[HN Gopher] Not-such-better-living through chemistry
___________________________________________________________________
Not-such-better-living through chemistry
Author : Metacelsus
Score : 150 points
Date : 2023-01-07 12:48 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.science.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.science.org)
| taxicabjesus wrote:
| I don't have any personal experience with amphetamines, or any of
| the stimulants other than caffeine. But plenty of my passengers
| were struggling with substance addictions. I had a passenger who
| was whacked out on something. He disappeared real quick - I
| couldn't figure out how he got over that wall...
|
| One of my passengers, whom I helped get off alcohol, said her
| downward spiral started with stimulants. Her husband had brought
| cocaine home from 'work' in California. He had emotional problems
| related to childhood. When cocaine got expensive they switched to
| meth amphetamine. She realized it was causing problems for her
| when she realized she'd been short with her youngest child.
|
| At one point her other boy was prescribed Adderall (amphetamine)
| for ADD. That experiment only lasted for two weeks. She kept
| these Adderall pills on reserve, and used them to wean herself
| off the methamphetamine. That's when her anxiety started. After a
| few months of medical treatment, she found the 'anxiety' was
| perfectly relieved with alcohol. Whoops. [She ran back to the
| bottle every time she got a little stressed. I eventually
| encouraged her to use cannabis to mellow out:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21889546 ]
|
| Our dear leaders should come out of their ivory towers and figure
| out what actually happens on the streets. The _War on Drugs_ has
| been ongoing for over a hundred years. People cycle in and out of
| jail /prison, but they don't get better from being mickeyed up
| (incarcerated).
|
| From my perspective as a simple former taxi driver, the drug war
| is just a make-work program for public defenders: _the bad
| chemicals_ get confiscated and _the bad people_ get locked up,
| but people still have the same amount of unaddressed distress.
| People are usually worse off after getting corrected than they
| were before.
|
| Two of my passengers informed me that cocaine is a much more
| pleasant drug than meth amphetamine. I don't have any reports
| about heroin vs. fentanyl. [Someone on twitter pointed out the
| drug cartels transitioned to Fentanyl when it became apparent
| that Afghanistan's heroin production was going to go offline.]
|
| Bringing back cheap plant-based drugs (cocaine, heroin, etc) is
| an important step of harm reduction while society figures out how
| to effectively address the reasons behind our suffering.
| annoyingnoob wrote:
| Nixon declared the War on Drugs in 1971.
|
| https://www.britannica.com/topic/war-on-drugs
| taxicabjesus wrote:
| Humanity has a long history of self-medicating distress. At
| first this was mostly with alcohol. America's prohibition
| efforts started in the early 1900's: prohibition, Harrison
| Narcotic Tax Act, etc.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chasing_the_Scream#Background_.
| ..
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs#20th_century
| annoyingnoob wrote:
| Is any regulation considered an act of 'war'?
|
| I pay taxes, do you call that a War on Income? If so, when
| did it start?
| tchaffee wrote:
| The parent comment can hardly be credited with the
| phrase. When Nixon announced his new policies he called
| it a war on drugs. A catchy phrase that stuck. Far too
| late now to try to rename it for some sort of pedantic
| consistency.
| loeg wrote:
| Federal income taxes in the US started around the
| beginning of the 20th century.
| mjcohen wrote:
| Remember: without chemistry, life itself would be unprofitable.
| Octokiddie wrote:
| > ... Methamphetamine has a chiral center, so you can produce the
| pure (D) isomer, the pure (L), the exact 50/50 racemic mixture,
| or anything in between. (L) methamphetamine is a pretty good
| decongestant, but it is otherwise unenjoyable and has no market
| as a drug of abuse. The classic P2P reductive amination will of
| course give you the racemate; there's nothing chiral about the
| synthesis at all. At the other end of the scale, reduction of
| pseudoephedrine starts with a pure chiral material, and you get
| only (D) methamphetamine as a product.
|
| What he's talking about is molecular mirror images. Our bodies
| can tell the difference between the (L) and the (D) form. The
| former drains your sinuses and the latter gets you high.
|
| This is a tangential plot point in _Breaking Bad_. In the episode
| "Boxcutter," Walter White asks: "If our reduction is not
| stereospecific, then how can our product be enantiomerically
| pure?"
|
| There's a lot to unpack there, but it implies that Walt is
| isolating (D) methamphetamine exclusively. It also implies that
| this is occurring through a selective reductive procedure.
|
| The first few seasons established that the synthesis relies on
| methylamine through a reductive procedure called P2P. But that
| procedure produces (D) and (L) forms in equal quantities.
|
| What Walt is revealing in that one sentence is that he's
| developed a way to do the reductive amination step in the P2P
| cook such that just the (D) form is isolated. His use of the term
| "stereospecific," implies that the selectivity is close to 100%
| in the bond-forming step itself. The process therefore doesn't
| just produce highly pure product, but does so very efficiently.
|
| At the time period of the show, such a reaction would have been
| very close to cutting edge research.
| w1nst0nsm1th wrote:
| I don't know about where street drug trafficking were heading
| these last 8 years since I didn't met a real life drug dealer
| since 2014, I only heard from (ex)-drug users, social workers,
| ex-dealer, and of course, the press. That in northern europe...
|
| The current thing on the rise here seems to be ketamine,
| according to a social workers.
|
| There was in local news papers article about gangs shooting (and
| launching grenades?) at each other after confiscated cocaine
| shipment... And Stephen Colbert joked about Belgium asking for
| help to distroy cocaine seizure. I met people who did jail time
| for various substances trafficking. I met people who were in
| recovery for cocaine addiction. I even met with someone
| advocating for drug legalization... And I know for sure some ex-
| neihbours set up a phony business to launder years of pot
| trafficking benefices.
|
| But I never met, heard or read or whatever or whoever having
| encountered methamphetamine in any way (or someone having met
| someone else having encoutered methamphetamine)...
|
| And I live 30 minutes away in train from the closest dutch city.
| I also live in the city with the (reportedly) highest number of
| drug users (and dealers?) per capita in the country.
|
| So I don't know what to think about d-tartric acid seizure in
| holland and belgium, and where the corresponding drug is sold,
| but methamphetamine is definitively not a thing here.
| photochemsyn wrote:
| Chirality is an interesting topic, and controlled chiral
| synthesis is pretty cutting-edge chemistry. The real masters of
| this art are biological enzymes, i.e. the proteins that catalyze
| all chemical reactions. A lot of the modern catalysts used in
| chiral synthesis are themselves chiral, which is essentially
| mimicing the biochemical approach.
|
| For this to work, however, the starting molecule needs to be what
| called pro-chiral. For illustration, imagine a flat triangular
| sheet of paper with three different elements at the points. How
| could you only label one side of that sheet? Well, if you take a
| copy of that triangle and glue one side to a table, then there's
| only one orientation in which all three points of the other
| triangle will make a one-to-one correspondence. This corresponds
| to the enzyme (glued to the table) specifically binding the pro-
| chiral molecule (i.e. a carbon atom with three different
| substituents) and then the free surface of the triangle is where
| the reaction takes place.
|
| I suppose someone could develop such a system for amphetamine
| synthesis and it would qualify as 'green chemistry' (which really
| just means producing the desired product without generating a
| waste stream via a closed-loop process), and this might even be
| how it's done in the legal pharmaceutical world today
| (methamphetamine is sold as Desoxyn for ADHD treatment). There
| are better things for chemists to put their time and energy
| towards, in my opinion.
|
| As far as the legality and safety of drugs, it seems pretty clear
| that criminalization just fills prisons while generating large
| profits for organized crime cartels, with many associated
| problems (i.e. violent crime), while not reducing the population
| of drug addicts. A public health approach based on educating
| people about the very negative health and social effects of drug
| and alcohol addiction seems like the more reasonable approach.
| Bans on advertising and promotion of drugs might be wise as well,
| as has happened with tobacco and alcohol to some extent.
| eternalban wrote:
| Loved the author's writing style. He strikes a nearly perfect
| balance of casual and humorous with precise domain jargon.
| latchkey wrote:
| Read his other pieces... he's been writing for 20 years now...
|
| https://www.science.org/blogs/pipeline?AfterYear=2003&AfterM...
|
| His 'Things I won't work with' posts are classics.
|
| https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/things-i-won-t-wor...
| eternalban wrote:
| Thanks!
| VLM wrote:
| The teaser line about ibuprofen synthesis is interesting because
| he didn't put enough "tease" into it for non-chemists to
| understand the kind of funny analogy. Superficially, one would
| not expect that a "green" synthesis would start with HF acid, but
| here it is anyway and it works. A "you gotta be kidding me"
| moment that makes sense after thinking about it.
|
| I think that's the analogy he was trying to make in the article
| that only chemists would "get" about the innovation of chiral
| resolution, I have to admit the first time I read about that I
| was like "you gotta be kidding" but after thinking, it makes
| sense.
|
| I'm trying to think of a similar "you gotta be kidding" in CS/IT,
| but its too early in the morning.
| photochemsyn wrote:
| "Green synthesis" in chemistry should probably be renamed.
| "Closed-loop synthesis" is closer to what it's about. The
| fundamental concept is that you're not producing any waste
| products or unwanted side reactions, and all the reagents and
| catalysts are recycled back to their original state at the end
| of the reaction.
|
| This typically involves synthetic routes that start with small
| molecules and build larger molecules from them in a specific
| manner (rather than say, cleaving a large molecule and then
| having to throw away part of it as waste). With something
| highly reactive like HF acid, it might mean generating the HF
| from a fluoride salt, using it in the reaction, then converting
| any leftover HF back to the salt at then end of the process.
| sitkack wrote:
| That layout has more of an impact on perf than -O3 to -O1?
