Sign In »
Register Now!
Help
I don't know... its a toss up. On one hand there is no really safe way to tell people how to take drugs because its all negative in the end. Preventing diseases from sharing needles etc I assumed was common knowledge but I guess if it educates in a general way then it might not be bad, but to target a specific group that actually does the drugs kinda encourages the behavior imo.
NYC and Heroin
Back to top
#22
Posted 20 January 2010 - 12:18 AM
Aliadim, on 19 January 2010 - 11:21 PM, said:
Teaching people how to do sex safely makes sense. Teaching people to use drugs safely is absurd.
Why?
~M
#23
Posted 20 January 2010 - 01:44 AM
People who would seriously use heroin should be given needle that have been scrubbed clean with a healthy dose of cyanide.
There are levels of drugs and levels of drug use. Chewing on a coca leaf, smoking marijuana, doing whatever the hell one does with peyote, or drinking alcohol are all relatively low impact. The body can handle it and bounce back without significant problem. Smoking opium is where the line starts to get crossed. Once we get into manufactured drugs (and, yes, alcohol can fit into that category and, given its toxicity, probably should), it has gone entirely too far. A person using that stuff is already dead and the kindest thing we could do for them is to put a bullet in their brain stem.
I say this as someone with several relatives who are addicts. I have seen addicts who recover and never use again, but the rate of recidivism among users of manufactured drugs like heroin, cocaine, and crack is staggering. I am frankly sick and tired of hearing about the hell my cousins endure because their parents are worthless junkies who bounce in and out of prison and halfway houses. It would be sad for a month or two to see them in a casket, but that beats the hell out of the gallons of bile produced over decades of abuse.
As for the pamphlet itself, it's nonsense. Ignoring that needleheads have no reason to continue existing and deserve the full consequences of their choices, the damned thing is armchair activism. If you really want a junkie to be safe, you do something more than providing him with tinder. This is as effectual and meaningful as dropping pamphlets over Darfur saying, "Please don't rape women and children, but, if you have to do it, here are some tips on how to not leave them crippled for life." There are people in the world who legitimately need to be told how to pour a beer into a glass so as to achieve the best head and there are people in the world who need to be told to insert Tab A into Slit B. That's about all pamphlets are good for, too. Real instruction, such as how to properly use a Chinese basket or cook your own methamphetamines, requires at least a book.
And, no, safer sex practices and safer drug use practices are not alike. What is being missed is that line I drew earlier, between natural and manufactured drugs. If you want to publish a pamphlet on how to safely smoke marijuana (is there a dangerous way beyond not setting your fingers on fire), that's fine. A pamphlet on how to shoot heroin safely is about on par with a pamphlet on how to safely castrate oneself, because injecting a powerful and deadly drug straight into your bloodstream is about as safe and sensible as performing home surgery on yourself, but people do both.
There are levels of drugs and levels of drug use. Chewing on a coca leaf, smoking marijuana, doing whatever the hell one does with peyote, or drinking alcohol are all relatively low impact. The body can handle it and bounce back without significant problem. Smoking opium is where the line starts to get crossed. Once we get into manufactured drugs (and, yes, alcohol can fit into that category and, given its toxicity, probably should), it has gone entirely too far. A person using that stuff is already dead and the kindest thing we could do for them is to put a bullet in their brain stem.
I say this as someone with several relatives who are addicts. I have seen addicts who recover and never use again, but the rate of recidivism among users of manufactured drugs like heroin, cocaine, and crack is staggering. I am frankly sick and tired of hearing about the hell my cousins endure because their parents are worthless junkies who bounce in and out of prison and halfway houses. It would be sad for a month or two to see them in a casket, but that beats the hell out of the gallons of bile produced over decades of abuse.
As for the pamphlet itself, it's nonsense. Ignoring that needleheads have no reason to continue existing and deserve the full consequences of their choices, the damned thing is armchair activism. If you really want a junkie to be safe, you do something more than providing him with tinder. This is as effectual and meaningful as dropping pamphlets over Darfur saying, "Please don't rape women and children, but, if you have to do it, here are some tips on how to not leave them crippled for life." There are people in the world who legitimately need to be told how to pour a beer into a glass so as to achieve the best head and there are people in the world who need to be told to insert Tab A into Slit B. That's about all pamphlets are good for, too. Real instruction, such as how to properly use a Chinese basket or cook your own methamphetamines, requires at least a book.
