I suspect the Lindsay Lohan thread was locked because the subject matter veered from celebrity drug abuse to general drug abuse. If so, this thread should be the place to continue the debate about drugs.

----------------------------------------

First of all, theprodigalson threw out some pretty nasty accusations before the thread was locked, (that I was a cokehead et al) and I just want to clarify that I, personally, have NEVER touched any hard drugs, whatsoever, least of all cocaine.  But you don't have to be a user to realize things aren't as black and whtie as Nancy Reagan wants you to think.

Still directed at prodigalson; a drug doesn't change chemical properties when crossing borders. Cocaine has the same uses in the U.S. as outside, they're just not LEGAL in the U.S. So if cocaine was legalized tomorrow, would you still be a loser for using it in moderation, like you use the legal drug ethanol in moderation?

-----------------------------------------

With that out of the way, I think the drug debate itself is interesting. Where I live they have proposed handing out safety-syringes to drug addicts so they don't spread STD's or whatever to others. At the same time, this would seen as encouraging abuse.

I'm not sure where I stand on this. As a rule I don't think society should spend too much money on junkies, 'cause they chose their life-style, but if it would help non-users...I don't know.

Quoted from DM With that out of the way, I think the drug debate itself is interesting. Where I live they have proposed handing out safety-syringes to drug addicts so they don't spread STD's or whatever to others. At the same time, this would seen as encouraging abuse. I'm not sure where I stand on this. As a rule I don't think society should spend too much money on junkies, 'cause they chose their life-style, but if it would help non-users...I don't know.

Usually, places where needles can be exchanged, at least here, offer other services as well, like hepatitis and HIV testing. I think it's important that such places exist. It's, imo, a matter of public health. It, like you said, benefits non-users. It reduces, or at least aims to reduce, the spread of disease.

As for it encouraging abuse, I don't believe it does. In fact, given that such places often offer counselling and referrals to treatment facilities, the opposite is probably true.  

Seth

First of all I'd just like to put out there that I don't really care what people do (though I do believe drug abuse is destructive) but since theprodigalson is getting blitzkrieged by three of you and in an attempt to, hopefully, clarify the argument I'm going to play devils advocate.  

Quoted from Seth How I can equate such drugs is easy. In the end, they're all taken in an effort to make one feel better. It's as simple as that.

theprodigalson already made this augment but to further clarify:

Just because two unlike things share an attribute or quality does not make them the same or equivalent. For example, both ducks and jets fly. Are ducks and jets the same? Are they equivalent?

Things can even share many attributes and not be the same or equivalent. For example, little league baseball and major league baseball. Both are games that involve a ball, in both games you hit the ball with a bat, both games have nearly identical rules. That said there is a world of difference between little league baseball and major league baseball.  

Similarly, there is a world of difference between cocaine and alcohol. Cocaine is, in general for the general population, far more addictive and as such has a greater capacity to destroy ones life. Thus a hard drug like cocaine is not the same as alcohol or as far as I know most of the other drugs you mentioned.

Cocaine is not equivalent to viagra and abusing cocaine is certainly not equivalent to abusing Viagra.

Quoted from Seth It's not atypical for a parent to wake up, pop a Prozac, ply little Johnny with a Ritalin or two, then drop a Xanax. This same parent, no doubt, will tell little Johnny that Lindsay, being a drug addict, is a low-life, scum-bag.

Why does being a hypocrite make them wrong? Just because someone correctly and logically argues that Option A is better then Option B but still does Option B doesn't negate the argument. They are a hypocrite but Option A is still the better option, the argument has not been refuted.

Quoted from Seth Actually, as Death Monkey mentioned, Cocain, like Prozac or Viagra, has medicinal uses.

I might be mistaken, but from this and some other stuff it seems like you are arguing that abusing cocaine or other hard drugs isn't bad or destructive because they have some medicinal purposes. I don't understand this.

Point 1: Why does having some positive effects and usages completely negate all the bad effects. For example, Hitler help repair the German economy(arguably), gave the German people hope, and as is commonly said "made the trains run on time". Was Hitler still a net good for the German people? Was he a net good for the human race?

And more relevantly and importantly Point 2: Why are we arguing proper usages? I thought this was supposed to be about drug abuse? In which case it's by definition not being used for the proper usage or not in the correct(meaning healthy) manner.  

Quoted from Seth Your aunt had a medical condition. That said, she wasn't a loser. You though, for believeing her a loser, are a ... Never mind.

I don't know his aunt but why isn't she possibly a loser. Are having a medical condition and her being a loser mutually exclusive?