| worik wrote:
| Methamphetamine is a troubling drug. As difficult as vodka
| socially, and much easier to consume. As a example of "better
| living through chemistry" it is really a counter example. (I
| think that was the point)
|
| But there are so many better examples:
|
| * MDMA
|
| _LSD
|
| _ Viagra
|
| * Methylphenidate
|
| MDMA in particular revolutionizes social interaction in the same
| way as alcohol, with fewer health consequences, albethey not
| zero.
|
| For some people Methylphenidate is a wonderful brain tonic.
| (Ritalin)
|
| Better living through chemistry is possible. Professional labs,
| quality control et etcetera are required, not prohibition and
| sketchy underground chemists
| Damogran6 wrote:
| Great. Now I'm on a list.
|
| (Honestly, I find it interesting that things mentioned in the
| article seem like plot points in the Vince Gilligan universe of
| Netflix shows.)
| nullc wrote:
| There is a point in breaking bad where walt rants something
| like "since our synthesis isn't stereospecific, explain how our
| product is enantiomerically pure?"
| kevinmchugh wrote:
| Gilligan and crew did research. The economics of production are
| important parts of the plot.
| gavinray wrote:
| The optical resolution of racemic amphetamine/methamphetamine has
| been known for years.
|
| https://erowid.org/archive/rhodium/chemistry/amphetamine.res...
|
| What has surprised me is how infrequently it seems to be carried
| out, given the materials required for it.
|
| This is all you need:
|
| - D-Tartaric Acid (You can buy it from import sites in bulk for
| $30-60/kg)
|
| - Lye/Sodrium Hydroxide
|
| - Ethanol/Everclear (if you're converting meth, you'll also need
| Methanol)
|
| - Glassware
|
| - Distilled Water
|
| The process is stupid-simple and takes a matter of hours, any
| idiot could do it, and the difference it makes in effects
| (racemic vs optically-pure D-Amphetamine vs D-Methamphetamine) is
| obscene.
|
| It seems like many of the clandestine chemists are behind the
| curve in the same way that LAMP-stack shops are in terms of the
| HN crowd in tech.
|
| _Source: Originally was an organic chemistry major with an
| intent to pursue psychopharmacology_
| logifail wrote:
| > The process is stupid-simple and takes a matter of hours, any
| idiot could do it, and the difference it makes in effects
| (racemic vs optically-pure D-Amphetamine vs D-Methamphetamine)
| is obscene
|
| (My organic chemistry is very rusty, and my knowledge of
| amphetamines is non-existant.)
|
| I'm assuming from what you wrote that the D- enantiomer is one
| you want. What does the L- enantiomer do, if anything?
| gavinray wrote:
| The L-enantiomer is actually readily available for purchase
| over-the-counter.
|
| Vicks Vapor rub/inhalers and other decongestants use
| L-methamphetamine. The D-enantiomer causes CNS stimulation.
| The L-enantiomer causes only PNS (Peripheral Nervous System)
| stimulation, so it produces no euphoria or enjoyable effects.
|
| Only unpleasant side effects, like tachycardia and anxiety,
| etc.
|
| This is why racemic amphetamine/methamphetamine is so
| (comparatively) unpleasant, and the pure D-enantiomer is
| superior and "cleaner" feeling.
|
| Racemic amphetamines have a much higher chance of inducing
| psychosis.
| klipt wrote:
| The active ingredients in Vicks Vapo Rub are just:
|
| Camphor
|
| Eucalyptus oil
|
| Menthol
|
| Perhaps you're thinking of a different Vicks product?
| gavinray wrote:
| Ah it's just the inhalers then, my mistake
|
| Another interesting one found in inhalers is
| Propylhexedrine, from Benzedrex inhalers
| programmer_dude wrote:
| FWIW I find the Vicks Vapor rub fumes enjoyable and
| euphoria inducing. Edit: I think it's the eucalyptus oil
| that I am reacting to.
| gpcr1949 wrote:
| Agreed the process is very simple. The innovation that makes
| the resolution worth it is (as Derek also mentioned in the blog
| post) an efficient way to re-racemize the L-meth to DL-meth,
| which can then be resolved again. With steady state production
| and pooling this means it can be done using just one batch size
| (and not ever smaller "brsm" style bathces). If these steps are
| efficient enough you definitely get much more bang for your
| buck. Here is one such method[0] which probably inspired these
| drug manufacturers (as they use thioglycol and AIBN, which has
| been found in clandestine lab seizures).
|
| [0] https://sci-hub.se/10.1021/jo061033l (published in JOC in
| 2006 - so only a mere 2 decades behind the curve)
| gavinray wrote:
| Oh wow, now this is interesting.
|
| To ELI5 this, what the commenter is saying is that you can
| take the "useless" L-Meth, and convert it to racemic, mixed
| D/L Meth.
|
| Which you can then perform a second resolution step on, to
| convert/purify further, to the opposite chirality and get
| D-Meth.
|
| The very interesting thing about this (if I were a
| clandestine chemist, or someone who wanted to get high at
| home), is that:
|
| - AIBN is a readily available reagent, it's not difficult to
| acquire or would put you on any lists. This is in comparison
| to much of what you need for other synthesis techniques
|
| - You can buy L-Meth legally over the counter. The extraction
| process would be a bit of a mess (quite literally) but should
| be doable, some basic recrystallization and/or conversion to
| freebase.
| [deleted]
| j_m_b wrote:
| It's interesting to note that as methamphetamine and amphetamine
| were more regulated in the 50s and 60s, it became more prevalent.
| Then in order to stamp out illegal production, the precursor
| chemicals were monitored. So what happens? Production becomes
| more dangerous.
|
| Solution: Just make every kind of drug legal to produce, but
| regulate the purity. Be very explicit about the dangers. The only
| thing prohibition does is make drug consumption and production
| dangerous and needlessly expensive.
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >It's interesting to note that as methamphetamine and
| amphetamine were more regulated in the 50s and 60s, it became
| more prevalent.
|
| My step-mother noted that she was _prescribed_ amphetamines
| during all three of her pregnancies (late 50s, early 60s) for
| "weight control."
|
| Which, these days, seems crazy.
|
| That said, I'd note that none of my step-brothers seem to have
| been negatively affected by in-utero exposure to amphetamines.
| Alex3917 wrote:
| > It's interesting to note that as methamphetamine and
| amphetamine were more regulated in the 50s and 60s, it became
| more prevalent.
|
| ~0.2% of Americans had ever used marijuana when it was first
| made illegal, whereas ~90% of American adults have used it now.
| pstuart wrote:
| Preach!
|
| Tax it, regulate it, educate on it.
|
| Society is okay with harmful recreational drugs (i.e., alcohol
| and tobacco), so let's start having grown up conversations
| about the other ones too.
|
| Yes, they can and will be abused but that is a health issue,
| not a criminal one.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > It's interesting to note that as methamphetamine and
| amphetamine were more regulated in the 50s and 60s, it became
| more prevalent
|
| This is an extreme example of "correlation does not equal
| causation"
|
| The regulation came from the expanding popularity of these
| drugs. It didn't cause it.
|
| Likewise, regulating precursor chemicals wasn't some causative
| factor in further drug use. It was the next level of
| regulations added in response to the increasing drug use.
|
| Regulations and limited availability don't cause more people to
| use drugs. That's not only an illogical conclusion, it ignores
| the order of how things happened.
|
| The increased availability of fentanyl has been a driving force
| in more people using opioids in general. Note that most people
| aren't seeking out fentanyl (though many are), they believe
| themselves to be purchasing more traditional opioids. The
| increased availability of fake pills has definitely increased
| opioid use. The idea that opening the floodgates to more access
| will somehow _decrease_ usage is inconsistent with evidence and
| inconsistent with reality. It also just doesn't make sense.
| scythe wrote:
| >It's interesting to note that as methamphetamine and
| amphetamine were more regulated in the 50s and 60s, it became
| more prevalent. Then in order to stamp out illegal production,
| the precursor chemicals were monitored. So what happens?
| Production becomes more dangerous.
|
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giffen_good
|
| Methamphetamine wasn't the only drug being regulated in the
| '50s and '60s. The other stimulants, like cocaine, were
| restricted at the same time. But methamphetamine is by far the
| hardest drug to regulate, so its relative prevalence increases.
|
| >Solution: Just make every kind of drug legal to produce, but
| regulate the purity.
|
| This is suboptimal. Recreational stimulants are not all the
| same level of dangerous. (Which would be an incredible
| coincidence.) The better solution is to find the safer
| stimulants (possibly variants of methylphenidate) and allow
| those to be used recreationally, hopefully cutting into the
| demand for the really bad stuff.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| I'm generally in favor of drug legalization and/or
| decriminalization, but I'd draw a line at meth. There is a
| reason for the "Meth, not even once" PSAs and memes. The drug
| is really just _that addictive_ that it can ruin people 's
| lives by getting them hooked after just one session.
|
| Even if you disagree with my stance, I think it would be a
| grave mistake to not acknowledge that different drugs have
| different capacities for harm, and the fact is that the
| addictive nature of meth makes its harm potential astronomical.
| photochemsyn wrote:
| The amphetamines are all similarly addictive, it's just that
| methamphetamine is more active at smaller doses. This general
| class of drugs is widely prescribed to children and adults to
| treat ADHD in the United States (many argue over-prescribed).
|
| People who use amphetamines 'recreationally' seem to mix it
| with alcohol, with very bad long-term effects on health. It
| also seems to drive people towards reckless and poorly-
| considered behavior, which is similar to the effect cocaine
| has on many people.
|
| It's a wise life decision to not associate with cocaine and
| amphetamine addicts, certainly. However it is also curious
| that people in treatment for ADHD also develop a dependency
| on the drug, although perhaps in a more controlled manner due
| to it being prescribed, yet few people in the medical-
| pharmacological world seem to be that concerned about it.
| _a_a_a_ wrote:
| "The amphetamines are all similarly addictive" oh, you mean
| like pseudoephedrine (sold as sudafed) and crystal meth?
| Blatantly they are not.
| photochemsyn wrote:
| I think the comparison you want to look at is Adderall
| vs. methamphetamine. Incidentally, addicts can't tell the
| difference between the two drugs if ingested in pill form
| at the same relative dosage. This is comparable to how
| opiate addiction works; an addict can't tell the
| difference between morphine and heroin, it just takes
| twice as much morphine to get the same effect.
| _a_a_a_ wrote:
| I suspect you don't know what you're talking about. Have
| you any actual experience with drugs? Because I can tell
| the difference between MDMA and various somethings sold
| as MDMA but aren't, and I'm hardly a drug expert.
|
| Again, have you any decent experience with drugs?