And, no, safer sex practices and safer drug use practices are not alike. What is being missed is that line I drew earlier, between natural and manufactured drugs. If you want to publish a pamphlet on how to safely smoke marijuana (is there a dangerous way beyond not setting your fingers on fire), that's fine. A pamphlet on how to shoot heroin safely is about on par with a pamphlet on how to safely castrate oneself, because injecting a powerful and deadly drug straight into your bloodstream is about as safe and sensible as performing home surgery on yourself, but people do both.
#24
Posted 20 January 2010 - 02:04 AM
motoh, on 20 January 2010 - 12:18 AM, said:
Why?
~M
~M
Path pretty much said it, but it should be obvious. A drug, especially a drug like heroin, is fatal by nature. Teaching someone the safe way to kill themselves is ironic, not useful.
#25
Posted 20 January 2010 - 08:30 AM
Quote
A drug, especially a drug like heroin, is fatal by nature
Funny, I was under the impression it was pretty harmless until you cut it.
Quote
There are levels of drugs and levels of drug use. Chewing on a coca leaf, smoking marijuana, doing whatever the hell one does with peyote, or drinking alcohol are all relatively low impact. The body can handle it and bounce back without significant problem. Smoking opium is where the line starts to get crossed. Once we get into manufactured drugs (and, yes, alcohol can fit into that category and, given its toxicity, probably should), it has gone entirely too far. A person using that stuff is already dead and the kindest thing we could do for them is to put a bullet in their brain stem.
Not really. There are levels of drug use only because there is legislation in place making it that way. You know a few junkies? What about alcoholics? Anyone with lung cancer from smoking? I'm sure you're aware of how much crime is created because of alcohol, and that both drugs cause more deaths than any other illegal substance. Yet selling these to people is perfectly fine, socially acceptable even. Regardless of your preference, a drug is a drug, from those turd smothered shrooms floating in your tea to the morphine they feed you in hospital.
There certainly are lines that need to be drawn, but synthetic drugs? Really? I drew my own lines, as most people do when frequently exposed to drugs, the irony being that this limitation was based upon my continuing addiction to nicotine. Heroin and crack cocaine are dangerous mostly because of the incredibly high chance you'll become physically dependant on them almost instantly (sound familiar smokers?) Providing a safe supply eliminates the need for some dirty arab to cut it with bleach, talcum powder, dust, whatever filth they use to bulk it up. People will take drugs, no matter how illegal you make it, so control the source. Keep it clean, safe, and tax the shit out of it. Given a choice I'd take a more expensive, safer alternative to the various random mix of chemicals I ram in every feasible orifice once every week or two.
Heroin addicts are a waste of space but I'm well aware that in order to straighten out the colossal clusterfuck of drug control, you can't ignore them. They deserve no pity, yet if making their shitty lives less painful makes it safer for anyone else who feels the need to take any drug, so be it.
Oh, for the record, you eat peyote.
#26
Posted 20 January 2010 - 09:02 AM
treelo, on 19 January 2010 - 09:52 PM, said:
The problem is, admitting that one of the most addictive and damaging substances is safe enough to prescribe will have all manner of drug-users in an uproar.
One can hope that the type A drug users who get off on the fact that they're doing something because it's dangerous, illegal, and socially unacceptable will find something else to get their risk fix off of. Maybe russian roulette.
Just for reference in case there's any of you out there.
Not like this.
Like this.
Have fun!
#27
Posted 20 January 2010 - 01:38 PM
treelo, on 20 January 2010 - 08:30 AM, said:
Not really. There are levels of drug use only because there is legislation in place making it that way. You know a few junkies? What about alcoholics? Anyone with lung cancer from smoking? I'm sure you're aware of how much crime is created because of alcohol, and that both drugs cause more deaths than any other illegal substance. Yet selling these to people is perfectly fine, socially acceptable even.
I actually object to virtually all substances. I imbibe alcohol maybe once a year, usually less, and that's about it. But the key difference between natural drugs and their manufactured derivatives is in terms of potency and addictiveness. Heroin, cocaine, and crystal meth are all schedule A drugs because the addiction process can happen instantly and risk of death with even one use is significantly higher than their less tinkered-with origins in opium, coca, and... actually, I don't know if there are any meaningful but natural amphetamines, but there are less potent mixes used medically. While it's entirely possible for someone to manage to kill themselves while drunk or from alcohol poisoning, alcohol has a very low risk of grabbing your brain by the throat from your first shitty can of Bud Lite, nor does cirrhosis of the liver (or emphysema, if we want to talk tobacco) threaten your life within hours of your first hit.
Even if you choose to disagree with my sentiment, I'm sure you see the point I was making about the worthlessness of publishing a pamphlet. It's a lame attempt to feel good about wishing these people dead when the more morally right option would be to hunt them down with a baseball bat and flatten their skulls.
