve them continuing to take the drugs until they are able to be drug free. The current system does not help addicts get out of addiction of that there is no denying.

That's not what I was talking about, please re-read what I've said. I am talking about studies on the long-term effects on mental health of users in countries where decriminalisation or legalisation has taken place, which is a different thing to what countries have decriminalised drugs - that's national policy, the other is consequences over time on users. I've already mentioned that I've had a look for such a study. In cases where loopholes allowed synthetic drugs to be legal in this country, there were will reported spikes in admissions to psychiatric departments which dropped back to normal rates when the loophole was closed.

What I would like to see is more detailed data over a wider timespan than just the two year Head Shop era we had here.

So you cant find evidence to either back or deny what you think should be done, but you are certain legalizing drugs is not a solution because you think (with no data to back up these sentiments) that its just indulging peoples recreational drug use?

Your viewpoint is that it's a policy-centric/state problem - but decriminalisation will still see drugs come into the country and it being associated with illegal crime and gangs. Drugs are still illegal in Portugal, it's just if you are caught with small amounts you are ok. So someone is still bringing the drugs in, nothing has changed in that regard.

So do you think drug exporters just send a gram each time to Portugal? No, the drugs entering Portugal are being delivering as part of large consignments, where they filter down through gangs to dealers and end up as a gram in the pocket of users.

Full legalisation and state assisted drug use is not viable, people shouldn't be indulged to pursue recreational drugs. I'm in favour of getting people off drugs, not onto them.

In the 20s and 30s , during prohibition on cigs and alcohol, there were gangs and the mob involved in bootlegging Alcohol and cigs. This led to violence and the kind of gangs we see now with illegal drugs. Why isnt there still alcohol and cigerrette gangs as much as there used to be ? Do you realise that the drug gangs were created by the laws we made to ban these drugs ?

Portugal’s drug policy

https://transformdrugs.org/drug-decriminalisation-in-portugal-setting-the-record-straight/

Drug Use
Drug use has declined among those aged 15-24,6 the population most at risk of initiating drug use.....

Overall, this suggests that removing criminal penalties for personal drug possession did not cause an increase in levels of drug use.

Health

It has been claimed that the prevalence of drug-related infectious diseases rose after decriminalisation,20 yet this is strongly contradicted by the evidence. Although the number of newly diagnosed HIV cases among people who inject drugs in Portugal is well above the European average,21 it has declined dramatically over the past decade, falling from 1,016 to 56 between 2001 and 2012.22 Over the same period, the number of new cases of AIDS among people who inject drugs also decreased, from 568 to 38.

Deaths
deaths due to drug use have decreased significantly – from approximately 80 in 2001, to 16 in 2012.28

Homicides

A widely repeated claim is that, as a result of Portugal’s decriminalisation policy, drug-related homicides increased 40% between 2001 and 2006.29 30 But this claim is based on a misrepresentation of the evidence.The 40% increase (from 105 to 148) was for all homicides, defined as any ‘intentional killing of a person, including murder, manslaughter, euthanasia and infanticide’31 – they were not ‘drug-related’. In fact, there are no data collected for drug-related homicides.

Crime

Despite claims to the contrary,34 decriminalisation appears to have had a positive effect on crime.

Additionally, decriminalisation does not appear to have caused an increase in crimes typically associated with drugs. While opportunistic thefts and robberies had gone up when measured in 2004, it has been suggested that this may have been because police were able to use the time saved by no longer arresting drug users to tackle (and record) other low-level crimes.37 Although difficult to test, this theory is perhaps supported by the fact that, during the same period, there was a reduction in recorded cases of other, more complex crimes typically committed by people who are dependent on drugs, such as thefts from homes and businesses.


There will always be some negative aspects to how we treat drug users. I am arguing that how we manage it is impractical and probably causing more damage directly and indirectly.

Because Heroin and Cocaine are highly potent psychoactive substances, incredibly addictive and have serious health implications for long term users. Alcohol and tobacco are also quite strong substances, addictive and have serious health implications. The latter's status in society is beginning to change, 30 years ago it was normal for everyone to smoke. Now you might not date someone if they smoked. The shift in the public attitude and perception to smoking has been coming a long time and hopefully in the next few years it becomes illegal.

Again, you are going back to a personal principle thats not pragmatic or based in reality. There will always be people taking some sort of mind altering substance, that's just human nature.

Yes the awareness and change in sentiments towards alcohol and cigerettes came when they were legal and people could use them and discuss them openly without being criminals for doing so. . This would suggest that actually having a transparent and progressive approach to these substances has helped mature society.