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| > _However it is also curious that people in treatment for
| ADHD also develop a dependency on the drug, although
| perhaps in a more controlled manner due to it being
| prescribed, yet few people in the medical-pharmacological
| world seem to be that concerned about it._
|
| Dose makes the difference. The kind of dependency people
| with ADHD develop on their meds is closer to the kind a
| person with mobility issues develops on their wheelchair
| after spending some time using it.
| starkd wrote:
| Libertarians tend to take potential solutions to the extreme,
| but seldom is anything so ideologically pure. Still, the idea
| that government can protect people from themselves is a
| noxious one. Drug legalization is an attractive one for that
| reason alone, but there are limits. Drug addicts are by
| definition not rational actors.
| rubicon33 wrote:
| Presumably they were at one time a "rational actor". Before
| the drugs.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| the question isn't whether or not a substance should be in
| use in a society, but whether its users/producers should be
| caged
| porknubbins wrote:
| Yes as libertarian who was offended by the idea of
| regulating what adults can put in their bodies at home, I
| have changed my mind after seeing real world consequences.
| As a young college student its easy to believe some kind of
| naive model of humans as basically well-intentioned or
| rational or at least a blank slate. Experience tells me
| that most illegal drug (and heavy alcohol) use has negative
| externalities and tends to harm the character of the user
| over time. An assertion younger me would have probably
| found offensively moralistic (what is "character" anyway?)
| but here we are.
| water554 wrote:
| So you've decided to support an ideology that restricts
| the freedom of all people to do as they please because
| you think it's harmful for them. I've decided >20g per
| day of carbs is harmful for people that choose to do it.
| Watch out buddy I'm going for bread pasta etc... I don't
| think people should be able to eat it. I'm coming for
| your rights.
| porknubbins wrote:
| I think that as a policy matter it is better for society
| to create an exception to the rule of complete bodily
| autonomy, mostly because of harm to people around the
| user. I don't think users should get jail time but some
| penalties are ok. This is partly based on personal
| experience and partially on stats like increasing DUI
| rates post cannabis legalization. I don't see much of a
| slippery slope argument to be made from psychoactive
| drugs to carbs, which are a basic nutrient anyone can
| find anywhere.
| starkd wrote:
| You just described my history on the subject. I once
| believed that too.
| _a_a_a_ wrote:
| > There is a reason for the "Meth, not even once" PSAs and
| memes. The drug is really just that addictive that it can
| ruin people's lives by getting them hooked after just one
| session.
|
| If you believe the propaganda - memes are not a quality
| source of information. You need to be less willing to repeat
| what you've heard sand more willing to dig out the facts. The
| same is said of crack ("one hit and you're hooked") but it's
| a lie. I've spent several full evenings smoking it and I am
| not going back to it. To some people, maybe one shot and then
| doom, but to most it's an incremental downward slope
| depending on many factors. Not denying crack is a bastard and
| I would probably not support legalising it either, but please
| don't parrot back rubbish you've been told.
|
| If this is _still_ the level of HN debate ion drugs, to
| repeat soundbite anti-drug propaganda, I feel we 're getting
| nowhere and burning a lot of fuel doing it.
| djha-skin wrote:
| This implies that the dangerous production is the fault of the
| government. It is the fault of those who want to produce it.
| They are making bad choices. A responsible government should
| not make it easy to make bad choices.
| uptownJimmy wrote:
| "They are making bad choices."
|
| This sort of reductionist, simplistic "reasoning" is going to
| be the death of us all.
|
| Trying to find a moral failing in every human weakness, every
| human ignorance, every human desperation? It's just
| disgusting.
| anonymoushn wrote:
| Sure, and prohibition also didn't cause any harm to people
| who didn't drink, mandating the addition of poison to rubbing
| alcohol using legislation doesn't cause anyone to be
| poisoned, etc.
| nibbleshifter wrote:
| You are implying there is anything inherently bad about
| amphetamines.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| I think that if we legalize dangerous addictive drugs then we
| might as well legalize all medications/drugs by which point the
| medical establishment loses a big chunk of the income that it
| gets from being a monopoly supplier.
|
| I wish society was mature enough for full legalization, but
| often those pushing for legalization underplay the negative
| problems associated with drug use. Particularly for that
| 'harmless plant' marijuana. A university acquaintance went
| acute schizophrenic shortly after developing a pot habit, that
| could be a coincidence but the timing is suspicious. A second
| cousin became mentally retarded immediately after smoking a
| joint. He's now a 30 year old who can't tie his own shoes.
|
| Big businesses already have enough power to shape politics,
| we're still in the process of stamping out cigarettes. I've
| noticed a lot of smoking on Netflix so clearly they're still
| working on a comeback. How long until they put coke back into
| Coca-Cola and funding scientific studies about how a bump a day
| is actually good for you.
|
| Then there is the seriousness of surreptitiously giving someone
| an addictive substance, to put the hook into them, which I
| consider to be interfering to the working of the brain and akin
| to murder. At the moment the focus is around the drug being
| illegal as opposed to the deleterious effect it can have.
| Criminal gangs use this tactic fairly frequently as an
| alternative to killing someone but I believe it should solicit
| the same punishment.
| gumby wrote:
| > I think that if we legalize dangerous addictive drugs then
| we might as well legalize all medications/drugs by which
| point the medical establishment loses a big chunk of the
| income that it gets from being a monopoly supplier.
|
| Do you seriously think this is why medication is regulated?
|
| In most developed countries prescribing and dispensing are
| separated (doctor/pharmacy) in part to prevent this. Japan is
| a notable exception and guess what: more drugs are prescribed
| per capita there than the rest of the OECD.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| I would include pharmacy in the medical establishment, and
| yes I expect them to place significant lobby pressure to
| maintain their monopoly.
| pantalaimon wrote:
| > those pushing for legalization underplay the negative
| problems associated with drug use
|
| But those problems already exist and are amplified by the
| prohibition.
|
| I don't understand how prohibitionists still believe that the
| ban on drugs would make drug use disappear when the last 80
| years of prohibition completely failed at that.
|
| It's clear that prohibition does not work. But if we just try
| long enough it might? That's not science, that's ideology.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| Prohibition on supply just increases the prices which
| encourages more people to jump into the market. For
| prohibition to be effective there needs to be strong
| punishments on consumption.
|
| As someone who consumes quite a large amount of gray and
| black market medicine I'm actually pro-legalization of all
| drugs. I hate the medical monopoly and the overbearing
| government. But I also think people need to be very honest
| and frank about the consequences of legalization.
|
| My concern, beyond what happens to other people, is that
| I'll have to check the ingredient label for a longer list
| of substances I don't want in my body. We have enough food
| fraud as it is with suppliers lying about the content, I
| want it to be an extremely serious crime to add drugs to
| food.
| awillen wrote:
| A lot of people who are against legalization make this
| argument that those who are for it ignore the negative
| consequences, but for large swathes of pro-legalization
| people, that's just not true. I know there are negative
| consequences, and I know that in a very small number of
| people marijuana can cause serious consequences (and in
| larger numbers of people, harder drugs like cocaine and
| heroin can cause more serious consequences).
|
| But the fact that things can cause negative consequences is
| not sufficient reason to ban them. The obvious example here
| is alcohol - it is beyond clear from data that alcohol is
| incredibly harmful. It is beyond clear that it is more
| harmful than at least some banned substances (marijuana, LSD,
| MDMA). It is likely that it is more harmful than harder
| substances like cocaine, but with less data on those we can't
| say for sure.
|
| So yes, there are negative consequences, but as a society we
| have decided that we allow people to do things that cause
| negative consequences (as evidenced by the legality of
| alcohol). There are limits on that, but with alcohol as a
| line by which to judge those limits, it's clear that to have
| any kind of coherent public policy, marijuana should be
| legal. Or, of course, alcohol could be made illegal. The
| point is that if you think that alcohol should be legal but
| other drugs should not, you're just engaging in hypocrisy.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| * I did use the qualifier 'often' which is not 'all' and to
| my opinion it's not enough. People readily forget the
| downsides and need constant reminders.
|
| Edit: please note that the following includes the qualifier
| "most" and please understand that this does not mean "all".
|
| I think alcohol is a bad example as alcohol for most people
| has a way of punishing abuse on its own and quickly thereby
| maintaining a tight association between the high and the
| hangover. The aversion to the hangover means that for most
| people it's a self correcting problem. Most other drugs
| don't come with this and the association between the high
| and negative consequences are more remote and infrequent.
|
| I think alcohol, despite the obvious and extensive damage
| it causes, is a great training drug that teaches most
| people moderation through first hand experience and
| encourages caution with other drugs.
|
| Using alcohol as an example kinda makes the case for
| prohibiting alcohol as opposed to legalizing other drugs.
