Drug experimentation and dependence

[wayneL]

So, Wayne and Prospector, if you have no problems with users, are you going to be happy to have a root canal performed by a drug using dentist, a piece of delicate surgery performed by a drug using surgeon, your tax returns done by a drug using accountant?

And are you going to be OK with your children using drugs as long as they don't burgle someone's home to get the money to pay for them?

Julia,

All fair questions.

If we include alcohol as a recreational drug, then I have experienced each and every one of those instances. Thankfully, to my best knowledge they weren't under the influence while doing their job.

We aways assume that drug takers are off their rocker 100% of the time. This is not so... but acknowledge that some drug users (including alcos, are off their face most of the time)

Look, I would be happy if drugs weren't in our society, and that again includes alcohol. But the fact is that they are and people will use them no matter what others may think. Some people will overuse and become addicts.

Missus and I thought we were overusing alcohol a couple of years ago and have gone on the wagon, we stopped cold turkey... and it was damned hard. I guess you could say we were slightly addicted.

Since then I have had the grand total of 1 beer and 1 glass of wine and my physiological respose is now totally different. I can now stop at one drink and not even want any more. Before, once I started it had to be at least 3 or 4 and possibly more.

How many people are in our society now that are like I was? At a guess, somewhere between 25% and 50% of the whole population! Now that is a drug problem.

Both our parents have drinking problems they don't even know they have. Come 4 or 5 PM, out comes the booze... EVERY SINGLE DAY, and they drink until their speech slurs. They ARE addicted. We don't bother phoning them after about 6:30 because they are sure to be half pissed by then.

So in conclusion, I don't see the difference between alcohol and most drugs, except that one is legal and ENCOURAGED. It is advertised everywhere and the peer pressure to drink is massive.

Why is one a criminal, and the other a good ol' boy/girl?

 

[Ageo]

Julia,

So in conclusion, I don't see the difference between alcohol and most drugs, except that one is legal and ENCOURAGED. It is advertised everywhere and the peer pressure to drink is massive.

Why is one a criminal, and the other a good ol' boy/girl?

Because in this country the government spends money in areas that makes people feel all warm and fuzzy. The truth is never on the main agenda, but votes and political influence is.

How many times have we seen something get banned for which is has no apprent effect? yet the government does it because the public "feels" its the right move.

In Italy there is no legal age for alcohol yet they dont have a problem of alcoholism. I find the more we take away personal responsibility from people the more we are prone to giving into peer pressure (because we cant make decisions on our own), parents are solely responsible for teaching their kids the effects alcohol and drugs have.

 

[wayneL]

Because in this country the government spends money in areas that makes people feel all warm and fuzzy. The truth is never on the main agenda, but votes and political influence is.

How many times have we seen something get banned for which is has no apprent effect? yet the government does it because the public "feels" its the right move.

In Italy there is no legal age for alcohol yet they dont have a problem of alcoholism. I find the more we take away personal responsibility from people the more we are prone to giving into peer pressure (because we cant make decisions on our own), parents are solely responsible for teaching their kids the effects alcohol and drugs have.

Yer darn tootin' Ageo. (that means agree 100%)

 

[wayneL]

Yer darn tootin' Ageo. (that means agree 100%)

BTW, I really like the Italian approach to booze... very healthy IMO.

 

[Ageo]

BTW, I really like the Italian approach to booze... very healthy IMO.

Wayne my younger brother was there last year in Summer, he said the nightlcubs (where under age are allowed) were allowed to buy alcholic drinks, but because anyone can get them there isnt a big fuss about (oOoOo im gonna get pissed tonight because im under age) so they dont have a major problem. But i think its more to do of the fact that like food alcohol is promoted as being good for you in moderation (1 glass of wine a night will help the blood etc..).

All i know is the more laws you put in and take away freedom/responsibility the more handicaped people become in their decision making process.

 

[misterS]

One of the issues is the confusion generated by having legal and illegal drugs, where the justification for the status of each is hard to discern if looked at simply in terms of personal harm. For instance, leaving aside constipation and addiction symptoms (withdrawal), heroin is much less harmful than alcohol.

