Drug experimentation and dependence

moXJO · 7 November 2007

disarray said:
not really. getting ruined is the overriding factor, heroin junkies will shoot speed if smack isn't available, kids will drop acid if they can't get their hands on ecstacy, people will get drunk if they can't get stoned. heroin is probably the ultimate high so if it was available and clean that would be the overriding drug of choice for intravenous users.

its easy to understand - people just want to get wasted. john lennon, brett whitely, john belushi, countless people with loads of money and fame and everything your heart could desire pick getting fked up as their primary motivation. the war on drugs is a war on human nature, there is not a culture in the world that doesn't have a way to distort your perceptions. some cultures ritualise it (such as kava use, peyote use etc.) while others use it as a means to wash away the trials of reality. making drug use illegal (except for the damaging "legal" drugs which the government loves to tax) creates a whole black world of crime, corruption and criminality.

i think the cut off age should be 18, any younger and we are moving into the realm of parental responsibility which is not legislated for (but in many cases it seems it should be). however laws like this need to be flexible to take into account circumstances.

the sad thing is we saw this ice wave coming. we knew it was an extremely toxic drug that causes a great deal of damage to society and the users and yet we did nothing. now we have meth psychotics roaming the streets when all we needed was a controlled and reasonably safe way for people to get high. prohibition fails. it will always fail. drugs need to be a health issue.

Actually heroin has dropped right off the scene due to the younger crowd not wanting to be associated with being called a junkie and the public perception of it. Same thing happened with crack in the U.S. I think you underestimate fad drugs that hit the scene and how quickly the are taken up.Things like pot and heroin have been losing popularity for years.Think GBH heres something that they know is high risk yet still its taken simply because it was the scene drug.

Cut off at 18 years and we can have underage drug use to go with our underage drinking. Only now drugs would be much more accessible since anyone over 18 can now get drugs to sell to kids.So a black market will always remain unless you plan on everyone getting wasted.All I see is more problems if it were made legal.

disarray · 7 November 2007

the younger crowd are only a small section of drug using society. people of all ages and all walks of life regularly use drugs, and according to the law they are all criminals.

i agree "scene drugs" come and go over time, when i was in school it was acid, after uni it was ecstacy, however i think demand is largely determined by supply. heroin droughts see an upswing in amphetamine use, lack of good ecstacy sees people taking GBH and so on. pot and heroin will never go out of fashion, people will always use them, just because they aren't getting the media attention of GBH and ice doesn't mean their use has declined, it just means the media has a new evil thing to make a fuss about.

underage drinking and drug use is a problem for parents, educators, peer groups and health officials. a holistic approach is needed that ties in all these groups with law enforcement to achieve a better outcome. demonising drugs will not make them less attractive to young people and wagging a finger saying "don't do it" will achieve nothing. as for a young person black market, under 18's have hardly any disposable income so i don't see them funding criminal empires like it currently does.

the problems you forsee with legal drugs seem to revolve around young people, however i think this is only a small part of a wider problem that we are facing now with large sections of our society being criminalised by using, the vast amount of repetetive crime caused by users who commit crime solely to feed addictions, and the growing power of global criminal empires that use drugs to fund terrorism and other far more damaging activities.

moXJO · 8 November 2007

disarray said:
the younger crowd are only a small section of drug using society. people of all ages and all walks of life regularly use drugs, and according to the law they are all criminals.

i agree "scene drugs" come and go over time, when i was in school it was acid, after uni it was ecstacy, however i think demand is largely determined by supply. heroin droughts see an upswing in amphetamine use, lack of good ecstacy sees people taking GBH and so on. pot and heroin will never go out of fashion, people will always use them, just because they aren't getting the media attention of GBH and ice doesn't mean their use has declined, it just means the media has a new evil thing to make a fuss about.

underage drinking and drug use is a problem for parents, educators, peer groups and health officials. a holistic approach is needed that ties in all these groups with law enforcement to achieve a better outcome. demonising drugs will not make them less attractive to young people and wagging a finger saying "don't do it" will achieve nothing. as for a young person black market, under 18's have hardly any disposable income so i don't see them funding criminal empires like it currently does.

the problems you forsee with legal drugs seem to revolve around young people, however i think this is only a small part of a wider problem that we are facing now with large sections of our society being criminalised by using, the vast amount of repetetive crime caused by users who commit crime solely to feed addictions, and the growing power of global criminal empires that use drugs to fund terrorism and other far more damaging activities.