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >Using alcohol as an example kinda makes the case for
| prohibiting alcohol as opposed to legalizing other drugs.
|
| We tried that[0] in the United States, and it was an
| unmitigated disaster.
|
| [0] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendm
| ent-18/
| awillen wrote:
| I encourage you to actually do some research on
| alcoholism - both the number of people it affects as well
| as the way it prevents itself. You're dangerously
| uninformed on the topic to be presenting these kinds of
| opinions.
| starkd wrote:
| oh, come on! I think you're right on this issue, but
| since when are opinions dangerous? He's giving his honest
| opinion of the issue according to his experience.
|
| You will be much more effective if you simply try to
| enjoy the conversation than trying to call out people for
| having "dangerous opinions".
| awillen wrote:
| You put quotes around "dangerous opinions" - you're wrong
| to do that, because I never used that phrase. I said he
| was dangerously uninformed.
|
| There are times when people can have valid, personal
| opinions and times when there's just objective reality.
| Some people these days say that their opinion is that the
| 2020 election was stolen. That's not a valid opinion -
| it's just wrong. Saying that hangovers make alcohol self-
| regulating when >10M people in the US are alcoholics (for
| whom it is, as a point of fact, untrue that alcohol is a
| self-regulating substance) is not a valid opinion - it's
| a misunderstanding of reality.
|
| As someone who knows people who have been very severely
| negatively affected by alcoholism, I do not enjoy
| conversations with people who make points about alcohol
| that are totally uninformed and suggest that we should
| base policy around those uninformed thoughts.
| starkd wrote:
| I just think you would enjoy the conversation more if
| your experience was not dependent on someone else's
| opinion. You are also assuming something about another
| person that is more than likely untrue. Sounds like a
| horrible way to live.
|
| No offense to you, but who named you the arbitrator of
| "valid opinions"? I doubt you are that arrogant in
| person, but you sure are coming off that way.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| Most =/ all. For some it doesn't work this way and that
| is very costly to us all. Hence the great deal of damage
| that it causes. I'm not sure what point you're trying to
| make, is alcohol too dangerous therefore we must legalize
| more drugs?
| awillen wrote:
| The point is that we should have a coherent policy in the
| US around how we treat drugs.
|
| Either we should accept a certain threshold of danger
| around drug use and allow all drugs under that threshold
| to be used (with appropriate regulation), or we should
| not accept the use of dangerous drugs and should outlaw
| them.
|
| Right now, US drug policy is that a fairly dangerous drug
| (alcohol) is not legal, while other clearly less
| dangerous drugs (marijuana, most hallucinogens, MDMA,
| etc.) are not legal. It should be changed to be a
| rational policy in which everything less dangerous than
| alcohol is legal or a policy in which alcohol is not
| legal.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| If anything I think perhaps reducing the legal age for
| drinking in the US. Where I'm from getting black out
| drunk is considered immature and people are expected to
| grow out of it, but then we start a lot earlier. Plus we
| learn how to handle alcohol * before we learn how to
| drive so it's not considered matcho to drink and drive. I
| think cigarette companies like the 3 year gap of being
| able to buy cigarettes but not alcohol.
|
| I'm pretty pro legalization, I think it's probably best
| handled at the cultural level, but until society matures
| there is going to a fair bit of collateral damage and I
| think we should be honest about that.
|
| * it's a generalization... obviously it doesn't work out
| this way for everyone.
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >The point is that we should have a coherent policy in
| the US around how we treat drugs.
|
| But we _have_ had a coherent policy around drugs in the
| US:
|
| 1. Identify a potential issue with a particular drug;
|
| 2. Investigate the issues and examine the evidence;
|
| 3. Create a set of policy solutions to address the
| issues;
|
| 4. Pick the _least_ effective, _most_ harmful policy
| solution and implement that.
|
| 5. Profit!
|
| All you have to do is look at all the major drug
| legislation over the past 130 years or so to see that
| such is, in fact, the case.
| starkd wrote:
| I'm not so sure about that. If you've ever talked with a
| full-blown alcoholic, the allure of drinking is almost a
| reflex with no consideration for its effects. I don't
| think they even remember having to lie in their own vomit
| or the severe hangover they will have to endure. The
| hangover is enough of a deterrent for myself, but they
| don't even think twice about it. Its amazing, really.
|
| I'm convinced the only reason alcohol is legal is because
| it is culturally embedded. If it were being introduced
| anew, it would be prohibited. Its far worse than most
| illegal drugs.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| I didn't think I'd have to follow up a post on using a
| qualifier "often" with another post about using a
| different qualifier "most" which obviously doesn't
| encompass "all". Counter examples are clearly presumed
| necessary given the aforementioned damage.
| starkd wrote:
| I understand your point that most people who drink
| alcohol do not become alcoholics. But that is true for
| all drugs, really. I think the thing that separates
| alcohol is the long cultural acceptance.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| And the US tried that, and it was a complete failure. Yet
| we as a society somehow failed to learn that lesson and
| here we are.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| At no point did I advocate prohibition of alcohol, I am
| suggesting that others pointing out the incredible harm
| alcohol does doesn't do a great job in making the case
| that more drugs should be legal.
| photochemsyn wrote:
| I disagree entirely with this viewpoint - alcohol is one
| of the most dangerous and addictive substances available,
| with serious long-term health consequences. While the
| opiate epidemic has made a lot of headlines, CDC data
| IIRC points to the alcohol resulting in the premature
| deaths of about five times as many people (not by direct
| overdose as with opiates, but via associated medical
| conditions like liver failure).
|
| Alcohol has a complex set of biochemical effects, but
| note that part of the issue is that it's similar to
| opiates, i.e. it triggers the release of an endorphin-
| like molecule that people get addicted to in the same way
| as with morphine or heroin.
|
| I still don't think alcohol should be made illegal, but
| in terms of long-term medical effects, it's certainly
| more dangerous than cannabis/THC and psychedelic drugs
| like mushrooms/psilocybine. It really belongs in the same
| class with amphetamines, cocaine, benzos, and opiates.
| jeltz wrote:
| If alcohol is one of the most addictive substances around
| I do not think we need to worry too much. Alcohol is
| actually not very addictive. Most people can drink
| regularly drink large amounts of alcohol without feeling
| the least bit of addiction.
|
| Alcohol is very bad for your health and it is a horrible
| thing to be addicted to but it is not very addictive.
| photochemsyn wrote:
| The mechanism of alcohol addiction is well known and
| studied, and alcohol is certainly in the same addictive
| potential class as cocaine, heroin, nicotine and
| amphetamines.
| starkd wrote:
| That's why it should be mostly about protecting the youth
| who are more likely to be uninformed about dangers. It is
| true that outright prohibition is pointless, but it can
| introduce a bit of friction that forces users to have to
| put in a little effort in order to try it. Because of the
| effort, it is more of a deliberate decision.
| awillen wrote:
| Absolutely - education and regulation are much more
| effective strategies than prohibition along pretty much
| every dimension. We've drawn the very reasonable line
| that young people whose brains are still developing don't
| get alcohol, and of course we should extend that standard
| to other drugs.
| GoldenRacer wrote:
| The only problem I see with legalizing all prescription drugs
| is that a lot of people would use them off label or in
| inappropriate context (ie taking antibiotics when you have a
| viral infection).
|
| I think this could be managed with an appropriate regularity
| framework that I think should probably apply to psychoactive
| drugs as well. This would be some sort of licensing system.
| Anyone can get a license to buy antibiotics but it requires
| taking class and passing a test that demonstrates you
| understand the risks and agreeing to follow certain rules and
| procedures. A procedure for antibiotics might be that you
| agree you'll only purchase them if you have tested positive
| for a bacterial infection. All drugs should only be purchased
| for yourself (unless you have a distribution license which
| should be more difficult to get). If you get caught breaking
| any of those rules, you lose your license for some period of
| time and are subject to other penalties.
|
| I think for something like antibiotics, no one would bother
| getting licenses as it's not worth the time of getting and
| keeping your license up to date (licenses would likely
| require annual renewal and continuing education). You'd just
| go through your doctor the couple times a decade you need
| them. But this could be hugely beneficial for a diabetic
| person that doesn't want to go to a doctor once a month to
| get their insulin prescription renewed. Or women that want
| birth control without paying doctor fees. Yes, it would
| result in less revenue going to our medical system but that
| seems like a plus side in those cases.
|
| I don't deny that some drugs are incredibly dangerous but our
| society allows a lot of dangerous activities. If I want to
| buy a BASE jumping rig, I could do that and then start
| legally jumping off of cliffs with it as soon as it arrived.
| My chances of dying doing that are far higher than my chances
| of dying while taking most drugs (maybe some like fentanyl
| are exceptions). Would you consider whoever sold me the rig a
| murderer? Or do you think I'm an adult and should be allowed
| to make my own decisions as long as they're well informed?
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| surreptitiously - adverb in a way that attempts to avoid
| notice or attention; secretively. "Mary surreptitiously
| slipped from the room"
|
| i.e. it was something done to you without informing you. To
| use your analogy it would be like blind folding someone and
| pushing them off a cliff (with base jumping gear on) if
| they lived I'd consider that at least attempted murder. But
| with secretly giving drugs to someone there is no way to
| avoid interference with the workings of a sound mind so
| that I think is on par with murder.
| GoldenRacer wrote:
| I thought you were implying companies adding addictive
| substance to their products in attempt to get people
| hooked which I thought a regulatory framework would fix.
| If coke puts cocaine back in their drink, it would
| require a license to buy so they wouldn't be able to do
| it without informing people.
|
| Are you actually talking about something more akin to
| date rape? I'm really not sure if I understand how that
| might work. You slip someone opioids without them knowing
| until they're addicted and then you stop but reveal to
| them they're addicted to opioids hoping they continue
| that addiction? Or do you stop once they're addicted and
| just hope they figure it out? Or you just keep feeding
| their addiction without them knowing until you feed them
| a dose they OD on?