Quoted from Seth There are many studies -- peer reviewed -- that evidence a genetic component with respect to addiction. That said, how and why she is who she is, can't be summed up with a simple "she has no one to blame but herself."

It seems to me like you're saying that because people have genetic or social predispositions they have no personal accountability. I believe the notion that people are not ultimately held responsible for their actions or have personal accountability is very destructive to society.

Quoted from Seth As for it encouraging abuse, I don't believe it does. In fact, given that such places often offer counselling and referrals to treatment facilities, the opposite is probably true.

My experience when it comes to this is all second hand but since it's the only thing I have to go on:  From what I understand counseling and treatment isn't that effective until the addict has hit rock bottom and wants to change so I don't know if I buy your argument.

That said, I also believe that providing syringes would just enable the addict's disease to progress. So perhaps, the  treatments would be effective sooner then if their disease wasn't enabled and they might recover more quickly. Anyway, it would be most cost efficient if they didn't become addicts in the first place.

Besides that theres also all the negative social/economic consequences of illegal drug abuse, such as perpetuating Latin America drug cartels that do a lot of bad things but I'm too lazy to go on. The main point here is that drug abuse, especially illegal  drug abuse, has many consequences besides those directly felt by the person taking the drug which is what has been primarily discussed here so far.

sheepwalker  


  

Handing out needles and syringes is much cheaper than treating all those extra HIV cases you'd have if needle and syringe programs weren't around.

I work in a needle and syringe program and we embrace the harm reduction approach, which accepts that people are going to use drugs, but tries to reduce the harm associated with it by providing sterile injecting equipment and educating people about safer using. Obviously the old people just shouldn't do it line doesn't work. As far as I'm concerned addiction is a medical condition, not a moral issue, and should be treated as such. Bottom line is a lot of people try drugs and for most it doesn't become a problem. Unfortunately some people are predisposed to becoming addicts but this doesn't become apparent until it's too late. So are these people any worse than the respectable member of society who tried drugs a couple of times, but didn't get hooked? I'd say they were just unlucky.

I personally think they should decriminalize heroin and marijuana use, because the prohibition of them causes more harm than it prevents.

If you're interested in the drug debate have a look at these sites:

http://www.ihra.net/Barcelona/WhatHarmReductionMeansToMe

http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

Quoted from Seth How I can equate such drugs is easy. In the end, they're all taken in an effort to make one feel better. It's as simple as that.

Quoted from Soap Hands theprodigalson already made this augment but to further clarify: Just because two unlike things share an attribute or quality does not make them the same or equivalent. For example, both ducks and jets fly. Are ducks and jets the same? Are they equivalent? Things can even share many attributes and not be the same or equivalent. For example, little league baseball and major league baseball. Both are games that involve a ball, in both games you hit the ball with a bat, both games have nearly identical rules. That said there is a world of difference between little league baseball and major league baseball.   Similarly, there is a world of difference between cocaine and alcohol. Cocaine is, in general for the general population, far more addictive and as such has a greater capacity to destroy ones life. Thus a hard drug like cocaine is not the same as alcohol or as far as I know most of the other drugs you mentioned. Cocaine is not equivalent to viagra and abusing cocaine is certainly not equivalent to abusing Viagra.

I did not, and would not, argue that they are equivalent in terms of potential for abuse. What I did say is, they're taken for the same reason -- to make one feel better.  

Quoted from Seth It's not atypical for a parent to wake up, pop a Prozac, ply little Johnny with a Ritalin or two, then drop a Xanax. This same parent, no doubt, will tell little Johnny that Lindsay, being a drug addict, is a low-life, scum-bag.

Quoted from Soap Hands Why does being a hypocrite make them wrong? Just because someone correctly and logically argues that Option A is better then Option B but still does Option B doesn't negate the argument. They are a hypocrite but Option A is still the better option, the argument has not been refuted.

It doesn't make them wrong -- perhaps Lindsay is a low-life, scum-bag. I never argued otherwise. I only said that those, and there are many in this country, who believe Lindsay to be a low-life for taking illicit drugs, then ply their kid with Ritalin, pop a Prozac, then a Xanax, ought to, maybe, examine their own drug use.

Quoted from Seth Actually, as Death Monkey mentioned, Cocain, like Prozac or Viagra, has medicinal uses.

Quoted from Soap Hands I might be mistaken, but from this and some other stuff it seems like you are arguing that abusing cocaine or other hard drugs isn't bad or destructive because they have some medicinal purposes. I don't understand this.

Abusing any drug, be it legal or illegal, is, by definition, destructive.