It’s a younger person’s game. Between the ages of 15- 27 I seemed to know a lot more people on various types of drugs then I do in my 30's.I think you underestimate the underage drug use and its potential to explode if cheap accessible drugs came to market on a wide scale. At the moment we can’t even handle underage drinking. As far as being able to afford it what’s stopping them from stealing and repeating the cycle. Also the types of tourists we are likely to attract and a whole list of new problems that are currently unseen.

In theory legalizing drugs works, but in reality there are too many additional problems that it will create. Until our education system doesn’t let so many kids fall through the cracks, then I don’t think we are ready to introduce something like this. Not to mention the new class of workers that will be discriminated against or the OHS nightmare trying to revolve around people with drugs in their system. Dollar for dollar I don’t know if it would make much of a difference. Socially I think it would introduce filth to a wider audience to benefit a few, many of who would probably outgrow it.

Surely you can see problems with the legalization of it?

disarray · 8 November 2007

moXJO said:
It’s a younger person’s game. Between the ages of 15- 27 I seemed to know a lot more people on various types of drugs then I do in my 30's.

18-27 is adult. thats only a 3 year gap for underage use.

I think you underestimate the underage drug use and its potential to explode if cheap accessible drugs came to market on a wide scale. At the moment we can’t even handle underage drinking. As far as being able to afford it what’s stopping them from stealing and repeating the cycle. Also the types of tourists we are likely to attract and a whole list of new problems that are currently unseen.

slight misunderstanding here. i'm not advocating having all drugs cheaply available at stores or having heroin users go to cafes and shoot up amsterdam style. i am definately advocating the government supply of heroin to registered addicts in safe locations with access to counselling and health services. marijuana should also be legalised and people allowed to grow personal stash plants.

other drugs such as cocaine and ecstacy require a lot more thought because the concerns you raise do become an issue. wholesale legalisation of everything in one fell swoop is dangerous, it must be a measured, controlled and tested procedure to gradually enact change. i'd like to see a start with heroin to cater for the hopeless junkies and pot for wider society.

i understand the issues you raise and i agree that they will be major issues if its just open slather, however a measured, health based response is needed to confront this issue in concert with law enforcement. i'm a big fan of the carrot and the stick, but at the moment drug policy is all stick.

moXJO · 8 November 2007

disarray said:
18-27 is adult. thats only a 3 year gap for underage use.

i am definately advocating the government supply of heroin to registered addicts in safe locations with access to counselling and health services. marijuana should also be legalised and people allowed to grow personal stash plants.

other drugs such as cocaine and ecstacy require a lot more thought because the concerns you raise do become an issue. wholesale legalisation of everything in one fell swoop is dangerous, it must be a measured, controlled and tested procedure to gradually enact change. i'd like to see a start with heroin to cater for the hopeless junkies and pot for wider society.

i understand the issues you raise and i agree that they will be major issues if its just open slather, however a measured, health based response is needed to confront this issue in concert with law enforcement. i'm a big fan of the carrot and the stick, but at the moment drug policy is all stick.

Ok misunderstanding on my part thought you were advocating open season on drugs ,my bad. I'd agree (with tight controls) with trials for registered heroin addicts. Methadone has done more harm then good imo.And see what the effects are from there.

I think you are allowed to grow 2 plants in most states. Funny enough I was told years ago that it is illegal to grow tobacco plants and the fine is greater then that of pot. Not sure if it’s true or not, something to do with tax apparently.

Kremmen · 12 November 2007

Julia said:
That's a reasonable argument. OK, so can you describe exactly how it would work if a government said "right, from now on we will allow everyone to use all the heroin, crystal meth, barbiturates, amphetamines et al they want".
None of them are illegal any more. Would you want the government to e.g. put them on the PBS? Would you like shops - perhaps pharmacies or supermarkets if you like - to stock them so you can just go in and buy whatever you want?

