Both drugs are pain killers. It's more like paracetamol/acetaminophen + codeine rather than codeine laced with paracetamol/acetaminophen and is prescribed when paracetamol/acetaminophen does not provide enough pain relief on its own.
That is true. The acetominophen(tylenol) in them is the more dangerous part.
Now are they putting it in for that reason or for a synergistic effect that you get with multiple painkillers? The latter reason is the stated explanation of it.
I don't want to sound cliched but what about the children?
So the idea is to legalize these drugs and control them like tobacco and alcohol, but the problem is that we suck at controlling tobacco and alcohol. Thousands of teenagers start smoking and drinking every year. How do we stop that from happening with other drugs?
So the idea is to legalize these drugs and control them like tobacco and alcohol, but the problem is that we suck at controlling tobacco and alcohol. Thousands of teenagers start smoking and drinking every year. How do we stop that from happening with other drugs?
I think teens are already trying other drugs regardless of their legality. Most drugs teens can get their hands on really aren't that awful or even addicting: cannabis, k2, salvia, shrooms.
I think most teens are scared ****less by heroin, crack, and meth, so they probably aren't likely to try it even if it was legal. And those who would are probably the types to use those drugs regardless of their legality.
Abstinence doesn't work. Instead, if some percentage of teens are going to use drugs, its very important to teach them to be safe, have fun, and seek help if they have a problem.
I don't want to sound cliched but what about the children?
So the idea is to legalize these drugs and control them like tobacco and alcohol, but the problem is that we suck at controlling tobacco and alcohol. Thousands of teenagers start smoking and drinking every year. How do we stop that from happening with other drugs?
I think teens are already trying other drugs regardless of their legality. Most drugs teens can get their hands on really aren't that awful or even addicting: cannabis, k2, salvia, shrooms.
I think most teens are scared ****less by heroin, crack, and meth, so they probably aren't likely to try it even if it was legal. And those who would are probably the types to use those drugs regardless of their legality.
Abstinence doesn't work. Instead, if some percentage of teens are going to use drugs, its very important to teach them to be safe, have fun, and seek help if they have a problem.
But once more addictive illegal drugs are legalized, they'll eventually be more accepted by mainstream society and the fear will disappear.
As for teaching teens the "right way" to use those drugs, is that possible? Maybe a drug like meth is so addictive to most people that there is no safe way of using it.
Which drugs are you talking about? I'd agree with you for cannabis, salvia, LSD, and maybe MDMA just a little bit, they're a lot less scary than they used to be. But meth, crack, heroin, there's no possible way to destigmatize those, they eat a person from the inside out.
Speaking anecdotally, I know plenty of people who have no problems with others using cannabis, but have no want or need to use it themselves. Its not that they fear the drug, believe they'll be dependent, they simply just don't like drugs -- just not their cup of tea, no different from the way I found the taste of alcohol absolutely hideous and have no desire to use that substance ever again.
As for teaching teens the "right way" to use those drugs, is that possible? Maybe a drug like meth is so addictive to most people that there is no safe way of using it.
Safe injecting rooms are a tried and proven way to use meth safely. These places provide clean needles, staffed with doctors who can respond instantaneously in the event of an overdose, and while they don't appear to actually reduce drug usage, they reduce the dangers of public injecting.
<SNIP>
Its also important to teach people that drugs should be taken to improve a good mood, rather than neutralize a bad mood. Drugs can feed depression.
I think cannabis users should be encouraged to limit their usage to social gatherings. Nobody wants to be a burnout.
Mushroom hunting can be a lot of fun, but there are tons of poisonous mushrooms which can be potentially lethal or outright agonizing if eaten. Mushroom hunters should be very sure you know what you're looking for, know what's edible and what isn't. Erowid is an invaluable resource for psychoactives in general, and its mushroom guide has tons of pictures, and information to help people pick safely. (And hey, you might find a few nice morels too.)
And it can't be stressed enough that you should never drive while high.
<SNIP>
Edited by kmortis:
Removed advocation references
Do not even hint at drug advocation.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: kmortis
Which drugs are you talking about? I'd agree with you for cannabis, salvia, LSD, and maybe MDMA just a little bit, they're a lot less scary than they used to be. But meth, crack, heroin, there's no possible way to destigmatize those, they eat a person from the inside out.
Speaking anecdotally, I know plenty of people who have no problems with others using cannabis, but have no want or need to use it themselves. Its not that they fear the drug, believe they'll be dependent, they simply just don't like drugs -- just not their cup of tea, no different from the way I found the taste of alcohol absolutely hideous and have no desire to use that substance ever again.
As for teaching teens the "right way" to use those drugs, is that possible? Maybe a drug like meth is so addictive to most people that there is no safe way of using it.
Safe injecting rooms are a tried and proven way to use meth safely. These places provide clean needles, staffed with doctors who can respond instantaneously in the event of an overdose, and while they don't appear to actually reduce drug usage, they reduce the dangers of public injecting.
<SNIP>
Its also important to teach people that drugs should be taken to improve a good mood, rather than neutralize a bad mood. Drugs can feed depression.
I think cannabis users should be encouraged to limit their usage to social gatherings. Nobody wants to be a burnout.