Quoted from Soap Hands Point 1: Why does having some positive effects and usages completely negate all the bad effects.

I never said it did.

Quoted from Soap Hands For example, Hitler help repair the German economy(arguably), gave the German people hope, and as is commonly said "made the trains run on time". Was Hitler still a net good for the German people? Was he a net good for the human race? And more relevantly and importantly Point 2: Why are we arguing proper usages? I thought this was supposed to be about drug abuse? In which case it's by definition not being used for the proper usage or not in the correct(meaning healthy) manner.

The prodigal son stated that Cocain had but one use -- to numb the dumb. His comment was incorrect. It's as simple as that.

Quoted from Seth Your aunt had a medical condition. That said, she wasn't a loser. You though, for believeing her a loser, are a ... Never mind.

Quoted from Soap Hands I don't know his aunt but why isn't she possibly a loser. Are having a medical condition and her being a loser mutually exclusive?

  
Of course not. Theprodigalson said she was loser *because* she abused drugs and killed herself. I simply do not believe that those with medical conditions, who succumb to them, are losers.

Quoted from Seth There are many studies -- peer reviewed -- that evidence a genetic component with respect to addiction. That said, how and why she is who she is, can't be summed up with a simple "she has no one to blame but herself."

Quoted from Soap Hands It seems to me like you're saying that because people have genetic or social predispositions they have no personal accountability.

No. What I said, and I wish you had quoted what my comment was in reference to, is that something as complex as addiction can't be reduced to one simple thing, like lack of will-power or accountability.

Quoted from Soap Hands I believe the notion that people are not ultimately held responsible for their actions or have personal accountability is very destructive to society.

I don't disagree.

Quoted from Seth As for it encouraging abuse, I don't believe it does. In fact, given that such places often offer counselling and referrals to treatment facilities, the opposite is probably true.

Quoted from Soap Hands My experience when it comes to this is all second hand but since it's the only thing I have to go on:  From what I understand counseling and treatment isn't that effective until the addict has hit rock bottom and wants to change so I don't know if I buy your argument.

How about this argument, when an addict does want to change, he should have access to counselling and, if necessary, referrals to treatment. That's what such places provide.

Quoted from Soap Hands That said, I also believe that providing syringes would just enable the addict's disease to progress.

Addicts who shoot are going to continue to shoot regardless of whether or not they have, at their disposal, clean needles. That said, would you rather they not have access to clean needles and, as a consequence, spread disease -- to innocent persons?

Quoted from Soap Hands So perhaps, the  treatments would be effective sooner then if their disease wasn't enabled and they might recover more quickly. Anyway, it would be most cost efficient if they didn't become addicts in the first place. Besides that theres also all the negative social/economic consequences of illegal drug abuse, such as perpetuating Latin America drug cartels that do a lot of bad things but I'm too lazy to go on. The main point here is that drug abuse, especially illegal  drug abuse, has many consequences besides those directly felt by the person taking the drug which is what has been primarily discussed here so far.

And this is exactly why needle exchanges are, imo, so important -- because, as you say, drug abuse effects more than just the abuser -- a clean needle might mean the difference between life and death to an innocent person who unknowingly sleeps with a junkie.

Seth  

Quoted from Soap Hands theprodigalson already made this augment but to further clarify: Just because two unlike things share an attribute or quality does not make them the same or equivalent. For example, both ducks and jets fly. Are ducks and jets the same? Are they equivalent? Things can even share many attributes and not be the same or equivalent. For example, little league baseball and major league baseball. Both are games that involve a ball, in both games you hit the ball with a bat, both games have nearly identical rules. That said there is a world of difference between little league baseball and major league baseball.   Similarly, there is a world of difference between cocaine and alcohol. Cocaine is, in general for the general population, far more addictive and as such has a greater capacity to destroy ones life. Thus a hard drug like cocaine is not the same as alcohol or as far as I know most of the other drugs you mentioned. Cocaine is not equivalent to viagra and abusing cocaine is certainly not equivalent to abusing Viagra.

Now that you grouped me in with those who "blitzkrieged" theprodigalson, I feel obliged to reply to this point, if for nothing else, then just to clarify my position.

I've never said cocaine is the same as alcohol or viagra. I would never make such a claim. I simply responded to the ignorant statement that cocaine had just ONE use, which is wrong.

The prodigalson argued that people who used recreational drugs (even moderately, that is without being addicted) were losers simply for escaping through an illicit substance. Then I tried to show how he himself used drugs like ethanol and nicotine recreationally, yet didn't consider himself a loser. I find this hypocritical since the only difference in aforementioned arguement is the legality of the drug.