And presumably you'd like the taxpayer to pay for some quality control process, such as currently happens with prescribed medications, to ensure no one overdoses or is otherwise harmed?

Currently, criminals (by which I mean real criminals, not just people who happen to use drugs) control the trade. Therefore, I would expect it to be a slow and careful process. The government would need to initially run or at least very carefully check the shops, as the current suppliers would probably try to retain their business. Rather similar to the same way as we want casinos to be above board, not run by the same people who used to run illegal casinos.

The PBS is for necessary drugs, not recreation, so non-addictive drugs definitely don't belong there. Maybe addictive drugs belong there for recovering addicts with a prescription? I'd not thought about that one before.

The ideal of the taxpayer "paying" for some quality control process is ridiculous. What would the quality control processes cost us? Let's say it's really expensive and costs $10M/year and let's even ignore all the tax money the government would receive, which should cover it anyhow. Drug crime currently costs us $32B a year. If drugs were legal, some parts of that $32B would remain (lost output and human costs) amounting to about $4B. If, as some argue, use of drugs increased, that might even go up a bit. But the $28B of fraud, burglary, robbery, assault, etc, would be close to zero. The cost of making drugs cleanly and safely available would be something well under 1/1000 of the cost of the drug-related crime that would go away.

stefoid · 23 November 2007

If you want a mirror for drug use/prohibition in this day and age, just look at alcohol prohibition in US earlier last century. the rampant flaunting of the law, the organized crime, the corruption, the health hazards for the users associated with poor quality control. Same situation then as now, and same problems, although they quickly repealed prohibition when it became obvious that banning something that there is a demand for not only doesnt work, but creates more problems in and of itself.

legalizing recreational drugs would actually enable the government to control their quality and distribution, as opposed to now where the head in the sand approach ensures that quality and distribution is relegated to unscrupulous criminals. drug dealers dont ask for id. they dont test their batches for contaminants or consistant potency.

I agree that legalization might encourage more users.

but thats not the point, unless your a wowser. human beings have always craved mood and conciousness altering substnaces, and they always will. the point is that it might reduce the amount of drug related health and social issues.

moXJO said:
It’s a younger person’s game. Between the ages of 15- 27 I seemed to know a lot more people on various types of drugs then I do in my 30's.I think you underestimate the underage drug use and its potential to explode if cheap accessible drugs came to market on a wide scale. At the moment we can’t even handle underage drinking. As far as being able to afford it what’s stopping them from stealing and repeating the cycle. Also the types of tourists we are likely to attract and a whole list of new problems that are currently unseen.

In theory legalizing drugs works, but in reality there are too many additional problems that it will create. Until our education system doesn’t let so many kids fall through the cracks, then I don’t think we are ready to introduce something like this. Not to mention the new class of workers that will be discriminated against or the OHS nightmare trying to revolve around people with drugs in their system. Dollar for dollar I don’t know if it would make much of a difference. Socially I think it would introduce filth to a wider audience to benefit a few, many of who would probably outgrow it.

Surely you can see problems with the legalization of it?

2020hindsight · 7 December 2007

Thinking ahead to all those who plan to give up smoking or booze or meth etc for the new year ....

Speaking of Dimemnas...
"The addict is double-minded because he cannot really and truly desire recovery until he already has it. "

http://www.bma-wellness.com/papers/addicts_dilemna.html

The Addict's Dilemna
Floyd P. Garrett, M.D.

Abstract. Addictive behavior attempts to repair a state of bad feeling but is a Faustian Bargain that perpetuates itself and often asks the ultimate price. Addiction can be compared to an unhealthy, fanatical love. Unnatural and arbitrary hedonic management by substances or stereotyped processes distorts and cripples the psyche and places the individual at a grave survival disadvantage. The addict is double-minded because he cannot really and truly desire recovery until he already has it. Recovery is about restoring natural, spontaneous and healthy regulation of mood and feelings. Because addicts may be seriously impaired in their pre-addictive self-care and self-management they often require prolonged help learning to feel well without resorting to the "tricks" of addiction.