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| > Criminal gangs use this tactic fairly frequently as an
| alternative to killing someone but I believe it should
| solicit the same punishment.
|
| Criminal gangs tend to take the more active holding
| people down and injecting people with drugs approach than
| the slow sneaky process. But once addicted the addict is
| now reliant on the gang for their continued supply and
| can be controlled. The real life instances I'm aware of
| was done on people who were preparing to testify against
| their family members in a gang. It was a speedball
| injection. But is has been depicted in fiction such as in
| the move 'the town'.
|
| My relatives were involved in sheltering them to get them
| clean, but as soon as they went home the gang found them
| and got them addicted again.
| GoldenRacer wrote:
| Gotcha. I guess I don't understand why you'd expect that
| behavior to become more common as a result of drug
| legalization.
|
| All that would still be very illegal (I imagine injecting
| someone with even a completely safe saline solution
| without their consent would be considered assault in most
| jurisdictions). The type of people that are comfortable
| doing that clearly don't care about the law. I just don't
| see drugs being illegal as a limiting factor on crimes of
| that nature in today's society.
|
| I'd also like to mention that a major source of funding
| for many criminal gangs is the black market sale of
| drugs. If we legalized and regulated drugs, they'd lose
| that source of money and I'd personally expect to see a
| decline in organized crime.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| Safe saline is the least of the victims worries, water
| quality isn't that important to the extent that many safe
| injection packs no longer include it. Tap water is
| usually fine, puddle water is usually fine. In medical
| settings the law of large numbers mean that usually isn't
| good enough but for one offs it's 'usually' ok.
|
| It's the action of adding chemicals to your brain that
| can and likely do have harmful long term effects, not
| limited to addiction, and many still unknown. If such an
| act was done to me I would consider it within my rights
| to kill that person in retribution.
|
| I'm less confident on the expected drop in organized
| crime as taxes on the drugs usually means there is now
| money in tax evasion. Without tax it may become so cheap
| that other problems start to dominate.
| GoldenRacer wrote:
| The whole point of bringing up saline solutions was to
| point out that what you're describing is already illegal
| even for much less serious offenses. I'm not a lawyer so
| don't know what all crimes would be involved with
| injecting drugs into someone against their will but I'm
| willing to bet money it is breaking several.
|
| As for illegal drug sales persisting despite
| legalization, how many people are still buying illegal
| moonshine? It does exist, I've seen it, but it's not
| nearly the problem it was during prohibition.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| Despite being illegal forcibly getting someone addicted
| isn't treated seriously at all. Unlike murder where there
| is a missing person or a body to show that a crime has
| taken place you with forced addiction you now have the
| addicts word which is considered inherently unreliable.
|
| I'm more worried about organized crime/political
| corruption than I am about freely available drugs, but
| organized crime has all sorts of ways to make money so I
| don't think we'll be rid of it that easily. I think
| people underestimate the prevalence of how much
| corruption still exists. I even think it'll get worse as
| fewer non-compromised people want to take police jobs.
|
| Also prohibition ended 1933 but the major crackdown on
| gangsters was in 1970 due to a long period of federal
| government inaction.
| vidarh wrote:
| Antibiotics would be far worse to deregulate than even the
| hardest recreational drugs, because widespread flawed use
| would _harm other people_ at scale by promoting drug
| resistent strains.
|
| I think legalisation ought to be driven largely evidence of
| harm, not just by abuse of the drugs, but systemic harm
| both of legalisation vs. criminalization, but with a
| reasonably high level of ability to take personal risk.
|
| E.g. for drugs where we know addiction drives crime, even
| fairly substantial harm from the drug itself might still
| mean legalisation is a net gain. Heroin might fit in that
| bucket (a small UK trial with prescribing it saw offending
| rates for those in the trial drop dramatically, and so
| reducing net harm to society).
|
| At the same time high risk may justify a high degree of
| regulation of specific drugs to ensure people are at least
| aware of the dangers, and aim to reduce recruitment.
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >Antibiotics would be far worse to deregulate than even
| the hardest recreational drugs, because widespread flawed
| use would harm other people at scale by promoting drug
| resistent strains.
|
| That particular cat is well out of the bag as, according
| to the WHO[0], a full 1/3 of antibiotics users obtained
| their last doses _without_ a prescription. In fact, many
| countries (unlike the US) don 't require prescriptions
| for antibiotics.
|
| Which really sucks, as antibiotic resistance will
| (barring some serious scientific breakthrough(s)) likely
| be a huge problem over the next century or so.
|
| I don't have a good answer WRT that, but agree with much
| of what you wrote.
|
| [0] https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/21-11-2022-1-in-
| 3-use-a...
| blanketlamp wrote:
| > A university acquaintance went acute schizophrenic shortly
| after developing a pot habit, that could be a coincidence but
| the timing is suspicious.
|
| Early adulthood is when mental illness often sets in,
| especially illness like Schizophrenia. You're implying cause
| one way without considering the other likely alternatives:
|
| 1) Your acquaintance started smoking a lot of pot _because
| of_ the onset of early schizophrenia symptoms as a coping
| mechanism.
|
| 2) They are unrelated and early adulthood is just when people
| experiment more with drugs, and also when conditions like
| Schizophrenia start to manifest.
|
| > A second cousin became mentally retarded immediately after
| smoking a joint. He's now a 30 year old who can't tie his own
| shoes.
|
| I don't know what to say to this other than nobody's ever
| established an even remotely plausible link between these two
| things, assuming you aren't being hyperbolic.
| starkd wrote:
| If I'm not mistaken, I believe there is a strong causal
| link between marijuana and schizoid type effects. I don't
| think this is even disputed. Maybe he was predisposed to it
| anyway, but the marijuana certainly did not help.
| annoyingnoob wrote:
| https://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/schizophrenia-
| marijuana-...
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| "that could be a coincidence" is a qualifier that includes
| the points you brought up.
|
| A friend of my 2nd cousin smoked a joint from the same
| stash and no such effect so it's clearly a combination of
| marijuana and the individual. Unfortunately such
| experiments are hardly repeatable in a clinical setting,
| he's not the only one, it's happened to number of people.
| One of the other mothers was collecting stories to try to
| turn into a book, give me a minute and I'll try to find it.
|
| Edit: it may take me a while to find it, I think it ended
| up getting published but it wasn't something I paid much
| attention to. I've only met my second cousin and his family
| once and a very long time ago.
| lrem wrote:
| > I don't know what to say to this other than nobody's ever
| established an even remotely plausible link between these
| two things, assuming you aren't being hyperbolic.
|
| This one's simple: unless they, or someone they know, grew
| the plant themselves, there is no practical way to know
| what really went into the joint. I've witnessed people
| having hallucinations after a joint, which seems unlikely
| with cannabis.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| I've had hallucinations from pot that I've grown from
| seeds myself. As have others from the same pot. It was
| extremely strong hydro grown under stress, the bud
| glistened.
| nibbleshifter wrote:
| > I think that if we legalize dangerous addictive drugs then
| we might as well legalize all medications/drugs by which
| point the medical establishment loses a big chunk of the
| income that it gets from being a monopoly supplier.
|
| Yes, absolutely.
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >Solution: Just make every kind of drug legal to produce, but
| regulate the purity. Be very explicit about the dangers. The
| only thing prohibition does is make drug consumption and
| production dangerous and needlessly expensive.
|
| Absolutely. As is made pretty obvious here[0][1].
|
| [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/07/health/fentanyl-
| xylazine-...
|
| [1] Archive link: https://archive.is/Sv27y
| jeffreyrogers wrote:
| There have been countries like China in the Opium Wars period
| that had limited restrictions on drug consumption. It ended up
| with a substantial fraction of their population being addicted
| to opium and basically non-productive.
|
| HN is full of smart people who (wrongly I think) assume that
| because they have the self-control and discipline to either
| avoid drugs or to use them relatively safely that the rest of
| the population does too. This does not seem true in my
| experience. I forget the exact stats but roughly 1 in 20
| Americans is an alcoholic, and that's with a drug that humans
| have been consuming for thousands of years and that has
| established social rituals around consumption. It seems likely
| to me that increasing access to and decreasing stigma of highly
| addictive drugs like opioids or amphetamines will lead to
| substantial increases in addiction rates.
| _a_a_a_ wrote:
| > and that's with a drug [...] that has established social
| rituals around consumption
|
| You're missing something vital, that those social rituals are
| often supportive of alcohol consumption. In the UK "beer or
| queer" (= drink up or there's summat wrong with you").
| Alcohol abuse is as much an embedded social problem as a
| personal one. Who hasn't tried to force another drink on
| someone who's clearly had too much? To my regret even I have.
|
| On top of that, just look at alcohol advertising everywhere.
| It should be banned.