You could take pure heroin for 50 years without destroying your liver, kidneys, heart or brain - but it would have to be unadulterated, not 10% heroin and 90% kitty-litter, glucose, or whatever else it is cut with.

Becoming intoxicated with pure alcohol every day would see you a physical and mental wreck.

Llikewise, cigarettes kill more people than all other drugs combined, and yet they remain legal - for the moment.

And yet such is the hysteria that heroin cannot even be used for its medicinal properties in the terminally ill - despite its superior properties compared to morphine or pethedine (a synthetic opiate). Ironically. methadone is a more addictive sythetic opiate than heroin and heroin was originally used to ween people off morphine, until it became apparent that this "diacetyl morphine" weened them off morphine alright...

However, drug laws aren't entirely about which should be legal based on relative personal harm at all. It is probably a "me generation" thing to think that it is. It is as much if not more about society demanding that people work and be productive. Remember tea ladies, and that cup of coffee we all need in the morning? At the same time, the hard drugs are generally ones where the dosage itself is small and so the immediate harm risks from accidental overdose are greater.

The Opium Wars are a good example of the social effect of widespread opiate abuse - nodding off in opium dens is more enjoyable than working - who would have guessed? Entering a dream-like and euphoric state on demand must be a hard habit to break, withdrawal symptoms aside.

Taking drugs and drinking alcohol is enjoyable, soothing and relaxing (or invigorating) and that is why people continue to do it.

You could buy drinks containing rum, metho and opium at the bar in the early Australian goldfields - that would have a bit of a charge wouldn't it? Many cough medicines used to contain heroin as their principle ingredient, as codeine linctus still contains the heroin precursor, codeine.

However, the argument for legalising or decriminalising all or selected drugs is attractive in the sense that it rationalises the personal harm aspect of drugs by removing some contradictions.

Society could move to the view that all drug-taking is self-indulgent and anti-social, a bit similar to the way smoking has shifted from being portrayed as "the international passport to smoking pleasure" for beautiful people, to a filthy, deadly, habit that smelly, loser, addicts must now do out in the street.

This would at least put drug-taking generally into some perspective, instead of being clouded in ignorance, delusion and hypocrisy, as it is currently.

But once again it comes back to the point about the general good of society, and society wants people to be competent to do whatever the hell they are doing - all the time, if possible, and not have any serious proportion of the population sit just around stoned to the eyeballs all the time. National security anyone? The economy? Pass the pipe.

We also want not to pay the cost of drug abuse of all kinds, and this offends our moral sense of taking responsibility for you own acts (especially other people and their acts!) - especially un-wise and voluntary acts committed in search of a good time - a bit like that old goat who keeps sailing off and turning his boat upside down and wanting to be rescued.

We also want to avoid increasing the number of people having adverse mental reactions to strong drugs. Prescribed sedatives and so on aren't too bad, despite the powerful addictions they generate because the addicts are invisible. For the addicts themselves it is often a personal nightmare. The prescription of amphetamines to so many "overactive" children is a disgrace. Outside the absolutely uncontrollable children for whom it may be appropriate, the prescription of psycho-active drugs to help restless and naughty kids concentrate is appalling. Everyone concentrates better with a bit of speed (Ritalin). Thank heavens Steve Irwin grew up before it became the fashion.

That said, there is too much money in illicit drugs for it to be decriminalised. What about the distorting effects on the economy if this huge money-spinner crashed to the ground? Governments wouldn't be generating that money in their at cost-recovery prices, selling dope from drab, nondescript buildings.

The world economy, and especially the luxury goods market would be adversely effected, and we can't have that...

Luckily, children today tend to be a bit better informed and see that an integrated personality and sport and learning and health and "doing good" are worthwhile things to aspire to, or be involved in and these are interfered with by drug use - whatever their legal status.

I'm full of admiration for the younger generation, who seem much more grown up and mature in their outlook than mine was, but maybe that's just a pampered middle-class observation

I'll stop there, it's too complicated to solve. But lastly, on the alcohol and Italians - I read this is mainly a cultural thing because they drink wine with food and family and frown on drunkeness, unlike their neighbours, the French, who, although they also drink wine with food, have a massive alcoholism problem.
cheers

 

[Julia]

Wayne and Prospector,

Thanks for responses to my question. You have both argued from a similar base and I accept the logic on the surface.