Addictive behaviors such as smoking, drinking, drug use, overeating and other "quick fix" maneuvers aimed at rapidly and dramatically changing the individual’s emotional and hedonic state are natural and common targets for resolutions of reform, whether at New Year’s or any other time, to "do better," to "turn over a new leaf" or to "quit once and for all." And even more than in the case of the typical New Year’s resolution, the solemn promise of the substance(alcohol, nicotine, other drugs, food) or process(gambling, spending, sex) addict is well known by just about everyone familiar with such matters to be, more often than not, ‘writ in water.’ In addiction perhaps more than any place else, "The best laid plans of mice and men gang aft aglay."

Such natural and only too well justified skepticism about promises of reform on the part of those familiar with the addict does not necessarily include the addict himself, who may fervently and sincerely exclaim "I know I’ve said this before – and I know that you don’t believe me and that you are entitled not to believe me. I wouldn’t believe me either if I were in your shoes. But this time I really mean it. I swear it will be for real. Wait and see if I’m not telling the truth!"

noirua · 7 December 2007

2020hindsight said:
Thinking ahead to all those who plan to give up smoking or booze or meth etc for the new year ....

Speaking of Dimemnas...
"The addict is double-minded because he cannot really and truly desire recovery until he already has it. "

http://www.bma-wellness.com/papers/addicts_dilemna.html

Addictive behaviour 2020 et al: I've become addicted to many things during my life, not drugs, smoking or drink.
In the the 1980's I was addicted to coca cola and pepsi cola, haven't drunk any for over 25 years now.
Before that, mars bars and then in the late 1980's I drank 10 cups of coffee each day, due to giving up pepsi and coca cola.
In the 1970's mining boom I bought about 30 newspapers and magazines each week.

Different types of addictive behaviour around. Even playing too much tennis, cricket or football. Spending too much time on the computer and there are others - good luck, Oh yes gambling, very bad news that one.

Overeating, when my BMI went up to 32 and is now 23.6. - Good luck again

moXJO · 7 December 2007

stefoid said:
If you want a mirror for drug use/prohibition in this day and age, just look at alcohol prohibition in US earlier last century. the rampant flaunting of the law, the organized crime, the corruption, the health hazards for the users associated with poor quality control. Same situation then as now, and same problems, although they quickly repealed prohibition when it became obvious that banning something that there is a demand for not only doesnt work, but creates more problems in and of itself.
.

Banning alcohol after it was legal is different to drugs being illegal. If we made drugs legal then ban them again, then we would have the massive problems of alcohol prohibition. There’s a difference when you take something away from people after its been ingrained into society

2020hindsight · 7 December 2007

I hear on ABC that there's more evidence emerging that Schapelle Corby was probably into drug smuggling more than she at first appeared to be...

She had me fooled ...
but then (depending on whether marijuana or worse- and sounds like could be worse) ..

I still think that even that has to be seen in context - i.e. when the cigarette companies are treated like criminals and put in jail, then I'll be more accepting of these massive penalties for drugrunners

PS sounding like meth was involved, but I'd better check the facts there as well.

Also when the Bali bombers are (also) seen in context - not that I propose death penalty - just for "time commensurate with crime".

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/07/2113150.htm
Corby's associates involved in Bali drug run: informant
Posted 15 minutes ago
A Queensland Police informant has told the ABC that associates of Schapelle Corby were involved in a drug run between Brisbane and Bali that ended after Corby's arrest.

A Crime Intelligence Report obtained by ABC Radio's PM program outlines the claims by 49-year-old ex-heroin addict Kim Moore - whom police have described as credible.

The information was obtained by police three weeks before the Gold Coast beauty student was arrested in Bali with four kilograms of marijuana inside her boogie board bag in 2004.

Ms Moore has told PM the drug runners used false passports.

"They can't use their own passports because they'd have to use their own names," she said.

"The only time [name suppressed] has gone over and used his own name is when he's on holidays.

"But if he goes over and does a drug run he uses the alias."

