Drugs and the legalisation/criminalisation of them

[phonics]

Sponsored by this article

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/injection-rooms-for-addicts-to-open-next-year-says-minister-1.2413509


Drug users will be able to use supervised injecting rooms in Dublin next year, followed shortly afterwards by Cork, Galway and Limerick, according to the Minister in charge of the National Drugs Strategy.

Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, who is set to announce the radical move in a speech to the London School of Economics on Monday, told The Irish Times that medically supervised injection rooms “will happen next year”.


In his address he will also outline plans to decriminalise the possession of small amounts of drugs, including heroin, cocaine and cannabis, for personal use, as part of a “radical cultural shift” in the approach to drug addiction.


“I am firmly of the view that there needs to be a cultural shift in how we regard substance misuse if we are to break this cycle and make a serious attempt to tackle drug and alcohol addiction,” said Mr Ó Ríordáin


He added that compassion had to be brought to the issue, and that as far as possible drug addiction should be removed from the criminal justice system.


The Minister’s address comes in the wake of leaked report from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime indicating it will call for the decriminalisation of consumption of drugs on public health and human rights grounds. Mr Ó Ríordáin says the heads of a new Misuse of Drugs Bill are being drawn up which will “unblock” the legislative obstacles to opening injection rooms.


The Minister hoped the new Bill would be enacted “early next year”. Regulations will follow, which will mean the State’s first injecting room open in the capital.

[Boydy]

The Republic continues to move far ahead of NI in terms of social issues.

[Henry]

Great news. Dublin city centre is plagued by addicts, and prohibition doesn't work.

(Ironically this has occured because none of the political representatives wanted methodone clinics in their constituencies, so it all went to the centre.)

[phonics]

We've had these for a decade or so now. They work quite well in the sense that I don't see any addicts just scuttering about the town like I did in Swansea. Although that probably had a higher users per capita count at the end of the day.

[Henry]

The Republic continues to move far ahead of NI in terms of social issues.

They covered themselves in glory yet again in the gay marriage vote today, I see.

[Multi]

Methadone clinics are great, they save society a lot of money and trouble overall.

[John Arne]

https://youtu.be/4Z4j2CrJRn4?t=8m50s

In a similar vein(!), congress, particularly Bob Barr, was trying to block needle exchanges in DC, despite already having them in his own state, and them being extremely effective in reducing HIV contraction.

[QE Harold Flair]

Should be great, encouraging self-medication and the zombiefication of the masses. Deal with problems? No, just go and zone out and pretend they don't exist!

[John Arne]

What a surprise.... Harold disagrees.

[QE Harold Flair]

I don't think my opposition to this is a surprise to anyone. I'm sorry I don't agree - that would be lovely, wouldn't it?

[QE Harold Flair]

Great news. Dublin city centre is plagued by addicts, and prohibition doesn't work.

(Ironically this has occured because none of the political representatives wanted methodone clinics in their constituencies, so it all went to the centre.)

That's because users are never punished. The stricter the punishment for drug possession/dealing in countries the less of a problem it tends to be.

[Toby]

The stricter the punishment for drug possession/dealing in countries the less of a problem it tends to be.

[citation needed]

[QE Harold Flair]

It's called common sense. Obviously the drug problem is scarce in countries which carry the death penalty for drugs offences. Not that I support the death penalty but, at the extremes, it does go to show that punishment does indeed prevent crime in this field.

[Toby]

It's called common sense.

:harold:

I thought that might be coming.

[John Arne]

Vietnam and Thailand has strict laws againt drug use... yet they are everywhere. That seems to conflict with your stance somewhat. Do you have any evidence other than "common sense"?

[Henry]

That's because users are never punished.

If you'd read the article you'd know that one of the reasons for this is that the justice system is completely inundated with drug offenses.


The stricter the punishment for drug possession/dealing in countries the less of a problem it tends to be.

This is so in some Asian societies (which you abhor) but those are very authoritarian in general, with things like the death penalty for drug offenses.
In western cultures, the opposite is true. Exhibit America, again.

[Toby]

Vietnam and Thailand has strict laws againt drug use... yet they are everywhere. That seems to conflict with your stance somewhat. Do you have any evidence other than "common sense"?

Iran has the highest per capita use of opiates of any country in the world, despite also having some of the harshest penalties. He's talking out his hole and I fear another e-defeat awaits him.

[Henry]

Iran has the highest per capita use of opiates of any country in the world, despite also having some of the harshest penalties. He's talking out his hole and I fear another e-defeat awaits him.

In fairness, I had thought that East Asian drug policies had reduced the number of users. But I'm not an expert - it's possible that Harold is just full of shit on this as well as everything else.

[QE Harold Flair]

Iran has the highest per capita use of opiates of any country in the world, despite also having some of the harshest penalties. He's talking out his hole and I fear another e-defeat awaits him.

If that's the case then it's the exception and not the rule.

[Luca]

The only place where "the stricter the punishment for drug possession/dealing in countries the less of a problem it tends to be" holds is probably Singapore, but seeing as they'll fine you about a billion quid for chewing gum, it's probably the exception rather than the rule.

Take the example of Portugal, for instance, to see the positive effects decriminalisation can have (http://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening).

[Toby]

If that's the case then it's the exception and not the rule.

Other countries in the top ten include Afghanistan (obviously due to easy supply, but it is punishable by death), Malaysia (punishable by death), Pakistan (punishable by death) and Mauritius (punishable by at least life in prison / possible death).

Go further down the list and it remains relatively prevalent in the likes of Burma, Laos, Vietnam and Thailand, despite all having relatively harsh laws.

I'll take your blind faith that strong punishment works as yet another example of your rampant hypocrisy.

[John Arne]

In fairness, I had thought that East Asian drug policies had reduced the number of users. But I'm not an expert - it's possible that Harold is just full of shit on this as well as everything else.

I'm not sure about other ASEAN countries, but here in Vietnam, the Goverment will release bullshit statistics to justify there policies - or easier still, just not report half the crimes.

[Toby]

The only place where "the stricter the punishment for drug possession/dealing in countries the less of a problem it tends to be" holds is probably Singapore, but seeing as they'll fine you about a billion quid for chewing gum, it's probably the exception rather than the rule.


Plus, you know, it's pretty wealthy...

That said, Luxembourg seems to have a surprisingly high level of opiate use. I'm not sure if that's a quirk of reporting given their small population or if they're is genuinely a big problem with it there.

[QE Harold Flair]

This seems to disagree quite violently with the Tobes claims:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/02/drug-use-map-world

Opiates are slightly higher in countries where opiates grow which, unsurprisingly, is in Afghanistan, Iran and the like. The other types of drug use are very low compared to anywhere else.

[Boydy]

They covered themselves in glory yet again in the gay marriage vote today, I see.

Yep. Fucking DUP.

[Lewis]

It's an interactive map, Harold.

[mugbull]

Here we go again. Let's please just avoid answering him for once

Decriminalization is the way to go, legalization isn't, imo. Even weed. Everybody is pushing for legalization here, but no one knows the long term mental effects of stuff like that. It shouldn't be a crime to use it, but it shouldn't be publicly available for sale. Same for heroin, crack, etc, which are obviously echelons worse than weed but the principle remains the same.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Is it me or is there an almost exact correlation between cocaine use and the popularity of motorcycle racing?

[Lewis]

Here we go again. Let's please just avoid answering him for once

Decriminalization is the way to go, legalization isn't, imo. Even weed. Everybody is pushing for legalization here, but no one knows the long term mental effects of stuff like that. It shouldn't be a crime to use it, but it shouldn't be publicly available for sale. Same for heroin, crack, etc, which are obviously echelons worse than weed but the principle remains the same.

What about if the state held the monopoly on distribution/production?

[QE Harold Flair]

Possession is decriminalised already, essentially.

[mugbull]

What about if the state held the monopoly on distribution/production?

We have that happening in Colorado and Washington here in the US with marijuana. I don't know what changes will come of it, other than the fact that more people are using it than were before, but it seems kind of haphazard given that its Schedule 1 and no one has done real, long-term medical research on it in like, ever.

[phonics]

Wait, what? Has someone been on a fake Mokbull account the whole time?

[Henry]

"No one knows the long term effect" isn't a reason to keep it illegal in my opinion. We should err on the side of liberality, and let people make their own choices.

Of course, tax revenue is another bonus and it does need to be regulated very strictly.

[mugbull]

Wait, what? Has someone been on a fake Mokbull account the whole time?

what?

I think it is, henry. The common welfare suffers from greater availability to potentially dangerous substances whose long term effects on the brain are unknown. The only core difference between legal and decriminalized is the ability to produce/market, which doesn't seem like a compelling justification for legalization. Who exactly benefits from being able to sell hard drugs? How is that beneficial to society? Tax revenue, sure, but that's fairly minimal, and I guess youd protect against unsafe heroin, but we're already doing needle dispensaries and shit to minimize risk. I guess i just dont see what the point of legalization is.