So what would you have governments do?
Do you advocate all narcotics, (e.g. heroin plus synthetic narcotics like pethidine, codeine methadone etc, ) being made legal and able to be purchased over the counter along with the wine cask? Along with cocaine, MDMA, all other forms of stimulants?

Would the legal age to purchase these compounds be the same as for alcohol? Would the parents who now buy their kids thousands of dollars worth of alcohol (this happened recently at Stradbroke Qld) be able to buy their kids unlimited quantities of whatever drug(s) they currently were attracted to?

Such sales would, I imagine, be taxable and therefore would represent a hugely increased revenue base for government. What an irresistible proposition if we accept that alcohol sales exist purely to provide an additional source of taxation.

I'm just seeking some clarification of your argument where you say that if alcohol is legal then there seems no reason for other mind altering substances to also be legal.

Putting aside my personal loathing of hard drugs which I acknowledge is as a result of my very personal experience of loving someone who died as a result of their use, I'm interested to know how exactly you would envisage a society where all drugs are considered equal.

 

[Lucky]

So, Wayne and Prospector, if you have no problems with users, are you going to be happy to have a root canal performed by a drug using dentist, a piece of delicate surgery performed by a drug using surgeon, your tax returns done by a drug using accountant?

And are you going to be OK with your children using drugs as long as they don't burgle someone's home to get the money to pay for them?

As long as the dentist administers his drugs to me before I have a root canal I'll have no problem at all.

Do you seriously think that there aren't dentists, surgeons or accountants that use drugs? And why those professions? What about truck drivers, or say paramedics, or a land scape gardener?

Things seem very black and white in your world Julia. As I said not all drug users are the same, nor are all drugs, but I get the feeling that everyone is tarred with the same brush in your book. Why is that?

Kids + drugs = burglary???

I don't see the connection, or is that just jumping to conclusions? Or maybe it's just me. So what's the difference if an underage kid swipes alcohol from the parents stash, or better yet they take it from a friend's parents alcohol cabinet? Is that theft? Is this ok?

Have you ever thought that maybe some of the great ideas, inventions, creative works, art, literature, music, etc., may have come from folk that may been under the influence?

And what business is it of yours if someone in the privacy of their own home/place/wherever decides to take whatever they want and it doesn't harm or interfere with another persons freedom, rights or being?

Maybe instead of a place of fear, people are given the knowledge and education to make up their own minds. Give people the facts about drugs, rather than typical moralistic, fear based hypocrisy driven campaigns that paint all users the same(wouldn't it be ironic if the agencies that came up with those campaigns had a couple of users in their ranks? don't ya think?)

 

[Julia]

You could take pure heroin for 50 years without destroying your liver, kidneys, heart or brain - but it would have to be unadulterated, not 10% heroin and 90% kitty-litter, glucose, or whatever else it is cut with.

cheers

Mister S

Interesting observation about the pure heroin. What's the source of that statement?

 

[Ageo]

Mister S

Interesting observation about the pure heroin. What's the source of that statement?

probably personal experience

 

[Whiskers]

One of the issues is the confusion generated by having legal and illegal drugs, where the justification for the status of each is hard to discern if looked at simply in terms of personal harm...

However, the argument for legalising or decriminalising all or selected drugs is attractive in the sense that it rationalises the personal harm aspect of drugs by removing some contradictions.

Society could move to the view that all drug-taking is self-indulgent and anti-social, a bit similar to the way smoking has shifted from being portrayed as "the international passport to smoking pleasure" for beautiful people, to a filthy, deadly, habit that smelly, loser, addicts must now do out in the street.

This would at least put drug-taking generally into some perspective, instead of being clouded in ignorance, delusion and hypocrisy, as it is currently.

I think you are getting close to where I think the 'drugs' issue is heading, misterS.