#28
Posted 20 January 2010 - 03:09 PM
pathwriter, on 20 January 2010 - 01:38 PM, said:
I actually object to virtually all substances. I imbibe alcohol maybe once a year, usually less, and that's about it. But the key difference between natural drugs and their manufactured derivatives is in terms of potency and addictiveness. Heroin, cocaine, and crystal meth are all schedule A drugs because the addiction process can happen instantly and risk of death with even one use is significantly higher than their less tinkered-with origins in opium, coca, and... actually, I don't know if there are any meaningful but natural amphetamines, but there are less potent mixes used medically. While it's entirely possible for someone to manage to kill themselves while drunk or from alcohol poisoning, alcohol has a very low risk of grabbing your brain by the throat from your first shitty can of Bud Lite, nor does cirrhosis of the liver (or emphysema, if we want to talk tobacco) threaten your life within hours of your first hit.
Even if you choose to disagree with my sentiment, I'm sure you see the point I was making about the worthlessness of publishing a pamphlet. It's a lame attempt to feel good about wishing these people dead when the more morally right option would be to hunt them down with a baseball bat and flatten their skulls.
Even if you choose to disagree with my sentiment, I'm sure you see the point I was making about the worthlessness of publishing a pamphlet. It's a lame attempt to feel good about wishing these people dead when the more morally right option would be to hunt them down with a baseball bat and flatten their skulls.
Yes the pamphlet is useless, I said as much in my previous posts. I wouldn't even say it's about soothing consciences, just another pointless scheme to make it look like something is being done.
I find it interesting you oppose every substance, we probably wouldn't be here without some of them. That's without considering medicinal properties as well. Any particular reason?
#29
Posted 20 January 2010 - 05:10 PM
I should have said, "I object to the recreational use of psychoactive substances." Escapism is one thing, but if you basically have to kill your brain to find five minutes of pleasure in your life, then you should reconsider what you're really doing. That and I'm a control freak, which probably comes as no surprise, and I dislike the sensation of giving up control of myself. I just barely tolerate the use of alcohol as a social lubricant but wish people would recognize that it is the idea of alcohol that achieves the effect. Simply holding a drink at a party is enough to make a person loosen up; getting pissed is just asking for a severe headache and regrets later.
#30
Posted 20 January 2010 - 07:06 PM
I don't necessarily derive pleasure from taking drugs, but I can say I'll have a lot more fun on them. And yeah, I realise how it sounds before anyone jumps down my throat, but it's the truth. Most social drugs are just like being incredibly drunk, without feeling like you've nailed twenty pints. It's just an extreme loss of inhibition with a large dollop of... something unexplainable. It's difficult to not sound cliched, but if everyone went through the process of coming up on ecstacy for the first time, some of us might not be such cunts to one other. It's an experience I'll never forget, and that's really all drugs are about.
I don't put much weight behind the loss of control thing either. I hear it a lot, and used to think the same way, but it's just generally not true. There may be years worth of black holes in my memory from overindulgence, but I've never done something I didn't want to do. While everything sounds like a brilliant idea, you don't lose your ability to say no. It just takes you an hour to say, and hugs will probably be involved at some point.
As for social lubrication, I'm all for it. It takes five pints for me to stop proving people wrong, ten to get me to stop arguing completely. If you're lucky it'll look like a mini-ice age just hit my nose and I'll be a pleasure to talk to. If you're unlucky you'll be stood beside me on the dance floor after a few pills. I'm an unsociable bitch who loves having a good time, if people make chemicals to rectify my abrasive nature for several hours, you can bet your ass I'll be spending money on them. I do understand your point about the party atmosphere loosening people up, but some of us are looking for something a bit more drastic.
I don't think it's a view you'll easily grasp really. I've enjoyed all but two of my drug experiences, and I think they're fucking awesome. The drugs aren't the problem, it's the people making/selling/addicted to them that are. People making the law have no fucking clue either, Cannabis has been re-classfied at least twice over here in the past few years. The government department responsible for advising on drug law was ignored, then fired after declaring most drugs were safer than alcohol and tobacco. Dried shrooms are considered a class A substance, despite the mushrooms themselves being legal.
People turn to a variety of legal substitutes to escape the law, a lot of which are potentially more harmful, or do nothing. I found out a while back that I'd effectively been snorting "experimental plant food", the irony being that drug dealers stock the shit so they can't be busted for dealing class A drugs. The pamphlet just illustrates the complete ignorance of the decision makers, most of whom are too ashamed to admit they "smoked a joint in college but didn't like it." If you can justify legalising tobacco and alcohol, I fail to see why less harmful drugs are illegal.