Ms Moore says amphetamines were also being taken to Bali wrapped in tar paper to make the drugs harder to detect.

"The information I got was that it was covered - it was oily tar paper and it cannot be picked up through customs," she said.

"Or if it goes through any of the cameras it just looks like it's just a bottom [of a bag] - now it's underneath the bottom of a port so it's a false bottom."

Schapelle Corby's sister Mercedes has complained to PM that the facts in the story are wrong, but would not explain how.

Their mother Roseleigh Rose has refused to comment.

Pat · 8 December 2007

disarray said:
the younger crowd are only a small section of drug using society. people of all ages and all walks of life regularly use drugs, and according to the law they are all criminals.

i agree "scene drugs" come and go over time, when i was in school it was acid, after uni it was ecstacy, however i think demand is largely determined by supply. heroin droughts see an upswing in amphetamine use, lack of good ecstacy sees people taking GBH and so on. pot and heroin will never go out of fashion, people will always use them, just because they aren't getting the media attention of GBH and ice doesn't mean their use has declined, it just means the media has a new evil thing to make a fuss about.

underage drinking and drug use is a problem for parents, educators, peer groups and health officials. a holistic approach is needed that ties in all these groups with law enforcement to achieve a better outcome. demonising drugs will not make them less attractive to young people and wagging a finger saying "don't do it" will achieve nothing. as for a young person black market, under 18's have hardly any disposable income so i don't see them funding criminal empires like it currently does.

the problems you forsee with legal drugs seem to revolve around young people, however i think this is only a small part of a wider problem that we are facing now with large sections of our society being criminalised by using, the vast amount of repetetive crime caused by users who commit crime solely to feed addictions, and the growing power of global criminal empires that use drugs to fund terrorism and other far more damaging activities.

Good post Disarray. I have to agree.
I know many people my age, 26, who smoke on a daily basis, but I know more people over the age of 35 who smoke on a daily basis. This being through work and friends. I work in the financial industry, you'd be surprised... I was.
I think some drugs are sought after by different age groups, while others are used among all age groups, like alcohol, pot and nicotine...
I don't see too many 40yr olds going to rave parties and dancing it up for 6 hrs at the club... but you do spot the odd one out on occasion.

2020hindsight · 8 December 2007

http://louisville.edu/~kprayb01/WCQuote.html#A6
The following suggest that WC Fields was an alcoholic and beyond help. .....

Now don't say you can't swear off drinking; it's easy. I've done it a thousand times." (From "The Temperance Lecture")

"How well I remember my first encounter with The Devil's Brew. I happened to stumble across a case of bourbon--and went right on stumbling for several days thereafter." (Ibid)

"Back in my rummy days, I would tremble and shake for hours upon arising. It was the only exercise I got." (Ibid)

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house unless they have a well-stocked bar."

"What rascal has been putting pineapple juice in my pineapple juice?"

Charlie McCarthy: "Say, Mr. Fields, I read in the paper where you consumed two quarts of liquor a day. What would your father think about that?"
WC: "He'd think I was a sissy." (From the radio sketch, "Father's Day")

"I don't believe in dining on an empty stomach."

"Some weasel took the cork out of my lunch..." (From the film, You Can't Cheat an Honest Man.)

(In response to a waiter who'd offered him a "Bromo Seltzer" for a hangover, Fields said: ) "Ye Gods, no! I couldn't stand the noise."

"My illness is due to my doctor's insistence that I drink milk, a whitish fluid they force down helpless babies."

"I like to keep a bottle of stimulant handy in case I see a snake, which I also keep handy."

"It's a wonderful thing, the D.T.'s. You can travel the world in a couple of hours. You see some mighty funny and curious things that come in assorted colors."

(Fields overhears a secretary talking to a friend over the phone: )
Secretary: "Someday you'll drown in a vat of whiskey."
WC (an aside) : "Drown in a vat of whiskey? Oh death, where is thy sting?"

At least this last one suggests he realised that there was something called "drinking to excess"

(Fields, who never got falling-down drunk, explained why
"When you woo a wet goddess, there's no use falling at her feet."