[Henry]

Freedom is the point.

[GS]

They covered themselves in glory yet again in the gay marriage vote today, I see.

It's quite preposterous, but what can you do. They're just idiots.


Freedom is the point.

Unless its a business or they're rich, at which point the government can spend their money better.

Joking aside, we need to look at the issue afresh. Current policy isn't working. I would advocate strong penalties for drug dealers, treatment for drug users - not that it's that simple, of course.

[Henry]

Unless its a business or they're rich, at which point the government can spend their money better.

What?

[GS]

What?

It's FREEDOM for the masses, unless they're rich at which point they're OPPRESSING people and shouldn't have FREEDOM to spend their money because the government can TAX AND SPEND.

Or something.

[Henry]

It's FREEDOM for the masses, unless they're rich at which point they're OPPRESSING people and shouldn't have FREEDOM to spend their money because the government can TAX AND SPEND.

Or something.

Oh, you're trying to derail the thread into a discussion of economics for some reason. No thanks.

[leedsrevolution]

I think de-criminalisation is certainly the way forward. Saves the police a lot of resources (and money) and simple stoners / pill heads don't get there lives or careers ruined for something relatively innocent and fun.

[GS]

Oh, you're trying to derail the thread into a discussion of economics for some reason. No thanks.

I'm not trying to derail the thread, rather highlight that your call for FREEDOM applies only when it suits.

[ItalAussie]

All tax is theft. And so on.

I met a number of very high achievers at Oxford, and I would say that a decent majority of them were comfortable with the use of recreational marijuana. I'm not saying this to indicate that this is a representative sample, and it's clearly anecdotal rather than statistical, but it does seem fairly reasonable to observe that recreational use of mild drugs doesn't seem to impede mental acuity for a large number of people.

[Boydy]

There's plenty around that wouldn't be classified as mild as well.

[Spoonsky]

I really think that more countries need to be looking at Portugal's example on this.

[Reg]

It's called common sense.
It's really not. Do you think heroin addicts' prime concern is their possible jail time?

[ItalAussie]

There's plenty around that wouldn't be classified as mild as well.

Makes sense, given how prevalent cocaine is within the legal and financial sectors.

[elth]

I've been writing a major paper on this for uni :cool:

Also wrote a major paper on why the "common sense" approach to policy problems never works this semester :cool:

[Jimmy Floyd]

It never works and worse still, it puts academics out of work.

[elth]

Nah, you could write just as many unreadable journal articles about how instinctive responses to problems are great as you could anything else. Part of being a good academic is being able to research and write bullshit about whatever you happen to have in front of you.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I reckon social sciences journals are probably the worst written things in all written English. Sociology is the absolute worst, by quite a long way actually, but political science and anthropology are pushing hard for those minor podium placings.

[Lewis]

I once lolled with my old supervisor about being able to get an article published about how nuclear war is inherently sexist (he thought it was doable, but advised against doing it before having a career to ruin), and today I saw this this (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-women-more-vulnerable-to-dangers-of-global-warming-than-men-say-leading-academics-a6717311.html) using similar arguments to what I proposed.

[Jimmy Floyd]

The best thing I read in my degree was something by a feminist saying that nuclear war was sexist because missiles are shaped like a penis and testing sites are all given girls' names (among other points made). I wish I could remember the author and/or title.

[AE]

"recreational use" varies from person to person. I know for a fact that my brother thinks smoking a bowl a day isn't that bad.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I've only gone and found it.

http://plaza.ufl.edu/hardman/LanguageAndGender/Cohn.pdf

[Spoonsky]

I know some people for whom it's taken over their life and not in a very pleasant way. I know far more people, though, for whom it's just a fun thing to be done from time to time (including myself).

Nuclear phallacies. :D

[QE Harold Flair]

I think de-criminalisation is certainly the way forward. Saves the police a lot of resources (and money) and simple stoners / pill heads don't get there lives or careers ruined for something relatively innocent and fun.

Since when did a 'simple stoner' ever get any serious punishment lately?

[ItalAussie]

I've only gone and found it.

http://plaza.ufl.edu/hardman/LanguageAndGender/Cohn.pdf

I just read that whole thing. I'm normally first on the bandwagon to defend academics, but that's a bit special. :D

There's some incredibly choice quotes in there.

[QE Harold Flair]

It's really not. Do you think heroin addicts' prime concern is their possible jail time?

By the time they are 'addicts', no. People might think twice about even touching the stuff to begin with if there was a properly enforced punishment.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I just read that whole thing. I'm normally first on the bandwagon to defend academics, but that's a bit special. :D

There's some incredibly choice quotes in there.

I remember going to the International Relations seminar we were meant to have read it for, expecting much lolling only to find an earnest discussion of how in many ways she hadn't gone far enough. God bless you, SOAS.

[Reg]

By the time they are 'addicts', no. People might think twice about even touching the stuff to begin with if there was a properly enforced punishment.
I don't think so. Particularly when young, when most people who have ever done drugs try a drug/drugs for the first time.

[Kikó]

It's time to revisit it. Let people be adults and tax the stuff they're happy to decriminalise. At least the stuff on the streets would be closer to what the person is thinking they're buying rather than some crazy cut mix.

[QE Harold Flair]

I would have thought the government making money off of people's misery went against all your bleeding heart principles?

And to add to this, prescribing poison to people would surely go against the Hippocratic oath?

[Lewis]

I've only gone and found it.

http://plaza.ufl.edu/hardman/LanguageAndGender/Cohn.pdf

That is at least anchored to something real and interesting. The real gold is found in literature about the subject itself, such as this from Social Memory (1988) by James Fentress and Chris Wickham:


It is on this level (contesting the manipulation of 'national memory' by 'elites') that the role of schoolteaching and the media is most important. So, indeed, is that of professional historians, whose function, whether conscious or unconscious, is, more often than they realise, less to analyse the 'pastness' of the past than to give an objective veneer to the preoccupation and self-legitimizations of national bourgeoisies.

I read that about three months into the programme, and I think it's a good job I'm naturally inclined to lol at shite.

[Davgooner]

All research and successful drug policy shows that treatment should be increased, and law enforcement decreased while abolishing mandatory minimum sentences.

:rave:

[leedsrevolution]

Since when did a 'simple stoner' ever get any serious punishment lately?

Well if I was busted smoking a spliff I would lose by job, which would mean my career is ruined. When I say lives ruined I wasn't meaning thrown in the prison showers with bubba.

[The Merse]

There are different threads to this clearly - the way we control the use of the likes of heroin is not the same conversation as that we ought to have about marijuana or Ecstacy. Regarding heroin - it's quite clear, treatment and less punitive measures are key and more than anything, rehabilitation needs to bring people in from the fringes of society and give them some purpose to be effective. The controlled use of marijuana is one I'd probably support, with licencing similar to alcohol. I'd also ban tobacco wholesale as well mind you - what the fuck is the point of the stuff and how the hell was I able to legally buy them and continue a damaging and pointless endeavour in the 21st century? Anyway...

Ecstacy is an interesting one. It's well established now that it's a heck a lot safer than alcohol. Again, controlled use would probably work but it's difficult to reference with E, being as there's no Netherlands of the artificial drug world.

[phonics]

And to add to this, prescribing poison to people would surely go against the Hippocratic oath?

Chemotherapy?

[ItalAussie]

I would have thought the government making money off of people's misery went against all your bleeding heart principles?

And to add to this, prescribing poison to people would surely go against the Hippocratic oath?

Are you familiar with chemotherapy?

EDIT: Phonics is on it. Disregard. There's actually a number of medications which cause harm in addition to their curative properties, although chemo is definitely the most famous.

[Toby]

This seems to disagree quite violently with the Tobes claims:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/02/drug-use-map-world

Opiates are slightly higher in countries where opiates grow which, unsurprisingly, is in Afghanistan, Iran and the like. The other types of drug use are very low compared to anywhere else.

It's not "slightly higher", and I'm not aware of significant opiate production in Malaysia.

Recreational or "party" drugs are obviously more commonly used in wealthier societies, because surprisingly people in Afghanistan aren't looking for something to enhance the great time they're already having.

[Toby]

By the time they are 'addicts', no. People might think twice about even touching the stuff to begin with if there was a properly enforced punishment.

Most people who are at the point of taking heroin aren't really thinking about long term consequences any more.

[QE Harold Flair]

Well if I was busted smoking a spliff I would lose by job, which would mean my career is ruined. When I say lives ruined I wasn't meaning thrown in the prison showers with bubba.

Busted by who? You don't get thrown in jail for 'smoking a spliff'. You get, at most, a 'cannabis warning'. Also known as nothing at all.

[QE Harold Flair]

Chemotherapy?

Do I need to point out why they are not the same?

[QE Harold Flair]

Are you familiar with chemotherapy?

EDIT: Phonics is on it. Disregard. There's actually a number of medications which cause harm in addition to their curative properties, although chemo is definitely the most famous.