I don't put much weight behind the loss of control thing either. I hear it a lot, and used to think the same way, but it's just generally not true. There may be years worth of black holes in my memory from overindulgence, but I've never done something I didn't want to do. While everything sounds like a brilliant idea, you don't lose your ability to say no. It just takes you an hour to say, and hugs will probably be involved at some point.
As for social lubrication, I'm all for it. It takes five pints for me to stop proving people wrong, ten to get me to stop arguing completely. If you're lucky it'll look like a mini-ice age just hit my nose and I'll be a pleasure to talk to. If you're unlucky you'll be stood beside me on the dance floor after a few pills. I'm an unsociable bitch who loves having a good time, if people make chemicals to rectify my abrasive nature for several hours, you can bet your ass I'll be spending money on them. I do understand your point about the party atmosphere loosening people up, but some of us are looking for something a bit more drastic.
I don't think it's a view you'll easily grasp really. I've enjoyed all but two of my drug experiences, and I think they're fucking awesome. The drugs aren't the problem, it's the people making/selling/addicted to them that are. People making the law have no fucking clue either, Cannabis has been re-classfied at least twice over here in the past few years. The government department responsible for advising on drug law was ignored, then fired after declaring most drugs were safer than alcohol and tobacco. Dried shrooms are considered a class A substance, despite the mushrooms themselves being legal.
People turn to a variety of legal substitutes to escape the law, a lot of which are potentially more harmful, or do nothing. I found out a while back that I'd effectively been snorting "experimental plant food", the irony being that drug dealers stock the shit so they can't be busted for dealing class A drugs. The pamphlet just illustrates the complete ignorance of the decision makers, most of whom are too ashamed to admit they "smoked a joint in college but didn't like it." If you can justify legalising tobacco and alcohol, I fail to see why less harmful drugs are illegal.
#31
Posted 21 January 2010 - 01:57 AM
I'll point out that what I'm referring to as control and what you're thinking of are not the same thing. I've been quite incredibly drunk and I'm still able to glibly lie, speak multiple languages, and even type (I'll admit that last one is more difficult). I remain wholly in control of my faculties, but my perceptions are markedly skewed and the sober little part of my mind is standing in the background making sure that things don't get too far out of line. I've also taken extremely powerful opium-derived pain killers, the sort that I could be arrested for if I simply threw them out in the garbage. I did not appreciate the sensation of being separated from my body in the slightest, but it was that or continue living with excruciating pain, so I followed the doctor's orders. I have no experience with amphetamines, cocaine, or hallucinogens and I'm not interested, either, having studied the pharmacology. About the only illicit drug I'd even consider letting into my system is MDMA (again, because I know the pharmacology) and, as you've pointed out, I don't trust a street dealer to sell me oregano on demand, much less something illegal.
I will emphatically say that you don't need the alcohol to stop being a heinous bitch, though. You think you do, but someone could slip you non-alcoholic beer and, assuming you were in your pub of choice, you'd act as you normally do when drinking. You'd even elicit the same kinds of physiological responses in spite of having no poisons invading your body. The mind is a powerful thing. Even though I give the appearance of one who has drunk a lot when I do rarely drink, it is largely an act on my part enhanced by everyone else playing along. Since I'm incredibly sensitive to the taste and smell of alcohol (the claim that top-shelf vodka has no taste or odor is not true for me), I avoid drinking and I dilute the hell out of it with something sugared, just like a 16-year-old girl getting ready for her first dose of RU-486.
The substance is just an excuse, if we're talking about drugs that operate on more or less the same level as alcohol or marijuana. At least in a social context, assuming you aren't friends with children whose idea of drinking is to pour as much cheap liquor down their throats as possible, there are worse things you could do. The real problem begins when you start using substances alone. The few times I've been depressed enough to drink alone, I just end up bugging anyone I can find over the internet. Watching my brother wait for everyone to leave so he can smoke a joint, though, is a sure sign of a troubled psyche that is not being aided by an addictive substance.
Should drug law be re-assessed in a serious and rational way? Yes. Even someone as patently straight-edge as me is willing to admit that marijuana is no worse than alcohol or tobacco. But promoting the use of heroin by any means, even just the safe use of recreational intravenous needles, is something that should remain squarely illegal. It's simply too dangerous a drug.