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >HN is full of smart people who (wrongly I think) assume that
| because they have the self-control and discipline to either
| avoid drugs or to use them relatively safely that the rest of
| the population does too. This does not seem true in my
| experience. I forget the exact stats but roughly 1 in 20
| Americans is an alcoholic, and that's with a drug that humans
| have been consuming for thousands of years and that has
| established social rituals around consumption. It seems
| likely to me that increasing access to and decreasing stigma
| of highly addictive drugs like opioids or amphetamines will
| lead to substantial increases in addiction rates.
|
| IMHO, that's a little reductive. The primary issue isn't
| use/abuse of such substances. Rather, it's the
| _criminalization_ of use /abuse that's the biggest problem.
|
| I say that because putting someone in jail because they have
| a problem with substance abuse doesn't make _any_ sense. I 'd
| add that providing comprehensive treatment for those who have
| such issues would be less than half the cost of interdiction,
| enforcement and incarceration.
|
| What's more, both the substance abuse _and_ legal issues
| /incarceration limits the economic potential of those who
| have resolved their issues due to stigmatization of those
| with criminal records.
|
| I'll go even farther and say that drug prohibition (as we saw
| with the 18th Amendment[0]) creates black markets, and since
| there are no _legal_ avenues to address disputes, and begets
| violence on a wide scale, further depressing economic output
| and social cohesion.
|
| I don't disagree that substance abuse brings misery to many
| -- but penalizing those who use such substances without them
| negatively impacting their lives with legal issues and
| potential violence seems way too extreme.
|
| If we invested USD$10-15 billion a year (as compared with
| ~USD$50 billion on "drug enforcement") into the resources
| required to provide treatment for anyone who wants/needs it,
| and legalize/regulate all "drugs", will save money, increase
| economic output and improve social cohesion.
|
| It's a win/win/win if you ask me.
| _a_a_a_ wrote:
| > It ended up with a substantial fraction of their population
| being addicted to opium and basically non-productive.
|
| Do you have any evidence of this? I don't believe this to be
| true from general reading, but can't back it up. My
| rcollection is that the workers would work hard during the
| day then smoke opium in the evenings.
| jeffreyrogers wrote:
| This article claims 27% of the adult male population were
| addicts in 1906 (5% of total population): https://sci-
| hub.se/10.1007/s10571-007-9225-2.
|
| They don't specifically mention work output but I find it
| hard to believe that opium addicts were particularly
| productive in most jobs. I don't think China was very
| industrialized at the time so I doubt what we would today
| conceptualize as a "worker" was a substantial fraction of
| the population at that time.
| _a_a_a_ wrote:
| Thankls. I'm a little cautious if this as it relentlessly
| uses he word 'abuse' instead of 'use', as if it has made
| up it's mind already.
|
| I also found this, which _may_ disagree:
| https://academic.oup.com/book/32900/chapter-
| abstract/2766221...
|
| The 'Problem' of Opium Smoking in Canton Virgil K.Y. Ho
|
| Abstract
|
| Both the causes of opium consumption, and the allegedly
| calamitous social, political, economic, and cultural
| impact of opium smoking on Cantonese society were greatly
| exaggerated in official propaganda and scholarly
| writings. Opium served Canton and its urban inhabitants
| many positive social, cultural, economic, and political
| purposes, making it difficult to over-simplify the
| phenomenon of opium smoking as nothing but pernicious.
|
| "but I find it hard to believe that opium addicts were
| particularly productive in most jobs"
|
| well maybe, but do you have any experience with this
| other than feeling? Same has been said of dope smokers,
| but many are productive. Also in china a few centuries
| ago there was no welfare state and for most, no work = no
| food = beg or starve. So as a non-productive person, you
| didn't live too long (edit: to be fair, this is just my
| assumption. I may be wrong).
|
| Abit more, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium#Recre
| ational_use_in_Chin... that suggests something very
| different:
|
| It is important to note that "recreational use" of opium
| was part of a civilized and mannered ritual, akin to an
| East Asian tea ceremony, prior to the extensive
| prohibitions that came later.[50] In places of gathering,
| often tea shops, or a person's home servings of opium
| were offered as a form of greeting and politeness. [...]
| The image of seedy underground, destitute smokers were
| often generated by anti-opium narratives and became a
| more accurate image of opium use following the effects of
| large scale opium prohibition in the 1880s.[50][51]
| jeffreyrogers wrote:
| > well maybe, but do you have any experience with this
| other than feeling? Same has been said of dope smokers,
| but many are productive. Also in china a few centuries
| ago there was no welfare state and for most, no work = no
| food = beg or starve. So as a non-productive person, you
| didn't live too long
|
| Not with opium smokers but I have some familiarity with
| opioid users and they are generally not good workers. Of
| course maybe there are tons of opioid users who pass as
| totally functional people and so I don't recognize them,
| but I doubt that. Marijuana is also clearly not addictive
| in the same way as opioids are (perhaps it is slightly
| addictive and maybe more so now that it has become
| stronger). It seems to be more like caffeine where its
| use is ritualized but people don't have a very hard time
| with cessation if forced to. I would bet daily users of
| cannabis are significantly less productive than the
| average population, but I know a couple in high
| performance jobs, so it's certainly not guaranteed.
|
| I imagine in the China of the early 1900s many of the
| opium users did die just as many heroin/fentanyl users
| today do. I have talked to addicts who expect to die of
| their drug addiction and openly say so.
| _a_a_a_ wrote:
| A fair and measured answer, thanks.
| alpineidyll3 wrote:
| Adderall anyone? There's a panoply of legal ways to obtain
| amphetamines, but the US medical system is far less competent
| at customer service than the black market due to regulatory
| capture.
|
| I think it's critical to appreciate that Physician Regulations,
| the AMA, etc. are the main culprits here. How they avoid
| getting properly blamed for things like the opioid epidemic, I
| have no idea.
| brookst wrote:
| I suspect that most people who understand the role AMA plays
| in prohibition and drug abuse also aren't super interested in
| focusing on blame. The whole thing is a complicated system of
| perverse incentives and counterproductive policies. It
| doesn't really matter if the AMA is 20% or 60% to blame.
| alpineidyll3 wrote:
| Blame is a poor choice of words. Ideally we could stop
| letting physicians write their own regulations, and instead
| have at least one mechanism with incentive to promote
| national health, rather than the medical industry complex.
| starkd wrote:
| Traditionally, doctors, as men of science, have been
| given wide latitude to prescribe, since there is no one
| treatment that is good for everyone. Unfortunately, that
| seems to be changing, as doctors are expected to adhere
| to a standard regimen of treatment options. It is the
| dangers of institutionalization of our healthcare.
| alpineidyll3 wrote:
| Calling doctors men of science is extraordinarily
| generous. Scientists do things like collect data to test
| hypotheses.
|
| The ama lobbies aggressively against national medical
| record standardization etc.
|
| At the end of the day, it's about whether the person
| making decisions has good incentives. And that's not the
| case in the present system.
| starkd wrote:
| I was being a bit facetious in using the term, but that
| was the image given to doctors once upon a time.
| Nevertheless, my point is that doctors are not mere
| technicians applying handbook remedies. They are
| generally given wide latitude to try novel ideas when
| appropriate. Unfortunately, that appears to be changing.
| refurb wrote:
| There used to be a very active forum on clandestine chemistry
| (The Hive) that eventually got shut down when Strike (who ran the
| forum) got busted. I cant remember the details (it's been almost
| 20 years) but I think 60 Minutes did a report on it and he was
| anonymously interviewed? He also wrote a couple books on it.
|
| The Rhodium archives were also a nice collection of scientific
| papers on synthesis routes combined with first hand reports on
| success/failure. It was a pretty comprehensive site.
|
| I believe the archives are still hosted somewhere.
| nibbleshifter wrote:
| There were a great number of successor forums to the Hive. Some
| are still active, some even are clearnet sites you can find
| when searching for archives of the Hive.
| hotpotamus wrote:
| I'm surprised to read that there are recent innovations in
| illicit techniques of making methamphetamine that mirror
| legitimate pharmaceutical methods, but only because I thought
| methamphetamine was already a legitimate pharmaceutical to some
| extent.
|
| https://www.goodrx.com/methamphetamine
|
| Other amphetamines are quite well represented at the average
| pharmacy at least.
| blanketlamp wrote:
| I think it's more that Eli Lilly and co don't need to deal with
| the same supply issues/challenges that warrant the innovation.
| If they want to make Meth, they can probably just get a bunch
| of pseudoephedrine delivered.
| kevinmchugh wrote:
| I don't know chemistry but my reading of the article makes me
| think the pharmaceutical meth is just the decongestant (L)
| isomer
| notamy wrote:
| Prescription methamphetamine is Desoxyn, which is a CNS
| stimulant and thus schedule II
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desoxyn
| jagraff wrote:
| You can buy the L isomer OTC as a decongestant, but desoxyn
| is the D isomer, a stimulant, perscribed for ADHD and
| narcolepsy.
| cat_plus_plus wrote:
| Legislating morality is like casting pearls before swine, best to
| focus on helping those who want to live decent lives voluntarily.
| Part of that can be accomplished with designated methamphetamine
| or whatever dens where adults can get high and then sober up
| before being allowed into family neighborhoods. Without legal
| fears, it should be easier for addicts to get in touch with those
| who offer rehab services or harm reduction replacement therapies
| such as methadone. But mostly we want to enable parents who don't
| want their kids to be offered drugs keep it this way, and same
| for other deranged excesses of our days.
| ck2 wrote:
| What if instead of all the money poured into law enforcement and
| prosecution we instead make treatment for addiction completely
| frictionless, effortless and guilt-less.
|
| Like walking into a supermarket easy.
|
| Of course progressives have been begging for that to happen with
| mental health in the USA for decades, so all this is a fantasy to
| try to help people in society.
| blfr wrote:
| We do not have the technology to make mental health care
| supermarket easy. Psychiatric drugs have NNTs in the dozens,
| terrible side effects, or both.
|
| It's a fantasy because it has no chance of working even before
| you consider the enormous amount of resources it would require.
|
| I strongly suspect the same about just letting people do
| copious amounts of legal drugs and then trying to fix
| addictions they develop.
|
| Stepping in after the damage is done is usually both much more
| expensive and way less effective. Ounce of prevention and all
| that.
| tchaffee wrote:
| The ounce of prevention doesn't work. Prohibition has been a
| huge failure.
| tchaffee wrote:
| That does indeed seem to be working in Portugal.