Chemotherapy which gives those with a terminal illness longer life if they want it and can even send cancer into remission? Yes, I'm aware of it. I wasn't surprised Phonics brought it up but I might have expected you wouldn't stoop to such silly levels.

[QE Harold Flair]

It's not "slightly higher", and I'm not aware of significant opiate production in Malaysia.

Recreational or "party" drugs are obviously more commonly used in wealthier societies, because surprisingly people in Afghanistan aren't looking for something to enhance the great time they're already having.

It is slightly higher when compared with the volume of all other drug categories in other countries are compared to them.

And surprisingly opiates are much more common in countries where they grow.....

[QE Harold Flair]

Most people who are at the point of taking heroin aren't really thinking about long term consequences any more.

So make cannabis more punishable. And every other gateway drug.

[Henry]

Do I need to point out why they are not the same?

Yes, because cannabis also has medicinal effects.

[phonics]

So make cannabis more punishable. And every other gateway drug.

So we are banning alcohol now?

[QE Harold Flair]

Yes, because cannabis also has medicinal effects.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't send life threatening diseases into remission. Painkillers take away pain - cannabis may do as well, but it also demotivates people and can lead to mental illness.

[QE Harold Flair]

So we are banning alcohol now?

This always gets brought up. Alcohol is bad (can be good in moderation, though), so why do you want something else that's bad? What kind of argument is that?

[phonics]

I'm pretty sure it doesn't send life threatening diseases into remission. Painkillers take away pain - cannabis may do as well, but it also demotivates people and can lead to mental illness.

So can Codeine, Steroids and a hundred of the other Prescription Painkillers you see advertised on U.S. Television.

[phonics]

This always gets brought up. Alcohol is bad (can be good in moderation, though), so why do you want something else that's bad? What kind of argument is that?

Because I think Cannabis use is better in moderation than Alcohol (The police aren't going to have to break up a punch-up inside a place selling spacebrownies listening to Bob Dylan)

[Boydy]

Capitalism leads to mental illness too. Ban it!

[Henry]

This always gets brought up. Alcohol is bad (can be good in moderation, though), so why do you want something else that's bad? What kind of argument is that?

Because consistency.

[QE Harold Flair]

Because I think Cannabis use is better in moderation than Alcohol (The police aren't going to have to break up a punch-up inside a place selling spacebrownies listening to Bob Dylan)

If both are used in moderation then alcohol is clearly better.

[Toby]

It is slightly higher when compared with the volume of all other drug categories in other countries are compared to them.

And surprisingly opiates are much more common in countries where they grow.....

I acknowledged that that wasn't surpising. And yes, drugs created artificially such as ecstasy are more common in wealthier societies where lab equipment and materials are more readily available. But there is a prevalence of opiate use (the most harmful of commonly used drugs) in countries with extremely harsh penalties for it, in direct contradiction of your view to the contrary (remember that you said Iran was an outlier?).


So make cannabis more punishable. And every other gateway drug.

"Gateway drug" is another load of nonsense from the "it's just common sense mate" field. There's no chain of decadence that sees somebody go from casual smoking to injecting heroin, it's far more complex than that.

[QE Harold Flair]

Because consistency.

Fuck consistency. If the alcohol and cigarettes were to come out right now, knowing what we do, they would not be legal.

[Toby]

If both are used in moderation then alcohol is clearly better.

Based on what?

[QE Harold Flair]

I acknowledged that that wasn't surpising. And yes, drugs created artificially such as ecstasy are more common in wealthier societies where lab equipment and materials are more readily available. But there is a prevalence of opiate use (the most harmful of commonly used drugs) in countries with extremely harsh penalties for it, in direct contradiction of your view to the contrary (remember that you said Iran was an outlier?).

The countries where it is prevalent is where it grows or where it passes through. Which happens to be Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran.



"Gateway drug" is another load of nonsense from the "it's just common sense mate" field. There's no chain of decadence that sees somebody go from casual smoking to injecting heroin, it's far more complex than that.

What do you base that on? How many people go straight to hard drugs? You have to start somewhere.

[QE Harold Flair]

Based on what?

http://www.medicaldaily.com/7-health-benefits-drinking-alcohol-247552

[phonics]

My first link on Google list has 23 so that's Game, Set and Match.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/health-benefits-of-medical-marijuana-2014-4?r=US&IR=T

[Toby]

http://www.medicaldaily.com/7-health-benefits-drinking-alcohol-247552

Fucking hell. :D

[Toby]

The countries where it is prevalent is where it grows or where it passes through. Which happens to be Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran.




What do you base that on? How many people go straight to hard drugs? You have to start somewhere.

It isn't a logical progression. Most people who end up taking heroin probably have tried other drugs, but it's not because they took the first drug that they end up taking the heroin. There's also little logic in the claim that banning marijuana would do anything. Heroin is already banned and punished with often severe consequences - people know the risks involved, and it clearly isn't putting them off, because most people taking heroin are doing so from a point of desperation and/or self-destruction.

[Kikó]

If Isis were all to drop at the same time, the world would be a safer place.

[Henry]

Fuck consistency. If the alcohol and cigarettes were to come out right now, knowing what we do, they would not be legal.

And we would be the worse for it. This sudden appetite for Sharia Law from you is a bit puzzling.

[Reg]

I don't think you can deny the role of gateway drugs, Toby. When (some) people have experienced one kind of high, they go looking for others.

[Toby]

I don't think you can deny the role of gateway drugs, Toby. When (some) people have experienced one kind of high, they go looking for others.

"One kind of high" could be skydiving, or rollercoasters, or sex or video games or fast food. The reasons people decide to do hard drugs are far more complex than a progression from "softer" stuff, and it is simplistic nonsense to speak about "gateway drugs" as if cannabis is any more of a risk factor than a heap of others.

Even if we do accept "gateway drugs" are a thing, making cannabis illegal just means people have to go to criminals for their supply, and are more likely to be exposed to harder drugs and other seedy affairs in the process.

[QE Harold Flair]

Fucking hell. :D

Why not dispute what it says?

[randomlegend]

I would have thought the government making money off of people's misery went against all your bleeding heart principles?

And to add to this, prescribing poison to people would surely go against the Hippocratic oath?

The Hippocratic oath which UK doctors don't take and which is widely considered obsolete in many aspects.

[QE Harold Flair]

And we would be the worse for it. This sudden appetite for Sharia Law from you is a bit puzzling.

There is never unlimited freedom. Aren't you the clown who thins even the most dangerous drugs should be legal? I think Hitchens nails it when he says it's all down to selfishness. The 'it only harms me' line is completely wrong.

Regardless which side you're on, this open dialogue between Hitchens and Jonathan Hari is a great read:

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2015/01/hitchens-versus-hari-the-alleged-war-on-drugs.html

[phonics]

Maybe we should re-instate it and go back to medicine via common sense?

[Toby]

Why not dispute what it says?

Because it is too stupid to warrant a reasoned response.

[QE Harold Flair]

The Hippocratic oath which UK doctors don't take and which is widely considered obsolete in many aspects.

http://web.bma.org.uk/pressrel.nsf/wall/776B5BE6D9D1D2D0802568F50054301D?Open

[phonics]

He's going to think you don't think that Alcohol has any health benefits in about 2 minutes Tobes. He'll probably say something about you 'thinking you're above science on this subject'

[QE Harold Flair]

Because it is too stupid to warrant a reasoned response.

If it's that stupid then you will be able to dispute the points made easily. I'm waiting.

[phonics]

If it's that stupid then you will be able to dispute the points made easily. I'm waiting.

1/2 ain't bad.

[Toby]

If it's that stupid then you will be able to dispute the points made easily. I'm waiting.

Why bother when I can just laugh at you?

[QE Harold Flair]

Go ahead and laugh. Is it your claim that there are no health benefits to drinking in moderation?

[Toby]

Good call Phonics. :D

[QE Harold Flair]

Haha, yes good one phonics!

It's completely disingenuous to make a claim that something is 'stupid' and not be able to say why. Now I'll ask again - is it your assertion that there are no health benefits to drinking in moderation?

Smoking cannabis has no health benefits, which is why I bring it up at all.

[Reg]

"One kind of high" could be skydiving, or rollercoasters, or sex or video games or fast food. The reasons people decide to do hard drugs are far more complex than a progression from "softer" stuff, and it is simplistic nonsense to speak about "gateway drugs" as if cannabis is any more of a risk factor than a heap of others.
Oh come on, do you think there are as many people who go from skydiving to cocaine as there are who go from cannibis to cocaine?

I'm not saying cannibis should remain illegal, that's a different argument (and the actual thread topic, I know).

[Lewis]

Fuck consistency. If the alcohol and cigarettes were to come out right now, knowing what we do, they would not be legal.

If it was possible to ban them would you do so?

[Toby]

Haha, yes good one phonics!

It's completely disingenuous to make a claim that something is 'stupid' and not be able to say why. Now I'll ask again - is it your assertion that there are no health benefits to drinking in moderation?