Let's draw a parallel, though, and a better one than that lame attempt to compare sex and drugs. Let's talk about guns. Here in the US, a large array of guns are legal, although you have to be a certain age to own a certain sort of weapon and there are plenty of models that are completely illegal to own outside of government control (which would be equivalent to the incredibly powerful drugs controlled by physicians). At the end of the day, the government, which is a function of society as a group (or it should be, anyhow), has to put its foot down and say, "Assault rifles are entirely too dangerous and serve no practical or redeeming purpose to the average citizen; they're illegal." Heroin falls into the same category. Knowing that assault rifles or anti-tank guns or whatever other kind of insane ordnance you can get your hands on is illegal does not mean that the government should feel compelled to publish articles and pamphlets on how to safely operate one's bazooka. It's pretty much a given that if you have a bazooka or an addiction to smack, you're already beyond the point of talking about safety.
I will emphatically say that you don't need the alcohol to stop being a heinous bitch, though. You think you do, but someone could slip you non-alcoholic beer and, assuming you were in your pub of choice, you'd act as you normally do when drinking. You'd even elicit the same kinds of physiological responses in spite of having no poisons invading your body. The mind is a powerful thing. Even though I give the appearance of one who has drunk a lot when I do rarely drink, it is largely an act on my part enhanced by everyone else playing along. Since I'm incredibly sensitive to the taste and smell of alcohol (the claim that top-shelf vodka has no taste or odor is not true for me), I avoid drinking and I dilute the hell out of it with something sugared, just like a 16-year-old girl getting ready for her first dose of RU-486.
The substance is just an excuse, if we're talking about drugs that operate on more or less the same level as alcohol or marijuana. At least in a social context, assuming you aren't friends with children whose idea of drinking is to pour as much cheap liquor down their throats as possible, there are worse things you could do. The real problem begins when you start using substances alone. The few times I've been depressed enough to drink alone, I just end up bugging anyone I can find over the internet. Watching my brother wait for everyone to leave so he can smoke a joint, though, is a sure sign of a troubled psyche that is not being aided by an addictive substance.
Should drug law be re-assessed in a serious and rational way? Yes. Even someone as patently straight-edge as me is willing to admit that marijuana is no worse than alcohol or tobacco. But promoting the use of heroin by any means, even just the safe use of recreational intravenous needles, is something that should remain squarely illegal. It's simply too dangerous a drug.
Let's draw a parallel, though, and a better one than that lame attempt to compare sex and drugs. Let's talk about guns. Here in the US, a large array of guns are legal, although you have to be a certain age to own a certain sort of weapon and there are plenty of models that are completely illegal to own outside of government control (which would be equivalent to the incredibly powerful drugs controlled by physicians). At the end of the day, the government, which is a function of society as a group (or it should be, anyhow), has to put its foot down and say, "Assault rifles are entirely too dangerous and serve no practical or redeeming purpose to the average citizen; they're illegal." Heroin falls into the same category. Knowing that assault rifles or anti-tank guns or whatever other kind of insane ordnance you can get your hands on is illegal does not mean that the government should feel compelled to publish articles and pamphlets on how to safely operate one's bazooka. It's pretty much a given that if you have a bazooka or an addiction to smack, you're already beyond the point of talking about safety.
#32
Posted 30 January 2010 - 07:27 PM
Aliadim, on 19 January 2010 - 11:21 PM, said:
You've not proven this wasn't a bad comparison. Everything bad is handled similarly, but they vary in actual severity. Teaching people how to do sex safely makes sense. Teaching people to use drugs safely is absurd. So, a few kids don't get diseases and don't make some teen girl pregnant. Fantastic. Now we have new druggies that do it properly. Hoorah!
While sex might have been 100% safe a long time ago, it is not that way now. Potentially any person you sleep with now is a loaded gun, much like shooting up. It doesn't matter if the act of sex is 100% safe or not. The act of injecting something into your veins is safe if there were not those few drugs that ruined it. Much like you point out that it's those few people with STDs that ruined the safe act of sex.
You starting to see the comparison that everyone else can?
EDIT:
Just read this page of the thread. Path, I disagree with the act of holding a drink being enough of a social lubricant. It works that way for some people, but I don't feel loosened up until after about 2 drinks when I start getting tipsy. That's when I don't care about dancing with friends or talking in large groups. I do however agree about getting hammered. There is a difference between getting loosened up and getting completely hammered to the point of blacking out. Unfortunately I've gotten to that stage before, but at least I know my limit and when to slow down now.
I've done a lot of drugs, and to generalize it to the point of stating it's basically fatal for 5 minutes of pleasure is a bit of a crock. I'm sure you knew you were exaggerating though. I don't understand why people get addicted to certain drugs, because I honestly cannot stand the majority of hard drugs. But then again, everyone reacts differently.