|
| One unpredicted side effect of making it a health issue instead
| of a criminal issue is that it's no longer so cool to young
| kids. Breaking the law is a bit of a rebellious thrill. Getting
| an addiction like Uncle Bob and having to visit the doctor a
| lot, not so cool.
| starkd wrote:
| That might work if drugs were as easy to stop than start.
| Addiction treatment has a very low success rate with high
| relapse rate, and its incredibly expensive per user. The best
| treatment remains not starting in the first place.
| tchaffee wrote:
| Prohibition doesn't work at all at stopping people from
| starting in the first place. It has over a hundred years of
| failure.
|
| Switzerland hugely reduced an endemic heroin problem in part
| by making it a health issue instead of a criminal issue.
|
| And Portugal has shown a lot of success in decriminalization
| of most drugs.
|
| Illegal drugs are perhaps the 2nd largest business globally,
| after petroleum. Prohibition is an abject failure at "not
| starting in the first place".
| starkd wrote:
| Yes. I was not claiming prohibition did anything.
| sitkack wrote:
| > The best treatment remains not starting in the first place.
|
| This is not shown. Many many people try drugs like speed,
| marijuana, cocaine and do not become addicted, many only do
| them a handful of times.
|
| Absolutist policies are the ones that encourage draconian
| laws and responses because by the very nature of your
| statement, the first time is the worst time.
|
| How about a recreational drug driver's license? It is how we
| respond to a situation that matters, not getting into the
| situation in the first place, esp when that situation is so
| easy to get into.
| Metacelsus wrote:
| As a soon-to-be PhD graduate, I'm perversely curious as to how
| much these clandestine chemistry jobs actually pay . . .
| starkd wrote:
| I suspect that once you start working in the field, there's no
| walking away. You will be a slave scientist. The cartls won't
| let you walk away from it.
| liveoneggs wrote:
| Pay is great but the non-compete is a little aggressive. Don't
| bring up the NDA as it's even worse.
| hotpotamus wrote:
| Ever watch Breaking Bad?
| photochemsyn wrote:
| Making opiates for the Sackler family with the blessing of the
| US government for distribution to addicts via 'pain clinics'
| probably pays about the same as making opiates for the Guzman
| cartel down in Mexico for transport over the border into the US
| for distribution to addicts on street corners.
|
| In both cases you probably want to keep paying your taxes,
| however. In the latter case you'll need some cover story to
| explain where you got the money from.
|
| Really the drug situation in the USA is pretty farcical. You
| can manufacture amphetamines and opiates at scale for the
| ADHD/chronic pain market, with relatively few restrictions, but
| the prisons are full of people involved in the clandestine
| trade in the very same substances.
| h2odragon wrote:
| the pay can be quite good; but don't go bringing any other
| concerns to the HR department.
| api wrote:
| I'm guessing the hells angels do not have a diversity policy
| or a policy on harassment?
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| I'm pretty sure the Hells Angels have a policy on
| harassment, you could say it's almost a job requirement.
| kevinmchugh wrote:
| They have a two letter diversity policy: "No".
| fisherjeff wrote:
| I believe the severance packages also tend to be pretty bad
| MengerSponge wrote:
| "Take whatever you want, I-I have money, I have a lot of
| money. I have... um... Please, don't do this. You don't-
| You... Y-You don't have to do this..."
| [deleted]
| bell-cot wrote:
| Plus issues with what to put on your resume, and getting
| references.
| passwordoops wrote:
| A start-up offer from a loose acquaintance came my way 2006-ish
| and it was quite lucrative. But seeing what happened to the
| dude long-term proved to me the power and importance of "No"
| api wrote:
| Many years ago in college I was offered a job doing IT and
| infosec/opsec for an interesting group of people. Turned it
| down for many reasons including not wanting to live in
| constant paranoia, but it was suggested that the pay would be
| excellent.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| Reminds me of the bit on Clerks about contractors passing on
| dangerous jobs with the second Death Star as an example.
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| > But a human-designed synthetic process can always be human-
| redesigned. It happens constantly in the drug industry - the
| production of such a common drug as ibuprofen changed completely
| in the early 1990s, for example (a story for another time). For
| an illegal drug, that means that law enforcement will always be a
| step or two behind as new methods come on line. And it means that
| stopping the supply of such a drug will be difficult-to-
| impossible as well.
|
| 1) I wish he would have provided a link for the ibuprofen story.
|
| 2) With regards to the very last bit, You'll never stop the
| production. Ironically, "the war on drugs" has meant more and
| higher quality drugs.
|
| What might be possible is mitigating the financial incentives.
|
| It might also be a good time (read: long over due) to ask: why so
| many people have so much pain (i.e., physical or emotional) that
| they require a persistent altered state of mind (to defuse the
| pain)?
|
| I'm not talking about prevention. I'm talking about a society /
| culture that is as good at generating customers for these
| substances as the producer are good at meeting those needs.
| gpcr1949 wrote:
| You can read about the development of this new route and its
| advantages here [0]. Ctrl+F for ibuprofen or go to p.54.
|
| https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/B978-0-12-804190-1.00004-5
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| I have a friend who, fortunately, escaped the drug world and is
| happily recovered now. One of the many interesting things I
| learned through talking to him and his friends is the pervasive
| idea among addicted that street drugs were always better in the
| past. Everyone vividly remembers their drug being much better
| when they first got into drugs, with steadily declining effects
| over the years.
|
| Many of them had elaborate theories about changing synthesis or
| chirality or cutting agents or active impurities. They would even
| have theories about modern prescription Adderall or prescription
| opioids being 1/4 as powerful as in the past due to conspiracies
| by manufacturers.
|
| The drugs may have changed slightly over the years, but the sad
| reality is that the real change was their accumulated tolerance
| and long term damage from drug abuse had blunted their response
| so much that they could barely feel the drugs any more. For some,
| this blunted reward response carried over to daily life, with
| depression and a hedonic being pervasive among the long term
| users.
|
| A sobering reminder that the negative effects of recreational
| drugs last long after the hangover. I'm seeing an alarming trend
| of young people reading "harm reduction" material online and
| assuming they know the full picture of the risks of drug use.
| Seeing addicts (most of whom assumed they were using
| intelligently and practicing "harm reduction") discuss their long
| term effects is a sad look into the realities of drug use. There
| is no free lunch.
| daniel-cussen wrote:
| [dead]
| mypalmike wrote:
| "accumulated tolerance and long term damage from drug abuse had
| blunted their response"
|
| The succinct term for this phenomenon is "chasing the dragon".
| xrd wrote:
| First heard that term in the movie "Killing Zoe." Takes me
| back.
| blanketlamp wrote:
| > A sobering reminder that the negative effects of recreational
| drugs last long after the hangover. I'm seeing an alarming
| trend of young people reading "harm reduction" material online
| and assuming they know the full picture of the risks of drug
| use.
|
| I don't think that's ever been in question. Harm reduction
| isn't some utopian ideal that safe drug use == nobody ever
| suffers long-term negative effects.
|
| Conquering those demons takes a lot of time, introspection, and
| often outside help. Harm reduction is about making sure you
| live long enough to hopefully get there.
| rlt wrote:
| Harm reduction itself isn't a bad thing, the problem is if it
| displaces other forms of help for drug users, or ends up
| encouraging more drug use.
|
| e.x. skip to 2:00 in this video
| https://twitter.com/sav_says_/status/1603512522509668352
| beebmam wrote:
| I think your comment is an example of an important
| discussion we need to have around what are the consequences
| to our drug policies, whether they are tough-lovish or
| harm-reductionist. I can see value in both, in different
| circumstances.
|
| However, the video you link to is from a notorious far
| right propaganda outlet. I don't think people will get an
| honest perspective from TPUSA, who clearly have an axe to
| grind (and bills to pay, which they accomplish by
| manufacturing outrage).
| rlt wrote:
| Ricci Wynne posts most of his videos like this
| independently (https://twitter.com/RawRicci415). In most
| of them he lets the video speak for itself. I don't have
| any reason to believe he's lying and I think he'd
| strongly dispute being characterized as "far right".
| xyzzyz wrote:
| Do you react similarly to left wing propaganda, or is
| your "partisan sources do not provide honest
| perspectives" limited to right wing sources?
| beebmam wrote:
| Yes, I do. I despise the far left.
| starkd wrote:
| True, but you are saying that with more awareness than many
| young people have when they are first looking into it. The
| brain tends to assume "risk reduction" means "risk approaches
| zero" and thus negligeable risk.
| worik wrote:
| Also "harm reduction" is patronising to users.
|
| People use drugs for there benefits
|
| Addiction is a symptom, generally, of alienation. To the
| addict the drug is helping. As the addicts loved ones that
| can be hard to belive, and demonstrably untrue. But still.
|
| A much better paradigm is "benefit maximisation"
|
| Ask ourselves what social policies will help maximize the
| benefits of drug use.
|
| Leads to the same place with the harm, but without
| patronising users, and allows us as a society to explore the
| upsides of these drugs
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > I don't think that's ever been in question. Harm reduction
| isn't some utopian ideal that safe drug use == nobody ever
| suffers long-term negative effects.
|
| To you, maybe, but it only takes a cursory glance at drug-
| related subreddits to see numerous people suggesting that you
| just need to follow harm reduction websites, stick to some
| arbitrary rules (e.g. only do MDMA every N weeks and take X,
| Y, and Z supplements), and you can avoid the negative
| consequences. You may know that's untrue, but it's common to
| see among drug users.
|
| It's also common to blame drug users who experience problems
| on failure to follow harm reduction guides, as if the guides
| are a perfect guide for avoiding the harms.
|
| > Harm reduction is about making sure you live long enough to
| hopefully get there.
|
| Modern harm reduction websites are about education in
| general, not just helping addicts survive. You will find
| things like dosing guidelines for first time users,
| expectations for what to expect, how to prepare, and so on.
|
| These things are targeted at beginner drug users or the drug
| curious.
| pantalaimon wrote:
| What negative consequences are there to doing MDMA or LSD a
| couple times a year?
|
| Especially when comparing with the negative consequences of
| doing alcohol.
|
| The argument that any drug use is bad is pretty blown out
| of proportion.
| w1nst0nsm1th wrote:
| LSD can mess you up big time even with a single intake in
| your life.
| still_grokking wrote:
| Is this backed by research? Or even some serious
| anecdotes?
| w1nst0nsm1th wrote:
| Bad trip ?
| sterlind wrote:
| If you have a family history of psychosis, it can trigger
| schizophrenia or bipolar.
|
| If you're not predisposed to psychosis, can it really do
| anything besides give you a bad trip? Bad trips are
| traumatizing and may take a while to work through,
| psychologically, but it's not permanent damage.
|
| Personally, I had a very bad trip that led me to stop
| doing drugs and, ultimately, to a lot of very positive
| changes in my life.
| ifyoubuildit wrote:
| > Especially when comparing with the negative
| consequences of doing alcohol.
|
| This sentiment is confusing to me. I get that alcohol is
| bad. But how is that relevant to whether or not MDMA or
| LSD are bad?
|
| I see it come up in these conversations pretty regularly,
| so there's probably a point there I'm missing. But I
| can't help but read it as "this thing I like to do isn't
| bad because other people do a different bad thing".
| pantalaimon wrote:
| The majority of the population accepts the risk
| associated with alcohol. So touting risks of other drugs
| as if they where somehow greater than that already by
| most accepted risk feels dishonest.
|
| Now you can say, well I don't drink alcohol either, but
| that's not the reality of most people.
| ifyoubuildit wrote:
| There is another approach though. You can imbibe in any
| of these things and also acknowledge that they are
| probably a negative thing.
|
| I'll have a drink occasionally, and (more rarely these
| days anyway) I'll occasionally have too many drinks. But
| I won't look at either of those as "well, I didnt do
| heroin, so that was a good choice".
|
| I tend to look at it just as if I had eaten mcdonalds or
| taco bell or a tub of ice cream. It's something that I
| wouldn't do if I really wanted the best for myself (for
| some definition of best. Obviously everyone will have
| their own. Maybe your best is exploring your psyche, and
| damn whatever consequences may or may not come).
|
| You don't need to justify it. Just recognize that you're
| probably trading off something else in your life for it,
| and in some cases that tradeoff may be sizable.
|
| In any case, I think the comparative view isn't a great
| one. It implies that you have to have some kinda vice,
| and at least you kinda picked a lesser one. My own ideal
| would be to do very little of any of it, maybe even none.
| But if I miss that ideal, I don't have to rationalize it
| away.
| gmtx725 wrote:
| I think the point is people disproportionately tsk tsk
| about the harms of drug use compared to the harms of
| alcohol.
|
| Personally I think most substances in moderate quantities
| taken only occasionally are no big deal. Yes there is
| probably some minute health impact visible in long term
| longitudinal studies but it's probably dwarfed by other
| lifestyle factors. I would rather be someone who
| exercises regularly, eats a healthy diet and uses MDMA or
| cocaine a few times a year than a sedentary obese
| teetolar who's never touched drugs.
| vidarh wrote:
| The worst part is that keeping them all illegal drives
| people towards whatever is available, and some of those
| choices are far worse than others.
|
| A more flexible approach would see drugs regulated purely
| based on actual harm coupled with availability of a less
| harmful analogue (will fentanyl users pick heroin if it's
| more easily available than fentanyl? If so regulate one
| much more strictly than the other)
|
| Incidentally that approach might well see tighter
| regulations on alcohol than several currently illegal
| drugs.
| still_grokking wrote:
| > Incidentally that approach might well see tighter
| regulations on alcohol than several currently illegal
| drugs.
|
| Well, from the scientific view things are pretty clear.
|
| https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Psychoactive_
| dru...
|
| Only politics don't want to move. Because why ask science
| when you can ask the alcohol and tobacco lobby?
| subradios wrote:
| Smart, well adjusted drug people will frequently point
| out that most common drugs they use (LSD, MDMA, MDAA,
| psilocybin, etc) have an orders of magnitude better risk
| profile than smoking or drinking. The latter is
| essentially socially ubiquitous.
|
| That community has an ongoing bitterness about this
| double standard.
|
| Usually though, people making this point are not
| advocating for heroin or meth (although there's a
| reasonable argument there that the drug is not what does
| most of the damage in those situations - krokodil is just
| heroin manufactured with an extremely dirty process. It's
| perceived as being much worse, but what's "much worse"
| are the impurities from using gasoline as a solvent.
|
| MDMA and LSD in particular have the advantage of no fast,
| cheap ways to synthesize at the expense of safety or
| purity.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| I think the reality with LSD in particular is the normal
| way of making it is fast & cheap anyways. I'm sure you
| _could_ cut some corners. But why? We're talking about a
| drug used in microgram doses. Synthesis several kilograms
| and you have basically created an annual supply for an
| entire continent.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _an alarming trend of young people reading "harm reduction"
| material online and assuming they know the full picture of the
| risks of drug use_
|
| Is anyone attempting to harm-reductively try meth?
| SilasX wrote:
| I'm not sure about meth specifically, but there were
| billboards in SF telling people safer ways to use drugs:
|
| https://www.ktvu.com/news/san-francisco-supervisor-drug-
| over...
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| Yes.
|
| The "harm reduction" websites are full of information about
| things like: Dose ranges for beginners, what effects to
| expect at different dose levels, routes of administration,
| and so on.
|
| This information is targeted at beginners or drug curious
| people.
| glerk wrote:
| Methamphetamine has a bad rep, but taken orally in small
| quantities it is not much more dangerous than adderall, and
| has pretty much the same side effects. It can be legally
| prescribed for ADHD (brand name Desoxyn).
| Rewrap3643 wrote:
| Meth is significantly different than regular amphetamine.
| Consider that simple changes in isomers can elicit
| radically different effects. A great example is
| levmetamfetamine (or l-meth), which is sold over the
| counter as a decongestant (as opposed to d-meth, the "fun"
| kind).
|
| Now, if the difference between a "left-handed" and "right-
| handed" meth molecule can be so great, it shouldn't come as
| a surprise that adding a methyl group to regular
| amphetamine will change its effects considerably.
|
| This can be seen in the different receptor binding profiles
| (which receptors, where in the brain, and how strong or
| long the modulation is).
|
| Meth's increased addictive and neurotoxic effects are owed
| to this difference in receptor binding.
| anonymoushn wrote:
| Probably not, but this is an artifact of the audience of
| "harm reduction" material. If there were things aimed at
| students and professionals who take prescription stimulants
| informing them that there's an alternative prescription
| stimulant that is comparably very highly reviewed by
| patients[0] for boring reasons like "it helps me live my life
| and has fewer annoying side effects" then that probably
| wouldn't be "harm reduction" material.
|
| [0]: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/know-your-
| amphetamines
| Al-Khwarizmi wrote:
| This well-known video explains what you describe in graphical
| form, in case anyone has not seen it:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUngLgGRJpo
| [deleted]
| hgsgm wrote:
| "harm reduction" doesn't mean "good addiction" or even "risk
| reduction" . It means dying more slowly with less collateral
| damage. It means what the name says.
| MobiusHorizons wrote:
| Unfortunately it doesn't mean just one thing. People use a
| slogan like "harm reduction" to describe a wide array of
| beliefs and practices ranging from the very practical (don't
| make sobriety a condition of care) to the very dogmatic (it's
| not ok to discourage drug use of any kind, anyone who
| suggests otherwise is part of the problem). Most people will
| be somewhere in between those extremes. Once a slogan has
| been in use for some time, you can't take the words at face
| value anymore. The mean whatever people use them for, not
| what they would mean in plain English.
|
| As an aside this is true about language more generally. There
| is no true meaning of any given string of words. Language is
| a communication tool (and a lossy one at that). History of
| use gives words and phrases additional contextual meaning
| beyond any dictionary definition. Feedback is often necessary
| to avoid misunderstanding.
| nico wrote:
| > this is true about language more generally. There is no
| true meaning of any given string of words. Language is a
| communication tool (and a lossy one at that). History of
| use gives words and phrases additional contextual meaning
| beyond any dictionary definition. Feedback is often
| necessary to avoid misunderstanding.
|
| Very insightful. It would be great if we all were a bit
| more aware of this.
| pantalaimon wrote:
| And all die we must
| abirch wrote:
| The sad thing is many overdoses are due to people who quit,
| lose their tolerance, but take the same amount of their drug as
| when they were still actively using.
| sterlind wrote:
| _> The drugs may have changed slightly over the years, but the
| sad reality is that the real change was their accumulated
| tolerance and long term damage from drug abuse had blunted
| their response so much that they could barely feel the drugs
| any more._
|
| This varies with the drug. MDMA is notorious for losing its
| "magic" after six or so trips. There's a special empathic,
| soul-opening quality to it - the kind of thing that makes it
| such a good candidate for treating PTSD. But after a few times,
| it becomes more like a regular psychedelic amphetamine.. fun,
| but not life-changing.
|
| On the other hand, pure psychedelics don't really lose their
| magic. Tolerance develops, but goes away after a week.
| Psychedelics aren't associated with brain damage, while MDMA
| mildly is.
|
| Then there's opioids, of course, which are ruinously addictive
| and fickle with tolerance.
|
| When you're on the outside of the community, it's easy to lump
| "drugs" together and make generalizations. But every class of
| drug is different.
| worik wrote:
| The champion of pointless addiction is tobacco
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-07 23:00 UTC)