As you alluded to with smoking, I think essentially market forces in the health and insurance industries will dictate how things pan out in the future. I just don't see legislation alone solving the problem. Whether the use of drugs is considered legal or illegal will to some extent become a moot point. What I see becoming more common is that personal consequences for taking ALL drugs will increase.

We already see doctors and hospitals either refusing to treat smokers for tobacco related conditions or perpetually putting them at the end of the line, unless they can demonstrate that they have given up the habit.

Insurance companies now discriminate against smokers in terms of premiums so that non smokers aren't picking up the higher cost of smokers health care.

While tobacco and alcohol are legally availabe ,inapproperiate use of them does lead to criminal behaviour, eg driving under the influence and endangering the health of others by smoking in the company of children or smoking in desegnated smoke free areas.

All drug use I feel will start to come under similar financial burden or criminal consequences, because with the right or choice to do drugs (including tobacco and alcohol) comes responsibility (to pay) for your actions. The use of drugs may not be effectively legally prohibited, but people who indulge in drug use will face increasing responsibility for their use of drugs such as by non drug users automatically given priority for free health services, and in reduced costs of health, vehicle and home insurance etc.

Courts can now impose criminal penaltities for driving under the influence of a drug. I think employment conditions will eventually include declarations about drug use and possibly even limiting the jobs that drug users can hold. It is not incomprehensible that even social security payments may eventually be reduced or refused to drug users along the line that is being introduced in the aboriginal communities.

 

[2020hindsight]

We already see doctors and hospitals either refusing to treat smokers for tobacco related conditions or perpetually putting them at the end of the line, unless they can demonstrate that they have given up the habit.

Insurance companies now discriminate against smokers in terms of premiums so that non smokers aren't picking up the higher cost of smokers health care.

great posts there MisterS and Whiskers.
gee, but how I hate tobacco companies - (and smokers - but in that order).
Tobacco companies should be closed down - end of story. (imo)

like a story I heard recently. Some fellow ( a heavy smoker) suddenly felt pain in one side - figured he was probably having a (mild) heart attack - gently made his way down to the lounge where his wife was - asked her to pass his cigarettes - calmly had a cigarette - then

phew...... phew .... gently stubbed it out
turned to his wife and asked her to call an ambulance...
AN AMBULANCE!!!! she said - WHY!!
because dear, I've just had a heart attack.
panic - calls ambulance etc -

goes to the hospital - triage nurse smells his breath - asks him "do you smoke?"
- "nope" -
she sniffs again " you sure !!?" -

" ah I used to but

......I gave up "

"when ?" she asks
"ahh about 10 minutes ago "

(sad that people have such a demanding monkey on their back)

 

[2020hindsight]

Likewise lol - we had a school reunion a few years back - was bludy fantastic except lol
all the smokers reunited with all the smokers (outside)
and all the non-smokers reunited with all the non-smokers (inside)

(PS any cross-mingling was always at the instigation of the non-smokers -
smokers would prefer to ignore someone - for the duration of the event - who might have been their best mate at school lol -
but if it meant having to go inside, and break the chain of their chain-smoking, - you've gotta be kidding lol - "stuff em" - they'd meet again "some other day " lol - like maybe the other side of "the big mystery".

 

[misterS]

Hi Julia,

It is actually not controversial, you just don't see many direct references to it in mainstream media, given its iconic status as the pinnacle of evil drugs.

However, even this basic medical fact is largely unknown by many people who nonetheless hold very strong views about it.

All of the available research agrees that, so far as harm is concerned, heroin is likely to cause some nausea and possibly severe constipation and that is all again leaving aside the no doubt unpleasant and lengthy withdrawal phase.

In the words of a 1965 New York study by Dr Richard Brotman: "Medical knowledge has long since laid to rest the myth that opiates observably harm the body." "

It is certainly highly addictive and that is probably its main notoriety. The nexus between addiction and high illicit cost naturally generates a lot of crime, which adds to its sensational reputation.

Mentioning this incontrovertible fact can easily be misconstrued as meaning you must therefore support its non-medical use - which I do not.

It is mainly the adulterants and viruses and bacteria on the skin or injected through unhygenic practices and needle sharing that cause related health problems and the debasement and life of crime many are drawn into to fund their habit.