2020hindsight · 6 January 2008

This article from 4 years ago ... (but there have been more instances in 2007 - see youtube)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/02/mistaken.bombing/

'Friendly fire' pilots: Air Force pushes 'go pills'
Lawyers say amphetamines led to accidental killing
NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (AP) -- A lawyer for one of two U.S. pilots who released a bomb over southern Afghanistan in April, accidentally killing four Canadian soldiers, says the Air Force had pressured the pilots to take amphetamines that may have impaired their judgment during the mission.

Majs. Harry Schmidt and William Umbach face a possible court-martial for dropping the laser-guided bomb near Kandahar on April 17. An Air Force investigation determined the pilots "demonstrated poor airmanship" and ignored standard procedure by not making sure there were no allied troops in the area.

Air Force: Pills are 'fatigue management tool'
But Umbach's lawyer, David Beck, said he would show at a January 13 hearing on whether to court-martial the pilots that the Air Force routinely pressures pilots to take dexamphetamine, a prescription drug also known as "go pills." He said the drug can impair judgment and is not recommended for people operating heavy equipment.

Beck said the Air Force prevents pilots from flying if they refuse to take the pills.

Air Force spokeswoman Lt. Jennifer Ferrau acknowledged the pills are used as a "fatigue management tool" to help pilots stay alert through long missions. But she said that use of the pills is voluntary, and that their effects have been thoroughly tested.

"There have been decades of study on their efficacy and practicality," she said. "The surgeon general worked very closely with commanders on this."

'I am rolling in, in self-defense'
Beck and Charles W. Gittins, Schmidt's lawyer, said the Air Force's investigation is full of errors. Beck said the pilots were not told in advance that allies were holding combat exercises, and that Schmidt dropped the bomb in self-defense after seeing gunfire on the ground.

"What happened was a terrible tragedy. You don't honor (the victims) by wrongfully prosecuting these pilots," Beck said. "This is political appeasement of Canadians who are angry."

Ferrau said Air Force officials would not comment on specifics of the case.

and this from recent July 2007

Another Canadian Hero Killed by Crappy,Doped-up US Troops !

This brings to six the number of Canadian troops killed by doped up and careless US troops. Four were killed by US pilots high on Meth.("go pills"). No American has been killed by any Canadian's so called "friendly fire".

CNN:"'Friendly fire' pilots: Air Force pushes 'go pills'"

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/02/mist...

"Canadian was shot in back, U.S. Army confirms."
Long-awaited report points to friendly fire in Pte. Costall's death

Globe and Mail

July 3, 2007 at 2:54 AM EDT
"Canadian soldier Robert Costall was shot to death from behind in Afghanistan last year by American "Special Forces", who opened machine-gun fire on him."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servle...

http://canadaonline.about.com/library...

"The U.S. fighter jet was on a nighttime training exercise when it dropped one or possibly two bombs on the Canadians."
Killed:
Sgt. Marc Leger, 29, Lancaster, Ontario
Cpl. Ainsworth Dyer, 24, Montreal, Quebec and Toronto, Ontario
Pte. Richard Green, 21, Mill Cove, Nova Scotia
Pte. Nathan Smith, 27, Tatamagouche, Nova Scotia

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/09...
"September 4, 2006te. Mark Anthony Graham, a member of 1st Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment, based at CFB Petawawa, Ont., killed and dozens of others wounded in a friendly fire incident involving an American A-10 Warthog aircraft."

2020hindsight · 19 January 2008

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20050321/

Four Corners on Marijuana - from March 2005

Since I know a kid who has fallen victim to the pot-induced / triggered schizophremia, I thought I'd post this in recognition of the brilliant kid he once was, and , although he's battling it, the uphill fight he has ahead of him for the rest of his life

noirua · 19 January 2008

I don't have much time for drugs, whether it be experimentation or/and dependence.
The reason for drugs being sold, be it on the streets or anywhere else, is due to weak Laws, weak policing and weak Government.

Catching the bigger fish is a more difficult task and there is a need to come down hard on those selling drugs and those in possession.