You know that it isn't. I'm not sure why you want to further the image that you can't read very well.


Smoking cannabis has no health benefits, which is why I bring it up at all.

I could point to all sorts here, but since you link went straight to Google and took the first link from Medical Daily, I'll go for something form them too:


To say marijuana has no possible health benefits is to deny hundreds, if not thousands, of pages' worth of proof.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/marijuana-demystified-5-health-myths-debunked-298798

[QE Harold Flair]

Well it isn't possible, so it's a pointless question. I'm happy with what I already intimated - if they were a new drug they would be illegal.

[Toby]

Oh come on, do you think there are as many people who go from skydiving to cocaine as there are who go from cannibis to cocaine?

I'm not saying cannibis should remain illegal, that's a different argument (and the actual thread topic, I know).

I was obviously being flippant, because I think it's an illogical argument that assumes cause and effect where it doesn't exist.

People more likely to try cannabis are often more likely to try cocaine as well, but they don't try the cocaine because they tried the cannabis.

[QE Harold Flair]

You know that it isn't. I'm not sure why you want to further the image that you can't read very well.



I could point to all sorts here, but since you link went straight to Google and took the first link from Medical Daily, I'll go for something form them too:



http://www.medicaldaily.com/marijuana-demystified-5-health-myths-debunked-298798

So what health benefits does it have, then?

[simon]

It's completely disingenuous to make a claim that something is 'stupid' and not be able to say why.

Haha, mate, I've lost count of the amount of times you've refused to explain something because you've warranted it/the person asking too stupid to answer.

Don't be a hypocrite.

[QE Harold Flair]

Haha, mate, I've lost count of the amount of times you've refused to explain something because you've warranted it/the person asking too stupid to answer.

Don't be a hypocrite.

In such cases I've already explained it earlier. I am usually the one who backs up what I say.

[Henry]

Harold should smoke some weed. It might help him relax and stop posting such bullshit on TTH.

[QE Harold Flair]

I prefer to keep my mind sharp, my bowel regular and my motivation to fight the good fight intact.

[Henry]

Your mind is about the dullest I know. Try harder.

[Lewis]

Well it isn't possible, so it's a pointless question. I'm happy with what I already intimated - if they were a new drug they would be illegal.

That's why you answer it in principle. Peter Hitchens says he would, so you can admire his consistency.

[phonics]

Haha, yes good one phonics!

It's completely disingenuous to make a claim that something is 'stupid' and not be able to say why. Now I'll ask again - is it your assertion that there are no health benefits to drinking in moderation?

Smoking cannabis has no health benefits, which is why I bring it up at all.

Harold, I posted TWENTY THREE health benefits.

[leedsrevolution]

Cannabis is a gateway drug for two reasons:

1: it's classification is to high. People smoke a spliff which is class B and may think well if that's class B and Ketamine is class C (not sure if it is anymore but was in my day) then surely it will be okay.

2: The people you buy weed from often sell other illegal drugs. Which automatically turns into a gateway.

Both of these scenarios could be easily fixed though.

[QE Harold Flair]

Your mind is about the dullest I know. Try harder.

You don't even like wrestling.

[QE Harold Flair]

Harold, I posted TWENTY THREE health benefits.

I didn't see that. Name me some.

I'm not against medical marijuana for those in chronic pain by the way, but only that. I expect nearly all benefits will relate to that.

[leedsrevolution]

There is something to be said about weed and mental illness though. It's quite hard to say if the weed directly causes it or if the people afflicted with mental illness smoke it to dampen the problems.

In my personal view it's difficult to say. But it desperately needs looking into further.

[The Merse]

I think psychosis and paranoia are obvious side effects of heavy use, just as heavy use of alcohol is a really bad idea in terms of mental and (more so) physical damage.

[phonics]

I didn't see that. Name me some.

I'm not against medical marijuana for those in chronic pain by the way, but only that. I expect nearly all benefits will relate to that.

It can be used to treat Glaucoma.


It may help reverse the carcinogenic effects of tobacco and improve lung health.


It can help control epileptic seizures.


It also decreases the symptoms of a severe seizure disorder known as Dravet's Syndrome.


A chemical found in marijuana stops cancer from spreading.


It may decrease anxiety.


THC slows the progression of Alzheimer's disease.


It lessens side effects from treating hepatitis C and increases treatment effectiveness.


Marijuana treats inflammatory bowel diseases.


It improves the symptoms of Lupus, an autoimmune disorder.


Thats ignroing PTSD, Arthiritis, MS etc. etc.

[QE Harold Flair]

Don’t expect marijuana to perform medical miracles. That’s the message from a huge review of 79 clinical trials undertaken between 1975 and 2015 that assessed the merit of taking cannabinoids – the active component in cannabis – to treat different health conditions.
Over the last 20 years, Washington DC and 23 US states have introduced laws to allow the use of medical marijuana (http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000881) to treat many conditions, including long-term pain, sleep problems and muscle disorders (https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524851-200-cannabis-prescribing-the-miracle-weed).
Penny Whiting (http://www.bristol.ac.uk/social-community-medicine/people/penny-f-whiting/index.html) of the University of Bristol, UK, and her colleagues set out to examine the evidence that the drug is actually beneficial, but found little to suggest it is.

“Most trials reported greater improvement in symptoms with cannabinoids compared to control groups,” says Whiting – but they didn’t usually reach statistical significance.
In addition, studies that explored the effects of medical marijuana were not always performed to a high standard. Many suffered from methodological weaknesses, such as a small sample size or incomplete data on outcomes, and substantial withdrawals of participants in half the trials. Any of these factors could have skewed the results.
Studies of a moderate standard supported the view that taking marijuana provides benefits for chronic pain relief (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20327-cannabis-like-drugs-could-kill-pain-without-the-high) and for muscle problems associated with conditions such as cerebral palsy. Studies of a lower standard have reported positive effects for treating sleep problems, Tourette’s syndrome, sickness from chemotherapy and weight gain in people with HIV.
Medical marijuana is also taken by some people with conditions such as depression, although Whiting’s review found little to no scientific evidence that this is beneficial. “We found no studies in patients with depression, and only one or two small studies in patients with anxiety disorder, psychosis or glaucoma,” says Whiting. This doesn’t mean that cannabinoids are ineffective for treating these conditions, she says – just that there is not yet enough evidence to reach any firm conclusions.
Trial bypass

Whiting says that cannabinoids have generally been approved for medical applications without having to go through the strict proof-of-benefit trials used to judge other medicines.
“I think cannabinoids should be evaluated in the same way as any other type of medical treatment,” she says. “It’s important that all interventions are judged by the same standards, so the potential benefits and adverse effects of cannabinoids should be considered in the light of the evidence.”
The call for proper, thorough trials is echoed by Deepak Cyril D’Souza (https://medicine.yale.edu/psychiatry/research/programs/clinical_people/deepak_dsouza.profile) and Mohini Ranganathan (https://medicine.yale.edu/psychiatry/research/programs/clinical_people/mohini_ranganathan.profile) at the Yale University School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, in an accompanying commentary. They say there is a failure to test the drugs in the same way as others, through the US Food and Drug Administration, which is akin to “putting the cart before the horse”.
“If a state’s initiative to legalise medical marijuana is merely a veiled step towards allowing access to recreational marijuana (https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21628914-400-cannabis-legalisation-launches-living-laboratory), then the medical community should be left out of the process,” says D’Souza. “Conversely, if the goal is to make marijuana available for medical purposes, then it’s unclear why the approval process should be different from that used for other medications.”
In a further blow to medical marijuana, a study in the same issue of JAMA found that edible cannabinoid pills often contained incorrectly labelled dosages. Of 75 products purchased, only 17 per cent were correctly labelled, with 60 per cent containing more than stated and 23 per cent less than stated of the active ingredient.
Journal reference: JAMA, DOI: 10.1001/jama.2015.6358 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.6358)

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27771-medical-marijuana-offers-only-weedy-health-benefits/

I'd also like a link for your claims, please. Statements such as 'it may help anxiety' are pretty lol

[Toby]

So what health benefits does it have, then?

I'm not sure why you're pursuing such an incredulous line of argument here. Not even you can be so dense as to not be aware of its many benefits. To summarise a few:

- It alleviates tremors, seizures and other involuntary movements of conditions such as Parkinsons, epilepsy and Tourettes
- It can alleviate nausea, increase metabolism and stimulate appetite (especially beneficial for e.g. those with eating disorders, or those experiencing side effects from other medications)
- It alleviates pain, especially chronic pain associated with e.g. arthritis
- Some studies have found that it can prevent and slow the onset of degenerative diseases such as Alzheimers
- Studies have also found it to be pro-apoptotic (killing cancer cells) and anti-angiogenic (reducing blood flow to tumours and therefore slowing the spread of cancer)
- It alleviates symptoms of anxiety and of mental disorders such as PTSD
- It alleviates insomnia

I'm sure there will be many, many more. They're not conclusive, but then claims like these very rarely are and the health benefits you listed for alcohol - a couple of which listed a single report in their favour - will be just as disputed. Instead of constantly trying to redefine the argument, can you provide some actual evidence for your claim that "alcohol in moderation is clearly better [than marijuana]"? Some possible health benefits of one drug isn't all that convincing on its own.