Again, I don't know if it was directed at me or you were scattershooting, but I've never equated the effects of alcohol to the effects of cocaine.

I don't know the situation in other countries, but in the UK I fear that handing junkies clean needles will not have the desired effect.

They tried the same method with underage pregnancies. They handed out condoms to schoolchildren in the belief that if they are having sex anyway, they may as well be safe.

Statistically it has been a disaster. The reason is that rather than encouargaing safe practice, it just encourages the practice full-stop. The kids need for sex develops and they become more likely to have sex with or without a condom. STD's and pregnancies have risen.

It would undoubtedly be the same with drugs. Drug addiction results in you needing more and more of the substance and ultimately the drive for it will go beyong safety levels in the few. People who have the time to go and pick up needles will probably have the wherewithal to do it safely in the first place.

Quoted from Death Monkey Still directed at prodigalson; a drug doesn't change chemical properties when crossing borders. Cocaine has the same uses in the U.S. as outside, they're just not LEGAL in the U.S. So if cocaine was legalized tomorrow, would you still be a loser for using it in moderation, like you use the legal drug ethanol in moderation?

Yes. What causes a user of the "Hard" drugs to be a loser as opposed to a tobacco smoker and normal alcohol drinker (I.E. two, three drinks a night) are more that just "Oh it's legal and that isn't" or a "Holier than thou" syndrome. It is the way they live there life, how they effect others and a whole lot more.

For the record, I didn't accuse you of being a coke head, I merely asked if you were since you seemed to love defending them so much.(I see why right-wing nuts love this tactic so much )


I should also say sorry to the original OP for my rantings and going off. I am sorry, but I hate to see a drugs that can help be lumped in with things that are more a determent then anything.


I am not against everything, quite the contrary. I think Marijuana should be legal in the same way tobacco and alcohol are. I believe that not only can it be good for medical use, but it is not as detrimental as a drug like cocaine is. And No, if pot was legal tomorrow I would NOT smoke it.

I also used to wonder if you could some how isolate the chemicals in cocaine that suppressed appetite and create a non addicting, weight loss drug. But this is all irrelevant.

Quoted from theprodigalson I should also say sorry to the original OP for my rantings and going off. I am sorry, but I hate to see a drugs that can help be lumped in with things that are more a determent then anything.

No need to apologize. I appreciate that you spoke your mind. And, really, my original post was idiotic -- I didn't explain my position very well.

Seth

Quoted from Takeshi Handing out needles and syringes is much cheaper than treating all those extra HIV cases you'd have if needle and syringe programs weren't around. I work in a needle and syringe program and we embrace the harm reduction approach, which accepts that people are going to use drugs, but tries to reduce the harm associated with it by providing sterile injecting equipment and educating people about safer using. Obviously the old people just shouldn't do it line doesn't work. As far as I'm concerned addiction is a medical condition, not a moral issue, and should be treated as such. Bottom line is a lot of people try drugs and for most it doesn't become a problem. Unfortunately some people are predisposed to becoming addicts but this doesn't become apparent until it's too late. So are these people any worse than the respectable member of society who tried drugs a couple of times, but didn't get hooked? I'd say they were just unlucky. I personally think they should decriminalize heroin and marijuana use, because the prohibition of them causes more harm than it prevents. If you're interested in the drug debate have a look at these sites: http://www.ihra.net/Barcelona/WhatHarmReductionMeansToMe http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

Good for you. I'm glad to read about someone who is DOING something about the drug problem rather then just talking about it.  

Quoted from theprodigalson Yes. What causes a user of the "Hard" drugs to be a loser as opposed to a tobacco smoker and normal alcohol drinker (I.E. two, three drinks a night) are more that just "Oh it's legal and that isn't" or a "Holier than thou" syndrome. It is the way they live there life, how they effect others and a whole lot more. For the record, I didn't accuse you of being a coke head, I merely asked if you were since you seemed to love defending them so much.(I see why right-wing nuts love this tactic so much )

First of all I don't defend cocaine. I don't like cocaine, and I don't think anyone should use it. But that doesn't change the fact that cocaine has other uses than just as a high-society recreational drug. It's simply fact. Just like saying that Osama Bin Laden didn't create AIDS isn't defending him, it's simply fact. No matter how much we may hate Osama.

Secondly you say that the reason why people who use hard drugs are losers is because of the way they live their lives and how this affects others. But by definition "using in moderation" means using, NOT abusing. It means being able to live your life as you would otherwise, just like you would live yours even though you use alcohol (in moderation). So if someone uses cocaine in moderation and it doesn't affect his life or anyone else's, is he still a loser? Or do you simply think this is impossible?

I think this is important because this is where the anti-drug campaign went wrong. They decided it was okay to lie, exaggerate and distort the truth because in the end "drugs are bad, mmkay?". That may be the case, but let's be honest about what drugs are, and what they do. Forget those condescending "this is your brain on crack" commercials or the "link" between marijuana and terrorism. Just tell the kids why we think it's a bad idea to do drugs instead of the scare tactics. Stick to the facts.

That's what I want from the discourse on drugs.

Quoted from suncrafter Good for you. I'm glad to read about someone who is DOING something about the drug problem rather then just talking about it.

About six years, I beat the living shit out of a local drug addict after he broke into my car.  Afterwards, I paid over $300 to replace the broken window and have my radio re-installed.

How's that for DOING something?


Phil

Quoted from Death Monkey First of all I don't defend cocaine. I don't like cocaine, and I don't think anyone should use it. But that doesn't change the fact that cocaine has other uses than just as a high-society recreational drug. It's simply fact. Just like saying that Osama Bin Laden didn't create AIDS isn't defending him, it's simply fact. No matter how much we may hate Osama. Secondly you say that the reason why people who use hard drugs are losers is because of the way they live their lives and how this affects others. But by definition "using in moderation" means using, NOT abusing. It means being able to live your life as you would otherwise, just like you would live yours even though you use alcohol (in moderation). So if someone uses cocaine in moderation and it doesn't affect his life or anyone else's, is he still a loser? Or do you simply think this is impossible? I think this is important because this is where the anti-drug campaign went wrong. They decided it was okay to lie, exaggerate and distort the truth because in the end "drugs are bad, mmkay?". That may be the case, but let's be honest about what drugs are, and what they do. Forget those condescending "this is your brain on crack" commercials or the "link" between marijuana and terrorism. Just tell the kids why we think it's a bad idea to do drugs instead of the scare tactics. Stick to the facts. That's what I want from the discourse on drugs.

I do not think it is possible to do coke in moderation, in much the same way I don't think you can smoke cigarettes in moderation. Cocaine is highly addictive, second only to about heroin when just talking about drugs.(this is opinion, not fact, if you an show me evidence other wise, I'll consider it) It may start out a line here or there, then it is two lines and finally it has you. Not to sound like a cheesy anti-drug commercial, but you get my point.

Quoted from theprodigalson I do not think it is possible to do coke in moderation, in much the same way I don't think you can smoke cigarettes in moderation. Cocaine is highly addictive, second only to about heroin when just talking about drugs.(this is opinion, not fact, if you an show me evidence other wise, I'll consider it) It may start out a line here or there, then it is two lines and finally it has you. Not to sound like a cheesy anti-drug commercial, but you get my point.

Well, you kinda do sound like a cheesy commercial. You use a generic anecdote about "it may starts out with a line or two...". Not very scientific.

What makes you say that you can't smoke in moderation?

I'm not saying cocaine isn't addictive. It definitely is. But that doesn't mean EVERYONE will get addicted. It depends on frequency and dosage. There are countless things you use everyday that are addictive.But even so, are you defining hard drugs by their addictiveness? How do you for instance feel about LSD?

Even more interesting, are you a loser for smoking? You mention the addictiveness of nicotine. Isn't your beef really with addictedness in general?

Quoted from Death Monkey Well, you kinda do sound like a cheesy commercial. You use a generic anecdote about "it may starts out with a line or two...". Not very scientific. What makes you say that you can't smoke in moderation? I'm not saying cocaine isn't addictive. It definitely is. But that doesn't mean EVERYONE will get addicted. It depends on frequency and dosage. There are countless things you use everyday that are addictive.But even so, are you defining hard drugs by their addictiveness? How do you for instance feel about LSD? Even more interesting, are you a loser for smoking? You mention the addictiveness of nicotine. Isn't your beef really with addictedness in general?

Fact is, I am against drugs because I have grown up around losers that abuse them and went no were with there life. (When I say grow up around them, I do not mean family. My parents are very cool people, and as an extension lots of people like to treat my parents like there parents. it is weird) The best drug education is seeing these people first hand. They are people I do not want to be, nor should other inspire to. Fact is drugs are addictive, and so are ciggs. But I hardly see anyone who smokes a cigg start to have there life do a downward spiral.

I may not have a lot of argument to back up my point, they are my beliefs. But this is how I feel.