Anyone found selling hard drugs should be shot by firing squad. Those found bringing hard drugs into the country, in quantities that are obviously for distribution or sale, should be shot by firing squad.
Those found selling marijuana (or other similar drugs) or bringing it into the country in quantity: Should be sent to a hard labour camp for 5 years. On the second offence they should be shot by firing squad.

Weak Laws and weak Government make these crimes worthwhile.

Smurf1976 · 19 January 2008

JeSSica WaBBit said:
Opium Poppy is grown as an ornamental bedding plant in Australia in some circumstances. I know that in Victoria this plant can often be seen growing in some of the older gardens in the suburbs. I have also seen it planted by Councils, although this was a few years ago now and was in country Victoria.

The flowers are lovley, quite spectacular although fragile the seed heads are also very pretty. I say this from a horticultural point of view.

It's a commercially grown (legal) crop in Tasmania. I'm not sure how it's going lately but a decade or so ago there were several hundred growers - a substantial industry by local standards.

tigerboi · 19 January 2008

moXJO said:
Ok misunderstanding on my part thought you were advocating open season on drugs ,my bad. I'd agree (with tight controls) with trials for registered heroin addicts. Methadone has done more harm then good imo.And see what the effects are from there.

I think you are allowed to grow 2 plants in most states. Funny enough I was told years ago that it is illegal to grow tobacco plants and the fine is greater then that of pot. Not sure if it’s true or not, something to do with tax apparently.

i see you mentioned methadone doing more harm than good in your opinion,

what has been your experience?do you know anybody on methadone?

why would it have done more harm?

2020hindsight · 29 January 2008

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/29/2149398.htm?section=justin

Cannabis 'bigger cancer risk' than cigarettes
Posted 21 minutes ago

Smoking a joint is equivalent to 20 cigarettes in terms of lung cancer risk, scientists in New Zealand have found, as they warned of an "epidemic" of lung cancers linked to cannabis.

Studies in the past have demonstrated that cannabis can cause cancer, but few have established a strong link between cannabis use and the actual incidence of lung cancer.

In an article published in the European Respiratory Journal, the scientists say cannabis could be expected to harm the airways more than tobacco as its smoke contained twice the level of carcinogens, such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons, compared with tobacco cigarettes.

The method of smoking also increases the risk, since joints are typically smoked without a proper filter and almost to the very tip, which increases the amount of smoke inhaled.

The cannabis smoker inhales more deeply and for longer, facilitating the deposition of carcinogens in the airways.

The researchers interviewed 79 lung cancer patients and sought to identify the main risk factors for the disease, such as smoking, family history and occupation.

The patients were questioned about alcohol and cannabis consumption.

In this high-exposure group, lung cancer risk rose by 5.7 times for patients who smoked more than a joint a day for 10 years, or two joints a day for 5 years, after adjusting for other variables, including cigarette smoking.

"While our study covers a relatively small group, it shows clearly that long-term cannabis smoking increases lung cancer risk," team leader Richard Beasley wrote.

"Cannabis use could already be responsible for one in 20 lung cancers diagnosed in New Zealand.

"In the near future we may see an 'epidemic' of lung cancers connected with this new carcinogen.

"And the future risk probably applies to many other countries, where increasing use of cannabis among young adults and adolescents is becoming a major public health problem."

Stormin_Norman · 29 January 2008

moXJO said:
Ok misunderstanding on my part thought you were advocating open season on drugs ,my bad.

i do.

and so do penn + teller (personal freedom): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRutaNMZt54

and so does milton friedman and 500 other economists (market forces): http://www.forbes.com/2005/06/02/cz_qh_0602pot.html

Drug experimentation and dependence

moXJO

menace to society

disarray

moXJO

menace to society

disarray

moXJO

menace to society

Kremmen

stefoid

2020hindsight

noirua

moXJO

menace to society

2020hindsight

Pat

2020hindsight

2020hindsight

Attachments

2020hindsight

Attachments

noirua

Smurf1976

tigerboi

2020hindsight

Stormin_Norman

Currency Trader

Similar threads

Drug experimentation and dependence

menace to society

menace to society

menace to society

menace to society

Attachments

Attachments

Currency Trader

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency