Namdrol on 31/12/2009 at 00:12
In that picture linked to why has heroin got the highest rating for physical harm?
SubJeff on 31/12/2009 at 00:37
Firstly, those are not the only 2 attributes you should be looking at and secondly I dispute the position of some of those things, especially heroin. Physical harm the highest? pffffft
Edit: Namdrol beats me to it.
Namdrol on 31/12/2009 at 00:44
Thing is that graph is labelled "mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence"
Now this makes sense if you take all factors into account.
Primarily the physical harm caused to junkies by the lifestyle they lead.
Which is forced on most of them by the illegality of the drug.
Rather negates the original point of posting the graph, which I assume was to say, look at why bad dugs are illegal, they harm you.
SubJeff on 31/12/2009 at 01:04
In that case the axis is labeled incorrectly. I should read "physical harm as result of the drug, the lifestyle it may lead to and societal pressures and rules that exacerbate the harmfulness of the drug".
Macha on 31/12/2009 at 01:08
Quote Posted by Namdrol
In that picture linked to why has heroin got the highest rating for physical harm?
It puts more strain on your body because its harder to process. Thus destroying your organs quicker.
The reason for showing that is to point out the illogic utilised in deciding the legality of drugs across the world. MDMA, weed and LSD really stick out to me because they basically do jackshit with regard to harm in comparison to readily available and encouraged alcohol and tobacco. However, these are the drugs that are heavily stigmatised in our society thanks to government propaganda and a complete disregard for science as the recent David Nutt incident has shown. How many people (not necessarily friends, perhaps aquintances) have instantly dropped respect for you because they found out you occassionally indulge in a little marijuana? And yet they all enjoy drinking the heads off themselves every Friday, Saturday and Sunday down at their local...
SubJeff on 31/12/2009 at 01:13
Quote Posted by Macha
It puts more strain on your body because its harder to process. Thus destroying your organs quicker.
Unadulterated tosh.
Where did you hear this sick filth? In Church?
Macha on 31/12/2009 at 01:24
I am to understand that its because of its method of absorption in the body. The fact that the drug binds to opioid receptors throughout the brain, spinal cord and gut. Coupled with the fact that its addictive and your tolerance quickly builds after a few trips you're chasing the dragon but never finding him unless you inject epic amounts. So you increase the dose to get high and this starts to damage your liver.
Thats my understanding which I admit may not be entirely correct. I am not well versed on heroin and how the neurotransmitters function.
Edit: But the heroin thing was an aside. The second part of my post above was the part I wished to evoke a response.
SubJeff on 31/12/2009 at 01:51
No, heroin users don't get liver damage issues to anywhere near the same extent as alcohol users. Heroin isn't really that physically dangerous unless in overdose or mixed with nasty filler - but that's the same for anything. That's why I was querying the position of it.
I agree with you on a lot of the other stuff you said though, and we've discussed this on TTLG in the past (where is SD for this?). Part of the stigmatisation of drugs is yes, societal "norms". But this itself is a red herring because regardless of the "brain washing" that has taken place to so disgust people when they hear so and so smokes the hashpipe, there are very real dangers to most of these things. That's not to say that alcohol is squeaky clean, but just that recognising that many boozers are hypocrites doesn't make everything else ok.
MDMA/LSD are psychological/psychiatric risks. Physically I don't think there has been shown to be much harm with them (although there are always people who overdo it like the twit who had 30 Es, or people who realise they are getting dehydrated and drink 10 pints of water in an hour), nor with cannabis (unless you smoke it) but all this stuff isn't without risk. Taking the time to quantify it, and quantify it honestly, though; that is the challenge.
If Nutt can get this new stuff tested properly and if there is a rational public debate about it who knows where this could lead.
Macha on 31/12/2009 at 12:04
I don't think I've been around for these discussions unfortunately. What are the risks of cannabis? I mean there are the hinted links to psychosis and other mental disorders along the lines of reality dislocation. I haven't come across real solid evidence as to what it causes and how. The newspapers constantly portray some unfortunate proletariat lad who has smoked every waking second for the past decade who eventually contracts schizophrenia as solid, scientific fact that this will happen to everyone if they even only do it on occasion.
I guess what I'm really pondering is: what does happen to the brain/self after prolonged exposure to thc and pals? I don't say this with any degree of 'oh look how cool I am I do drugs!11!!!1!' but merely as a fact; I have smoked on average about once a week for the past two years. It is quite habitual, not something you need but something you feel like you want; like dessert after dinner. It is something I feel like I now need to quantify as you've said.