[randomlegend]

I'm pretty skeptical of most of the claims for the medical benefits of cannabis to be honest - I'd much sooner throw my hat in with that New Scientist article than believe it's some kind of wonder drug which solves everything from cancer to MS to epilepsy. I'm sure it has a role in chronic pain/disease but beyond that...

There is huge vested interest, especially in the US, in making it out to do things it doesn't.

[Toby]

I'm pretty skeptical of most of the claims for the medical benefits of cannabis to be honest - I'd much sooner throw my hat in with that New Scientist article than believe it's some kind of wonder drug which solves everything from cancer to MS to epilepsy. I'm sure it has a role in chronic pain/disease but beyond that...

There is huge vested interest, especially in the US, in making it out to do things it doesn't.

I'd completely agree, but there's a very reasonably minded middleground between "some kind of wonder drug" and "smoking cannabis has no health benefits at all". All of this is of course a diversion by Harold so that he doesn't have to back up his "common sense mate" claim that alcohol is healthier.

[QE Harold Flair]

I accept the benefits for dulling pain. The claims about benefits for anxiety (not proven at all) would be massively outweighed by the negative effects it has in the same field, in my view. As has been suggested above, it seems to have very little actual benefit apart from in severe cases such as cerebral palsy. The average weed smoker, as in the selfish pleasure seeker who doesn't care about society, will really be getting no benefit at all.

[Reg]

The claims about benefits for anxiety (not peroven at all) would be massively outweighed by the negative effects it has in the same field, in my view.
Agreed.


The average weed smoker, as in the selfish pleasure seeker who doesn't care about society,
Er...

[Toby]

I accept the benefits for dulling pain. The claims about benefits for anxiety (not proven at all) would be massively outweighed by the negative effects it has in the same field, in my view. As has been suggested above, it seems to have very little actual benefit apart from in severe cases such as cerebral palsy. The average weed smoker, as in the selfish pleasure seeker who doesn't care about society, will really be getting no benefit at all.

Clearly not a position influenced by your inherent bias on the topic...

[phonics]

I'm pretty skeptical of most of the claims for the medical benefits of cannabis to be honest - I'd much sooner throw my hat in with that New Scientist article than believe it's some kind of wonder drug which solves everything from cancer to MS to epilepsy. I'm sure it has a role in chronic pain/disease but beyond that...

There is huge vested interest, especially in the US, in making it out to do things it doesn't.

I'm don't either. It's a direct counter to a stupid claim he made earlier than cannabis use in moderation is worse than alcohol use in moderation because alcohol use in moderation has health benefits.

This is why a Harolded thread is so dull. The entire thread has veered off the point just because he's been shown up once again. He's demanding links when I've already posted them.

[QE Harold Flair]

Clearly not a position influenced by your inherent bias on the topic...

Nobody is completely unbiased.

Stop whinging Phonics, you tart. I didn't demand links, I'm just too lazy to go back through the post. If you don't want to provide it again then don't. I don't care.

And I have not been 'shown up'. The link I posted is very credible, and flies in the face of your claims.

[Lewis]

lol at 'selfish pleasure seeker who doesn't care about society'. How much intellectual property have you stolen this week, Harold?

[Luca]

It's not the same, see, Lewis, because...yeah, mate.

[The Merse]

The average weed smoker, as in the selfish pleasure seeker who doesn't care about society, will really be getting no benefit at all.

Lol at this. You prick :D

I'm a weed smoker, OK - it's pretty occasional now and very small amounts, but was more extensive in the past. It's not in any way an abnormal thing these days - probably half of us on here have. I have a job which comes with a lot of responsibility and demands professionalism and which pays above the national average and so contribute plenty in taxes, am generally considered by others to be peculiarly conscientious when dealing with people I have no connection to - your little good deeds and the like and a distaste for any form of ignorance/inconsideration towards others, which I'm very vocal about in the face of... I care massively for the society I live in - whether that be manifest in the simple acts of picking up others litter to participating actively in a democracy by voting, discussing and occasional activism or whether by consciously supporting local business and artists.

I'm not going to engage in any arguing with you on this point by the way - it's fucking ridiculous.

[ItalAussie]

Chemotherapy which gives those with a terminal illness longer life if they want it and can even send cancer into remission? Yes, I'm aware of it. I wasn't surprised Phonics brought it up but I might have expected you wouldn't stoop to such silly levels.
It is literally a radioactive poison that kills your body. The point of chemotherapy is to hope that it kills the cancer a little bit faster than it kills the rest of you.

You said doctors wouldn't knowingly prescribe a poison. That's not true. There are many poisons which have a role in medical treatments, and marijuana is known to have a medical role in dealing with chronic pain.

[QE Harold Flair]

Lol at this. You prick :D

I'm a weed smoker, OK - it's pretty occasional now and very small amounts, but was more extensive in the past. It's not in any way an abnormal thing these days - probably half of us on here have. I have a job which comes with a lot of responsibility and demands professionalism and which pays above the national average and so contribute plenty in taxes, am generally considered by others to be peculiarly conscientious when dealing with people I have no connection to - your little good deeds and the like and a distaste for any form of ignorance/inconsideration towards others, which I'm very vocal about in the face of... I care massively for the society I live in - whether that be manifest in the simple acts of picking up others litter to participating actively in a democracy by voting, discussing and occasional activism or whether by consciously supporting local business and artists.

I'm not going to engage in any arguing with you on this point by the way - it's fucking ridiculous.

Your personal account doesn't change what I said. Don't spend a post arguing with me and then say you're not going to do what you've already done. Thanks.

[QE Harold Flair]

It is literally a radioactive poison that kills your body. The point of chemotherapy is to hope that it kills the cancer a little bit faster than it kills the rest of you.

Yes, which is why it's only given in extreme cases of a life-ending/shortening disease.

[QE Harold Flair]

It's not the same, see, Lewis, because...yeah, mate.

What isn't the same?

[randomlegend]

It is literally a radioactive poison that kills your body.

It's not radioactive...

[ItalAussie]

It's not radioactive...

Sorry - mixed that up with radiotherapy. Which is also trying to kill the cancer faster than it kills you.

Cancer is just the worst. :(

[ItalAussie]

So I've never met anyone who satisfies the stereotype of a stoner that Harold seems to be referring to:


The average weed smoker, as in the selfish pleasure seeker who doesn't care about society

I would say that a decent proportion, verging on majority, of the post-grads I met at Oxford and knew well enough to would consider themselves to be at least casual partakers of marijuana, and lots of them were very driven high achievers outside of their downtime. It's just anecdotal, of course, and it's not my bad, abut I've never known it to influence anyone outside of downtime in which they want to relax.

I wonder if we're just arguing here based on stereotypes and popular impressions, rather than actual impact.

[ItalAussie]

Incidentally, when it comes to legalization and decriminalization, I find it very hard to get past my personal biases when it comes to the really dangerous drugs.

I mean, I can see how heroin addicts need treatment far more than they need incarceration - that's very reasonable. But at the same time, I'm simply not comfortably with legalizing such unmitigatingly dangerous drugs. I'm generally pretty willing to believe that mild stuff can be left up to the choice of the individual, but I can't bring myself to be alright with that being true across the board.

[QE Harold Flair]

So I've never met anyone who satisfies the stereotype of a stoner that Harold seems to be referring to:



I would say that a decent proportion, verging on majority, of the post-grads I met at Oxford and knew well enough to would consider themselves to be at least casual partakers of marijuana, and lots of them were very driven high achievers outside of their downtime. It's just anecdotal, of course, and it's not my bad, abut I've never known it to influence anyone outside of downtime in which they want to relax.

I wonder if we're just arguing here based on stereotypes and popular impressions, rather than actual impact.

I'm not sure Oxford students would be considered your average smoker.

[ItalAussie]

I'm not sure Oxford students would be considered your average smoker.

I suspect your average smoker - the occasional social user - like your average social drinker, is 99% of the time just someone you'd walk past on the street without looking twice. I wonder how many of your friends are casual users without you ever realizing it.

[QE Harold Flair]

Not many. It's not a big secret for those who are - it is after all not punished in any way.

[Toby]

I mean, I can see how heroin addicts need treatment far more than they need incarceration - that's very reasonable. But at the same time, I'm simply not comfortably with legalizing such unmitigatingly dangerous drugs.

This is common but I don't really understand the thinking. It seems to be based on the logic that providing a legal means through which to take a drug is giving a green light to take it, which I don't think necessarily needs to follow. Tobacco is legal, but we tax it at a suitable level to help mitigate some of its worst effects, and to fund education of its dangers. Nobody is saying, "tobacco is a-okay with us" just because it is legal to buy it.