The overdoses are primarily through un-controlled strength variations in the product because of the path to market. Aside from that, even glucose powder, a common cutting agent, introduced intravenously, is quite bad for you, not to mention whatever other powdered crud that gets mixed with it because of a similar appearance.

It isn't entirely at the heart of the issue, just wanted to introduce an unpopular fact that isn't often mentioned. For obvious reasons, misapprehensions about its basic pharmacutical properties are not corrected when heard by people who know this fact, but who are violently opposed to it, and so it tends not to get repeated much.

 

[2020hindsight]

PS sad story this one .. when I was a student I went to the Uni rowing club - a fellow - (an ex-student who had put on a bit of fat, but was a heavy smoker) had just had a go on the ergometer (rowing machine with a flywheel) - really crazy to do such an intense workout - had a heart attack just as I got there - massive! unconscious, black in the face etc .
Anyway there was oxygen handy - I'd just finished first aid course - I ended up giving him external cardial massage all the way into the hospital in the back of the ambulance - I watched as he was given defibrillating shocks etc - sheesh - then they cut his chest open and physically massaged his heart - all to no avail -

... he had 5 kids under 10 years

(Gee I hate cigarettes) !!

(and MisterS - you'd agree I trust - in fact I think someone here already mentioned - the relative ease for an ambulanceman to attend to an overdose of heroin - one injection and "right as rain"

compared to an alcohol related incident - where a drunk can be difficult for hours until that alcohol oxidises etc - nothing the ambos can do but duck his punches for a few hours )

 

[Whiskers]

(Gee I hate cigarettes) !!

Me too, 2020

I think all the men in my family including uncles, cousins, and a couple of women smoked at least for awhile. I don't know why, but I could never stand the stuff and never smoked.

Even alcohol, when I was a teen, once I had my fill it stopped tasting nice and cobsequently I rarely got stoned out of my mind unlike everyone around me. Even now I can go months without a drink and it doesn't bother me.

Actually, I have started sipping a bit of red more often now to avoid drinking so much pepsi and coke.

 

[2020hindsight]

Me too, 2020

I think all the men in my family including uncles, cousins, and a couple of women smoked at least for awhile. I don't know why, but I could never stand the stuff and never smoked.

Even alcohol, when I was a teen, once I had my fill it stopped tasting nice and cobsequently I rarely got stoned out of my mind unlike everyone around me. Even now I can go months without a drink and it doesn't bother me.

Actually, I have started sipping a bit of red more often now to avoid drinking so much pepsi and coke.

lol - to avoid pepsi and cocacola I assume - lol - wise choice m8

PS gotta feelin these problems will still be around tomorrow - adios amigos

PS in my family it was mainly the women who smoked
- cept my dad who died from lung cancer - a mixture of melanoma plus (undoubtedly) smoking didn't help - when I was in about kindergarten or first year

 

[misterS]

Hi Whiskas,

Yes I think you're quite right about that... good old market forces.

On the argument about illicit drugs, at the same time as heroin having this gruesome reputation, the propensity can then become to then to talk about the relative physical harmlessness of heroin as though it has some application to other illicit drugs - which it does not.

It does however, have some relevance when thinking about the wisdom of using our two favourite licit drugs - with lovely bright-lit shops in every shopping centre and robust sportsmen and Mum and Dad and everyone else it seems, socking it down like water and the booze-culture perpetuating itself at every turn.

It is easier to develop the attitude that there is not much wrong with a bit of illicit drug-taking when you compare it to very wide-spread alcohol dependency - or even frequent use, if you don't see it as dependency. It is really only in comparsion to not taking drugs that it may seem less defensible.

Mind you, on days when you wake up and find yourself, for no tangible reason, flying forlornly through the universe on a spinning ball of mud, along with apparently the only other sentient creatures in that entire universe, cognisant of you own inevitable death, and that of everyone else who will ever live, it is entirely understandable that you might occasionally, if not more often, take comfort from the hopeless solidarity in the face of the human condition that drinking and so on can provide.

Incidentally, I recognise that blithely referring to "addiction" as though it is some minor inconvenience, is not attributing it sufficient gravity when the effects on personality can be profound.

Think I'll scuttle back to some less troubling thread now.

cheers

 

[2020hindsight]

I'll just throw this one in b4 I retire.

WHAT A GREAT IDEA Kava would be for the aborigines !!

and for the rest of us maybe ??

(yet it was recently banned in NT by the Feds - (Brough and co) - presumably harder to collect the tax??)

PS It's about time Jesus came back and went into "the temple" and upended the tax-collectors' tables again (IMHO) - you listnin JC!!?

Some expert said on AM that kava has almost none of the harmful effects of alcoho .

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/03/2022735.htm

NT kava ban 'not to blame' for alcohol problems
Posted Mon Sep 3, 2007 3:32pm AEST

Map: Nhulunbuy 0880
Police in East Arnhem Land say an increase in alcohol related problems over the weekend can only partially be blamed on the ban on kava.

The substance was banned in the Northern Territory by the Federal Government as part of its intervention into Indigenous affairs.

Police seized a taxi at the weekend bringing alcohol into a restricted area and increased patrols in Yirrkala and Nhulunbuy as a response to the escalation in drinking.

The officer in charge of Nhulunbuy Police, Tony Fuller, says it is not only the kava ban causing the problems.

"We've had the football final and we have also had the funeral of a prominent person in the community, which resulted in the influx of a number of people form the outlying communities," he said.

"There is a lot more grog around, but I don't think its purely kava related."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/24/2013781.htm

NT kava retailer bills Govt for $582,000
Posted Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:40am AEST

A Northern Territory kava retailer has sent the Federal Government a bill for $582,000 and a kava wholesaler is planning to follow suit, in response to a Commonwealth kava ban.

The organisations say it is a condition of their licences that kava profits go back into the community and they want the Commonwealth to pay for projects that had already been committed to when the Federal Government banned Kava imports in June.

Wholesaler Ric Norton from the Laynhapuy Homelands Association says the ban has left them in a difficult position.

"We have issue purchase orders for about $1 million worth of works in our homelands," he said.

He says the projects included building offices so remote areas could have access to the internet and buying a truck to help with road works.

A spokeswoman for the Federal Health Minister says the Government will buy back set kava that has been impounded, but it is not planning to compensate for loss of earnings.

 

[2020hindsight]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/15/2006088.htm

someone asked me back there had I used many drugs
well I've had a few gallons of this stuff .

Brough to ban kava in Indigenous communities
Posted Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:06pm AEST

Federal Indigenous Affairs Minister Mal Brough says kava will be outlawed in remote Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory by the end of the week.

The tranquillising Pacific Islands substance was introduced to some Aboriginal communities in the early 1980s in the hope that it would curb alcohol abuse.

Mr Brough says there has been resistance to its removal, with the Yirrkala community in Arnhem Land so outraged it ejected a visiting Commonwealth survey team this week.

But he says the drug is harmful and must go.

"What a social destruction where governments allow licensing of a product which has had people comatosed, as one senior elder told me," he said.

"Women and men [have been] comatosed for long periods, not getting out of bed of a morning, not feeding their children, not sending them to school, not having a care about anything, because this substance has basically just messed with them so badly."

Mr Brough his Commonwealth survey team was kicked out of Yirrkala in north-east Arnhem Land on Monday in protest to kava bans.

A community spokesman says the survey team was asked to leave after it failed to deliver any new information about the intervention.

But Mr Brough says his Aboriginal contacts in Yirrkala have told him heavy users of the tranquillising Kava substance were behind the protest.

"We have pockets of people who perhaps have been given information inappropriately, incorrectly, or simply are opposed to things like the banning of kava," he said.

"Well I'm afraid those are things we are doing in the interest of their children.

"I'm afraid that if they are in too much of a fog from substance abuse not to understand that, then that doesn't excuse their actions and will not prevent us from acting."

He says he will not be travelling to Arnhem Land to talk to angry community members at Yirrkala.

"No I won't be going out to Yirrkala to speak directly to those people," he said.