1 & 2. Firstly lets look at the case of in the late 2000s/early 2010s when synthetic drugs were legally available in this country. These drugs mimicked illegal drugs like cannabis and cocaine. People can say they weren't meant for human consumption (labelled plant food) but they were designed to be consumed and for all intents and purposes they were designer drugs. I think this data answers your first two questions.





People can say these drugs were not like the other ones, but look at Colombia. People can get cocaine cheaply and legally for personal supply and still it has a crack epidemic, because people will turn to stronger drugs as their tolerance builds up and in the event of decriminalisation in this country the same would occur. In the time that we had a sort of 'decriminalisation moment' here there was an adverse effect on peoples mental health because they seriously abused the drugs.

Unless the state intervenes and produces the drugs, gangs will still exist to deliver gaps in the market for stronger substances. Decriminalisation leaves much of the gangs and networks in place.

I honestly dont know what a 4 year graph on headshops has to do with this topic. Cocaine and Heroin have been around a lot longer, what worked for head shops obviously doesnt work for the other drugs. I dont see the relevance to how this proves continuing on with our current status quo (thats failed and continuing to fail) is the way forward.

I've done my fair share of drugs and it's not something I'm proud of or revel in. I'm not some holier than thou saint who sneers at someone having a spliff and in fact I'm in favour of drugs in small amounts or as a seasonal experience. I would try at least every 1-2 years to go out and pick magic mushrooms. What I am not condoning is getting ****ed up every day or turning to drugs as a way to drown out difficulties in life or as a crutch.

What you think of people taking drugs should have no relevance on this topic. I believe this is the heart of your sentiments and as such you dont seem to be able to dicsuss pragmatic approaches for fear of "indulging" peoples vices. Meanwhile the way we treat addicts and people taking drugs leads to gangs and crimes that stop happening if the state takes over the drug trade in a regulated health centric fashion.

Those people were getting treatment at hospitals, which was caused by drug use. It's not like they were turned away and refused treatment because they were drug users. They got into this state due to long-term drug use. What your trying to say is the stigma associated with drug use caused them to suffer mental and behaviour disorders? Jesus, that's a stretch. I would think the 5 grams-a-weekend habit of high powered drugs would definitely be the cause of mental deterioration rather than people tutting at you in the street.

30 years ago, how do you think the mental health of Gay people was in Ireland? If you were Gay you had to keep your "dirty little secret" to yourself. You probably wouldnt end up in jail and could a relatively normal if not lonely life. How did Gay people having to pretend to not be gay feel ? How many committed suicide ? How many married Women and had families just to fit in? How many lived miserable lives just because they couldn't be themselves in the general population ? How did this make them feel when society had such a negative view on them ?

I think as a society we really dont appreciate the damage our response does to addicts. If you ostracize and shame a community of any sort you are aking it harder by default for them to re-integrate on any meaningful level into society. You say you want a country that helps get people off using drugs yet there is plenty of evidence to show that the way we deal with them is more likely to consign people with drug issues to a life of misery.

Ireland's approach to drug addicts is to give them a more addictive drug. How do I know ? Because my local pharmacist explained it to me . Just give them methadone (I think he said Methadone) and leave them ruin their lives. .

When you make drugs illegal and users illegal, they are less likely to get help or look for help. I have three young boys and I hope they never take hard drugs. But if they did I would rather it be drugs that are regulated, clean and monitored by the state. The alternative is they introduced to it from their peers and there will be little to no help for them which could destroy my family.

I know families destroyed by alcohol and drugs and the net result is no different. Just because one is theoretically more potent then the other makes no difference.

PS - I am trying to amend my post to be more respectful, apologies if it can come across as snotty at times, that is not my intention...

I have suffered my own demons and issues with alcohol and prescription drugs , I am now sober for over 7 years. I got well with love and support from like minded groups, not by being arrested and made a criminal. I meet many drug users who have the same story as me, except they are branded criminals by an uncaring and quite ignorant state.

This subject is extremely personal to me and I dont see why just because I got addicted to legal drugs why I am a "lucky survivor" of addiction. I dont see the way we treat addicts as helpeful, progressive or civilized. I might add that our country is pretty sh*t at even supporting or helping alcoholics, the best I can say is that it doesnt make us convicts or lock us up, but thats about it . .

I dont think Ireland or most countries actually give a flying f**k about people who suffer addictions or mental health issues that lead to addictions. They give it lip service (we want people off drugs) and do nothing to really try and help people out of their suffering. My family have a father, a husband and somebody who can support them because of the love and support I got from MY doctor, my therapist , my support group and friends who did not judge me. I’m not so sure I am around to tell this story if there was prohibition of alcohol like there is currently with cocaine or heroin.