The entire point of legalising those drugs would be to mitigate their dangers, by ensuring that people are able to access them in a safe and controlled environment where help can be on hand to support them in getting clean. Where's a better place to buy heroin - your stereotypical undergound drughouse, or a clinical facility with trained medical professionals on site?

[ItalAussie]

Oh, I understand the reasoning intellectually. I just have a fairly visceral response to the idea which is difficult to get past.

I guess it depends on how you would manage legalization, and where it falls on the range of "unfettered individual choice" like most would propose for marijuana to "managed addiction recovery programs" like you describe for heroin.

[leedsrevolution]

I suspect your average smoker - the occasional social user - like your average social drinker, is 99% of the time just someone you'd walk past on the street without looking twice. I wonder how many of your friends are casual users without you ever realizing it.

Harold, freinds :D you have got to be fucking joking.

[Toby]

I think that's why it needs a more nuanced discussion than we're able to have with the likes of Harold around.

[ItalAussie]

I think that's why it needs a more nuanced discussion than we're able to have with the likes of Harold around.

We can just talk around him. :nodd:

When people talk about legalization in the context of the particularly nasty drugs - opiates, etc. - is the latter generally what they're referring to? Because I'm in favour of that kind of thing, but I don't consider it to be "legal" so much as compulsory managed recovery in that case. When I hear discussion of legalization, I think of it in the context of how places are increasingly dealing with low-harm drugs like marijuana.

Also, I find it very interesting that cocaine often gets a nearly free pass in these discussions, because it's essentially the white-collar drug of choice.

[leedsrevolution]

Has anyone tried it (cocaine?) It's well fucking moreish.

Albeit a bit wank.

[Toby]

It's certainly what I mean, where it is 'legal' but very heavily regulated. The aim is to take it out of the criminal underworld and, to use one of the worst political cliches, approach prevention with the carrot rather than the stick.

If you could only get it if you agreed to certain measures - such as regular health checks (both physical and mental) - I think you'd see big improvements socially. Obviously you'd need people to be willing and able to pay a premium to avoid the criminality side of it, and maybe that means harsher punishments for black market stuff to make it work.

Before Harold tries to say that is hypocritical, I think the risk/reward factor of heroin and no jail or cheap heroin and possible jail is not as great as heroin no jail or heroin and possible jail.

[QE Harold Flair]

Stop obsessing over me, you twats.

I'm not even discussing this portion with you and yet I've been mentioned, by name or inference, in 4 of the last 5 posts. Get a grip.

[Toby]

:harold:

[Lewis]

Have you got me on ignore, Harold?

Harold. Harold. Harold. Harold.

[leedsrevolution]

Wow.

Harold

[ItalAussie]

Stop obsessing over me, you twats.

I'm not even discussing this portion with you and yet I've been mentioned, by name or inference, in 4 of the last 5 posts. Get a grip.
Regrettably, I actually agree with this. It wasn't necessary.

[ItalAussie]

It's certainly what I mean, where it is 'legal' but very heavily regulated. The aim is to take it out of the criminal underworld and, to use one of the worst political cliches, approach prevention with the carrot rather than the stick.

If you could only get it if you agreed to certain measures - such as regular health checks (both physical and mental) - I think you'd see big improvements socially. Obviously you'd need people to be willing and able to pay a premium to avoid the criminality side of it, and maybe that means harsher punishments for black market stuff to make it work.

Before Harold tries to say that is hypocritical, I think the risk/reward factor of heroin and no jail or cheap heroin and possible jail is not as great as heroin no jail or heroin and possible jail. So presumably there's different "grades" of legalization?

I'd also worry that you might be playing straight into the hands of existing dealer networks, who could undercut the costs and not require stringent addiction management. And if the solution to that is harsher sentencing, then you're right back facing the problem you started with - harsher sentencing doesn't actually work.

[Toby]

So presumably there's different "grades" of legalization?

I'd also worry that you might be playing straight into the hands of existing dealer networks, who could undercut the costs and not require stringent addiction management. And if the solution to that is harsher sentencing, then you're right back facing the problem you started with - harsher sentencing doesn't actually work.

I feel like the answer to your initial question goes without saying, unless I'm missing your point.

And as I implied there, I don't think it's so simple as to say that because harsher sentencing doesn't work where the option is drugs or no drugs, that it wouldn't work where the options were legal/regulated drugs with strings attached or illegal drugs without. The risk factors aren't the same. In the current scenario you have the only way to get that high being to break the law. But in a regulated scenario where you can get the same high legally, by possibly paying more and having to deal with doctors, the risk of jail becomes relatively less favourable.

There is of course a factor of hard drug users perhaps having self esteem or mental health issues, and not valuing their life highly enough to really be deterred by a jail term whatever the case, but I do think it's simplistic to compare the situations without making that distinction.

You'll still get some people going through black market channels, but I think a lot of drug users (especially those with any feelings of wishing to get clean) would use the regulated service.

[Lewis]

If you're legalising everything you're presumably doing so on the basis of people doing what they want, in which case you can't really insist on health checks and people using it under certain conditions. The only thing you can do is 'take it out of the criminal underworld', which, seeing as I don't suppose 'respectable' retailers would fancy getting in on the smack industry, means giving the state a monopoly on distribution.

[Toby]

I'm okay with that.

[Lewis]

I've seen a few right-wingers I like saying they agree with legalisation in principle, but they can never get their heads around how it would work in practice because they can only imagine it being sold like booze. I'm all for The Market, but only insofar as it enables my individual freedom. Put another way, I put the right to poison myself above the right to buy the poison from a preferred retailer.

[phonics]

I wouldn't legalise the proper addictive, properly damaging stuff like your heroins and your cocaines but I would legalise your amphetamines and cannaboids as this is largely what your young populace is taking and stops them getting involved with the criminal populace as well as a reliability on the part of the end user that the stuff is what it says on the tin. Then use the money made from these to create better treatment centers for addicts of the pwopa stuff.

[Spoonsky]

http://i.imgur.com/pVKiKif.png

:cab:

[QE Harold Flair]

I'm not convinced about addiction at all. As is rightly pointed out - if you are powerless to resist then no 'addict' would ever recover. At the very least I'd day more addicts are simply people with human failings and with poor impulse control.

[Toby]

Oh, cool. That one again.

[Sam]

I'm not convinced about addiction at all. As is rightly pointed out - if you are powerless to resist then no 'addict' would ever recover. At the very least I'd day more addicts are simply people with human failings and with poor impulse control.

You've shown that your understanding of addiction is rather pathetic, don't beat that drum again, it's far from original.

[QE Harold Flair]

So explain how addicts become non-addicts, then. It's much more down to will-power than a physical ailment.

[Toby]

So explain how addicts become non-addicts, then.

They don't.

[Lewis]

It's not even relevant is it? If somebody has drug problems you can't not treat them because they got themselves on it.

[QE Harold Flair]

Of course they do. This idea that you're always an addict is complete horse shit. They don't need 'treatment', especially when treatment simply involves getting them zoned out on something else instead.

[Luca]

So explain how addicts become non-addicts, then. It's much more down to will-power than a physical ailment.

All (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/00952990.2014.933840) this (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028390811001195) science (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3931688/) disagrees (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3865508/) with (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139704/) you (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3272277/).

[QE Harold Flair]

I'm not sure that's all the science, but then I don't think this is something that can be proven, anyway. People beat 'addiction' so therefore free will and will-power are the obviously overriding factors.

[Boydy]

He didn't say it was all the science.

[Luca]

I'm not sure that's all the science, but then I don't think this is something that can be proven, anyway. People beat 'addiction' so therefore free will and will-power are the obviously overriding factors.

Because you're not intelligent enough to actually read the articles. If you did, you'd understand it has to do with neural plasticity, which also provides an avenue to explain why people beat addictions.

[Toby]

Of course they do. This idea that you're always an addict is complete horse shit.

Glad you've used your wealth of experience and knowledge to clear that up.

[QE Harold Flair]

He didn't say it was all the science.

Disingenuous. Stop that.

[Lewis]

Fucking...

[QE Harold Flair]

Glad you've used your wealth of experience and knowledge to clear that up.

It's just something which has been peddled. Plenty of 'addicts' never go back to whatever it was claimed they were addicted to (sex, shopping? lol) sdo no, I don't buy it. There's a difference between making bad decisions on the basis that they give you temporary pleasure, to a physical ailment which makes you lose control of your faculties. Those who beat 'addiction' simply stop making those bad choices.

[QE Harold Flair]

Because you're not intelligent enough to actually read the articles. If you did, you'd understand it has to do with neural plasticity, which also provides an avenue to explain why people beat addictions.

Yes, that will be it. Next time someone disagrees with me I'll pull that quite excellent argument out.

[Luca]

Yes, that will be it. Next time someone disagrees with me I'll pull that quite excellent argument out.

You're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with six peer-reviewed scientific studies that prove the physical link of addiction.

But you know that, and you know you're absolutely wrong, but since you are obviously not clever enough to read the articles and attempt to disprove them, you're avoiding the issue.

Can you direct me to the e-victory dispensary? I need to claim mine.

[Toby]

It's just something which has been peddled. Plenty of 'addicts' never go back to whatever it was claimed they were addicted to (sex, shopping? lol) sdo no, I don't buy it. There's a difference between making bad decisions on the basis that they give you temporary pleasure, to a physical ailment which makes you lose control of your faculties. Those who beat 'addiction' simply stop making those bad choices.

Again, so nice of you to make things clear on the issue. I'm sure your substantive points will be well received by all in the medical community, given their basis in fact and not hazy-minded "common sense".

[QE Harold Flair]

Most 'addicts' quit without any treatment. That tells you a lot. It's not a physical ailment and should not be listed as a disease.

[Luca]

Most 'addicts' quit without any treatment. That tells you a lot. It's not a physical ailment and should not be listed as a disease.

[citation needed]

[randomlegend]

I think Harold on drugs and Harold on suicide are my two favourites.

[QE Harold Flair]

This conception of addiction as a biological phenomenon seemed to be endorsed over the past 20 years as new technologies have allowed neuroscientists to measure the human brain and its activities in ever more telling detail. Sure enough, the brains of addicts are physically different — sometimes strikingly so — from the brains of average people. But neuroscience giveth and now neuroscience taketh away. The recovery movement and rehab industry (two separate things, although the latter often employs the techniques of the former) have always had their critics, but lately some of the most vocal have been the neuroscientists whose findings once lent them credibility.
One of those neuroscientists is Marc Lewis, a psychologist and former addict himself, also the author of a new book “The Biology of Desire: Why Addiction is Not a Disease.” (http://www.amazon.com/The-Biology-Desire-Addiction-Disease/dp/1610394372) Lewis’s argument is actually fairly simple: The disease theory, and the science sometimes used to support it, fail to take into account the plasticity of the human brain. Of course, “the brain changes with addiction,” he writes. “But the way it changes has to do with learning and development — not disease.” All significant and repeated experiences change the brain; adaptability and habit are the brain’s secret weapons. The changes wrought by addiction are not, however, permanent, and while they are dangerous, they’re not abnormal.

Like I said, dissenting voices are healthy, and I like the cut of this kind of gib very much. Very much, indeed.

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/27/addiction_is_not_a_disease_a_neuroscientist_argues _that_its_time_to_change_our_minds_on_the_roots_of _substance_abuse/

[Spoonsky]

I think Harold on drugs and Harold on suicide are my two favourites.

If only that was meant literally.

[Luca]

Like I said, dissenting voices are healthy, and I like the cut of this kind of gib very much. Very much, indeed.

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/27/addiction_is_not_a_disease_a_neuroscientist_argues _that_its_time_to_change_our_minds_on_the_roots_of _substance_abuse/

:D

You really are a special kind of moron. Let's break this down for you in simple terms:

That article says exactly what the articles I posted say. Note that the article says "the disease theory, and the science sometimes used to support it, fail to take into account the plasticity of the human brain." You said that "it's much more down to will-power than a physical ailment." Given that brain plasticity is physical, even the article agrees that addiction has physical roots.

You then went on to say that "The changes wrought by addiction are not, however, permanent, and while they are dangerous, they’re not abnormal." - Just because something isn't permanent, it doesn't mean it isn't real or physical. Diseases can be treated and eradicated from our bodies, just as addiction can be eradicated and overcome through the mechanism of brain plasticity.

Also, note that the article says "the brains of addicts are physically different."

[Luca]

Oh, and this, from the same article. :D


Once, addictions were viewed as failures of character and morals, and society responded to drunks and junkies with shaming, scolding and calls for more “will power.” This proved spectacularly ineffective[...]

The author has just taken a very narrow view of the word "disease" as something which requires a specific, pharmacological cure. It doesn't change the fact that addiction is a "physical ailment," as you have suggested it is not.

[QE Harold Flair]

:D

You really are a special kind of moron. Let's break this down for you in simple terms:

That article says exactly what the articles I posted say. Note that the article says "the disease theory, and the science sometimes used to support it, fail to take into account the plasticity of the human brain." You said that "it's much more down to will-power than a physical ailment." Given that brain plasticity is physical, even the article agrees that addiction has physical roots.

You then went on to say that "The changes wrought by addiction are not, however, permanent, and while they are dangerous, they’re not abnormal." - Just because something isn't permanent, it doesn't mean it isn't real or physical. Diseases can be treated and eradicated from our bodies, just as addiction can be eradicated and overcome through the mechanism of brain plasticity.

Also, note that the article says "the brains of addicts are physically different."

It states that addiction is not a disease? Great, case closed then.

And not permanent = not always an addict, another spurious claim always made. Another victory for my side, I fear.

[Luca]

:D

This is top, top stuff.

[Luca]

I never disagreed with the claim that addiction is permanent, because if it relates to (again, PHYSICAL) brain plasticity, it most likely isn't. What I was retorting was your (spurious) claim that addiction isn't a physical ailment. Seeing as even your article states that the brains of addicts are different than those of non-addicts, I don't know how you go about defending that (spurious) claim.

[QE Harold Flair]

You just admitted that addiction is not permanent, so how can anyone always be an 'addict'? Just explain that to start with.

Edit: Oh that was one of the other apologists, was it? I'm surprised you wasn't there, by my side, explaining his wrongness on the issue. Especially since you're cleaver enough to be able to read words. And yes, the brains are different because, as explained, any long term experiences change the brain. I play a lot of computer games, and those who don't will have a different brain. Big deal.

[Luca]

You just admitted that addiction is not permanent, so how can anyone always be an 'addict'? Just explain that to start with.

I've never made the claim that anyone is "always" an addict, you'll find, so I have no reason to explain it.

Them not "always" being addicts doesn't invalidate the idea of decriminalisation and methadone/heroin clinics for addicts, though. The idea is to get them using something safer, by way of clean needles and uncut product, so you can slowly start to wean them off the drug (and start slowly changing the plasticity of the brain). Opiate withdrawal is a real, serious thing.

[QE Harold Flair]

I've never made the claim that anyone is "always" an addict, you'll find, so I have no reason to explain it.

Well that's a start - you're open to challenging perenially held non-truths, as espoused by one of the other repeaters on here.

[Toby]

I am quite happy, as most emotionally stable adults would be, to admit I may have been wrong to definitively suggest that addicts are always addicts. I do believe that some people are more susceptible to addiction - which I believe is back up by research, but again happy to be corrected - and my comments were more based on the idea that former addicts are always "recovering" rather than cured, in that returning to the drug/stimulus even once can cause a relapse.

[Luca]

I am quite happy, as most emotionally stable adults would be, to admit I may have been wrong to definitively suggest that addicts are always addicts. I do believe that some people are more susceptible to addiction - which I believe is back up by research, but again happy to be corrected - and my comments were more based on the idea that former addicts are always "recovering" rather than cured, in that returning to the drug/stimulus even once can cause a relapse.

I think this here is the key to the (note: nuanced) discussion of whether people are always addicts or not. I don't think it's necessarily the case, but there is the possibility (the science behind which is beyond my pay-grade and commerce degree) that the ΔFosB overexpression that leads to addiction causes permanent changes to the brain, so that even when you've kicked your habit, you're at least still more susceptible to addictions.

I submit that I don't know the facts of this particular discussion very well (which is why, QE Harold Flair, I didn't 'come to your defence'), but I do know the facts of addiction being a physical issue well, which was my main point of contention.

[QE Harold Flair]

and my comments were more based on the idea that former addicts are always "recovering" rather than cured, in that returning to the drug/stimulus even once can cause a relapse.

Cured from what? Addiction is not a disease.

[Toby]

Cured from what? Addiction is not a disease.

That's nice, dear.

[Luca]

Cured from what? Addiction is not a disease.

ΔFosB overexpression and the changes to neuroplasticity that it causes. Are you not following?

[randomlegend]

It doesn't cause changes to neuroplasticity. Neuroplasticity is just the ability of the brain to change and adapt - as in the brain is plastic, it can be molded.

I guess the best way to express it would be to say that it causes a form of neuroplasticity itself to occur i.e. it causes the brain to change.

[QE Harold Flair]

Cured from a learned pattern of behaviour, then? Neural plasticity is simply something we all have. So addiction is nothing more than continually doing something you want to and it can be stopped without any treatment, as has been shown. Treatment, it seems, is a waste of time.

[Luca]

It doesn't cause changes to neuroplasticity. Neuroplasticity is just the ability of the brain to change and adapt - as in the brain is plastic, it can be molded.

I guess the best way to express it would be to say that it causes a form of neuroplasticity itself to occur i.e. it causes the brain to change.

Yeah, I could have phrased that better. I guess what I was looking for was "changes to the structure of our brain via neuroplasticity."

[randomlegend]

It's hardly just a 'learned behaviour'.

Rats will forgo food to the point of starvation for rewards of cocaine.

[QE Harold Flair]

We're not rats.

[leedsrevolution]

Harold is completely right to be honest. But it's clear he's never truly being addicted to anything (other than msn news). There is a lot more to it than that - usually addicts to anything have done so through poor life choices that can be changed (with a lot of effort and willpower like he states) but a lot don't have the willpower or the effort in them for one reason or another.

It's that, the lack of wanting to try and change that causes someone who can't remove themselves from an addictive substance - but it's also that which I don't think Harold will probably understand.

Some people have to remove themselves from reality, addictions of any sort allow them to do so, if either a small smoking addiction to a heroin addiction and it's these minor details of a persons life that change it from simply an addiction to a disease.

Ultimately a well rounded person with a well rounded family could take up smoking and quit it using self empowerment and self wiliness with relative ease. But lets say someone who had an awful upbringing and awful life uses smoking (or any other substance) as a positive or escapist act to help themselves (from erasing the past or easing what it has done) is going to find it a lot harder to quit, almost impossible given some circumstances, because it's not only an addiction to the nicotine [add any other addictive substance here] but a way of feeling happy for escaping what has happened.

Using an addiction to escape trauma and then quitting said addiction is a lot harder and a lot closer to a mental disease then an addiction in itself.

And you are right Harold, we aren't rats. That's the problem with humans and addictions.

[ItalAussie]

This isn't worth it. Just continue the discussion around him. Repeat after me:


I disagree. I am not going to change my mind. Simple as that.
Everyone else accepts that opiates and other drugs produce a chemical dependency within the brain, and that in many cases, this requires treatment above and beyond sheer willpower to get past. Let's push forward from that, accept that there is at least one bastion of disagreement in the ranks, and not bother trying to convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced.

Does it count as legalization if it comes with a mandated treatment component?

[QE Harold Flair]

This isn't worth it. Just continue the discussion around him. Repeat after me:


Everyone else accepts that opiates and other drugs produce a chemical dependency within the brain, and that in many cases, this requires treatment above and beyond sheer willpower to get past. Let's push forward from that, accept that there is at least one bastion of disagreement in the ranks, and not bother trying to convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced.

Does it count as legalization if it comes with a mandated treatment component?

So does caffeine and chocolate. We are free not to make the choice to eat chocolate or drink caffeine products. We still have that choice, just as those who choose to take heroin have the choice to do so or not do so. What treatments do you refer to? Putting people on another 'addictive' drug? Which, by the way, is often sold to buy more heroin. Oh and by the way no, not everyone does accept what you just said.

Also, don't tell others not to talk with me when you are doing exactly that. In fact, just don't do it at all. That's cretinous behaviour. And no, not 'repeat after me'. I have a different opinion so, to put it mildly, fuck you.

[QE Harold Flair]

It's hardly just a 'learned behaviour'.

Rats will forgo food to the point of starvation for rewards of cocaine.


Just to come back to this:


My colleagues at Simon Fraser University and I built the most natural environment for rats that we could contrive in the laboratory. "Rat Park", as it came to be called, was airy and spacious, with about 200 times the square footage of a standard laboratory cage. It was also scenic, (with a peaceful British Columbia forest painted on the plywood walls), comfortable (with empty tins, wood scraps, and other desiderata strewn about on the floor), and sociable (with 16-20 rats of both sexes in residence at once).
In the rat cages, the rats’ appetite for morphine was measured by fastening two drinking bottles, one containing a morphine solution and one containing water, on each cage and weighing them daily. In Rat Park, measurement of individual drug consumption was more difficult, since we did not want to disrupt life in the presumably idyllic rodent community. We built a short tunnel opening into Rat Park that was just large enough to accommodate one rat at a time. At the far end of the tunnel, the rats could release a fluid from either of two drop dispensers. One dispenser contained a morphine solution and the other an inert solution. The dispenser recorded how much each rat drank of each fluid.
A number of experiments were performed in this way (for a more detailed summary, see Alexander et al., 1985), all of which indicated that rats living in Rat Park had little appetite for morphine. In some experiments, we forced the rats to consume morphine for weeks before allowing them to choose, so that there could be no doubt that they had developed strong withdrawal symptoms. In other experiments, I made the morphine solution so sickeningly sweet that no rat could resist trying it, but we always found less appetite for morphine in the animals housed in Rat Park. Under some conditions the animals in the cages consumed nearly 20 times as much morphine as the rats in Rat Park. Nothing that we tried instilled a strong appetite for morphine or produced anything that looked like addiction in rats that were housed in a reasonably normal environment.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/sen/committee/371/ille/presentation/alexender-e.htm


(http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/sen/committee/371/ille/presentation/alexender-e.htm)

[Spoonsky]

Rat Park is interesting. It basically showed that if you have an interesting and enjoyable life, you're far less likely to become addicted. It probably goes some way to explaining why the rate of addiction is so high for the homeless. As Leeds said, it's a way to escape from life, so it will be less effective if your life isn't worth escaping from.

[Luca]

But it doesn't invalidate the idea that addictions are real, physical changes to the brain, just provides colour on the situations under which the changes are likely to arise.

[mugbull]

Rat Park is interesting. It basically showed that if you have an interesting and enjoyable life, you're far less likely to become addicted. It probably goes some way to explaining why the rate of addiction is so high for the homeless. As Leeds said, it's a way to escape from life, so it will be less effective if your life isn't worth escaping from.

A lot of people start doing drugs regularly because they're bored, and those with an addictive personality / limited life prospects become addicted to those drugs.

Explains the "functional" drug addict - and I know many who are 'hooked' on harder drugs (or even just weed/alcohol) who have their shit together - as they have a lot of shit to do and are still able to indulge pretty insane quantities. I know a guy who does methadone (and has done heroin quite a few times) pretty much every day and he got an offer from Credit Suisse for a full time post. Says he's gonna have to quit for his job and I believe him, but I wonder how hard it will be

[QE Harold Flair]

But it doesn't invalidate the idea that addictions are real, physical changes to the brain, just provides colour on the situations under which the changes are likely to arise.

It kind of does, actually. At the very least it shows 'addiction' isn't what people usually assume it is. The drug, itself, isn't overpowering the mind - which is why only the rats in dire conditions chose to keep taking it. There's a distinct difference between self medication and addiction.

[randomlegend]

You know not all drugs are the same yeah? The experiment I posted was with cocaine, the one you posted is with morphine. The level of addiction they cause in rats may be completely different.

[QE Harold Flair]

I would have thought heroin was more addictive than cocaine?

Edit, while researcing on that! I came across this:


Research Shows Cocaine And Heroin Are Less Addictive Than Oreos

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/10/16/research-shows-cocaine-and-heroin-are-less-addictive-than-oreos/

[randomlegend]

Even reading the first few lines of that it's clear the point they are making is that over-eating can be an addiction as well. If you can't get on-board with drug addiction being real, you're going to shit yourself at the thought of food addiction.

[QE Harold Flair]

I don't agree with the word 'addiction' as it's being used. There is still a choice, and those who choose not to eat/take drugs show that willpower and strength of character overpowers the desire.

[John Arne]

Willpower only applies to drugs for the first few times of use, it's once the addition has started that the willpower is replaced by a chemical addiction.

[QE Harold Flair]

So how do people who beat 'addiction' do so, then? Is there anything pleasurable that isn't an addiction using that definition?

[Reg]

Harold, you know how sometimes after you've had six or seven Pringles, it's really difficult to not have one more? Imagine that x100000.

[QE Harold Flair]

There comes a time in the action of pringle devouring that one does stop. You know when you've had enough and you make a conscious decision to stop. I mean I could easily go though 2 tubes of Pringles if I wanted to, but I don't.

[simon]

Harold, you almost make me want to track you down and get you hooked on heroin. Then, once that's been done, we could just leave you in a room with a month's worth of food, water and heroin and livestream the whole thing.

I genuinely think that's the lengths that someone would have to go to in order to prove you wrong.

[QE Harold Flair]

Yea, ok mate.

[simon]

It would be pretty interesting, to be fair.

Do you reckon you'd be able to get through the month without taking any heroin?

[QE Harold Flair]

Of course, and then I'd take great pleasure in having a sadist prosecuted.

I don't believe I could even get 'hooked' on heroin, so you would fall flat right there. And you'd be missing the point in any case, it would be the boredom and the situation that would lead to someone taking the heroin in such circumstances, not the addictiveness of the drug.

[simon]

Haha, quality. I'd love to see it done. We could add a Playstation into the room to cure the boredom, like.

[QE Harold Flair]

Weirdo.

[simon]

What else can you do?

[Toby]

Harold, you know how sometimes after you've had six or seven Pringles, it's really difficult to not have one more? Imagine that x100000.

I know it's meant in jest but that's a really unhelpful analogy in the context of things.

[Jimmy Floyd]

When I get home I might try putting a load of Pringles into a blender with a little water, and then injecting the paste directly into my bloodstream. I bet I wouldn't get addicted, because I'm a man's man.