Mushroom hunting can be a lot of fun, but there are tons of poisonous mushrooms which can be potentially lethal or outright agonizing if eaten. Mushroom hunters should be very sure you know what you're looking for, know what's edible and what isn't. Erowid is an invaluable resource for psychoactives in general, and its mushroom guide has tons of pictures, and information to help people pick safely. (And hey, you might find a few nice morels too.)
And it can't be stressed enough that you should never drive while high.
<SNIP>
Edited by kmortis:
Removed the more obvious advocation references
Do not even hint at drug advocation.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: kmortis
Would the answers to these questions be any different from the answers which society has already determined for the range of legal drugs which we have available?
Would the answers to these questions be any different from the answers which society has already determined for the range of legal drugs which we have available?
A comprehensive harm reduction strategy would have the state providing instructions on how to use heroin, meth and crack as safely as possible. At what point should the state say 'sorry, what you're about to do is so reckless you're on your own'?
I'm not talking about providing clean needles or safe rooms for addicts, which I think is a reasonable approach, but rather the state providing assistance to those interested in trying hard drugs for the first time.
Legal drugs, particularly prescription drugs are way more dangerous, particularly the hydrocodone/acetaminophen family of drugs (vicodin, percoset, lortab). There is an interesting comment about these drugs on a pain killer comparison chart:
Yes, some governments outlaw things that are probably on balance not that harmful but I don't think that negates my point.
Comparisons with legal medications are I think a bit apples and oranges since they are controlled and prescribed for a particular purpose and for a limited time with an expected health benefit as an outcome.
That's quite different to making them freely available to anyone that wants them for whatever reason.
Would the answers to these questions be any different from the answers which society has already determined for the range of legal drugs which we have available?
Society does a pretty poor job of controlling the use of legal drugs. For all the 'please drink responsibly' and measuring units and advertising about how bad being drunk is a large section of people who drink do so to excess and in a manner contrary to the advice given by those who know best.
Similarly for tobacco, caffeine, and anything else you want to discuss. Hell even a lot of prescription drugs aren't taken in the way specified by the doc.
Now thankfully with those drugs its actually reasonably difficult to mess up your life totally and irreparably - and yet some people still manage it.
Somehow I can't imagine that your typical binge-drinking, chain smoker is suddenly going to adopt a responsible attitude to a quiet night out at the local clean-needle meth facility on a Friday night with a stone cold sober mate in tow just in case anything should happen that's slightly untoward.
Society does a pretty poor job of controlling the use of legal drugs. For all the 'please drink responsibly' and measuring units and advertising about how bad being drunk is a large section of people who drink do so to excess and in a manner contrary to the advice given by those who know best.
Similarly for tobacco, caffeine, and anything else you want to discuss. Hell even a lot of prescription drugs aren't taken in the way specified by the doc.
Now thankfully with those drugs its actually reasonably difficult to mess up your life totally and irreparably - and yet some people still manage it.
Somehow I can't imagine that your typical binge-drinking, chain smoker is suddenly going to adopt a responsible attitude to a quiet night out at the local clean-needle meth facility on a Friday night with a stone cold sober mate in tow just in case anything should happen that's slightly untoward.
Whilst every addict is a tragedy, it is peanuts compared to large organisations of murderous thugs destabilising whole nations and killing tens of thousands of people in the process.
We in the consumer countries have lost all sense of proportion in this regard.
The producer countries are bearing the brunt of the war on drugs and the price they pay astonishingly high.
I'd like to examine this idea of how much 'regulation' is required in a 'legalized' drug environment. Its been proposed here, that some drugs should be legalized, and others not. Or conversely that all drugs be legalized, but a number of steps be taken to mitigate certain drugs - a different kind of regulation, if you will.
The first scenario I'd like to explore, is the concept of using MDMA in a 'medically supervised' environment - ie, at a nightclub or similar facility, with some sort of medic/assistant on hand. It was pointed out to me that in some venues in the UK, this already happens. I presume in these cases, the nightclubs in question have found it expedient to fund this - through reduced security incidents, reduced insurance premiums, reduced legal issues, reduced bad publicity. I am making the assumption that the government is not involved in this supervision.
Pretend for a moment, that the government DOES decide to fund medical supervision in venues where drugs are commonly used. If we assume that say... 1:1000 incidents of MDMA use requires a medical intervention of some kind. Are there any other recreational activities with similar risk rates where the government supplies supervision? Downhill skiing? Skateboard/bmx parks? Community team full-contact sports such as rugby or lacrosse? I can't think of any. Sure, the government may issue warnings, post signs, even pass laws about safety gear. But actually actively 'monitor' these sorts of activities? I can't think of any. Some private organizations may choose to do this (professional sports teams, a private facility offering bungee jumping, or other 'extreme' sports activities) but presumably these private facilities are using similar logic to the nightclubs in the UK.
So why is it in the public's interest to allow for 'safe' venues to engage in recreational activity? I can think of the following reasons:
- Empathy/wish to allieve unnecessary suffering
- Reduce costs associated with high medical expenses (HIV transmission, Hep C transmission, other illnesses)
- Reduce policing costs associated ('green zones' where people won't end up incarcerated for otherwise criminal activity)
So while it can be argued that safe shooting galleries (such as the Vancouver Insite project) meet some of these above goals, just how far do we extend this level of control & safety nets? Lets face it, it is only a small portion of the greater population who chooses to engage in recreational drug activity - whether its a hit of MDMA at a nightclub, or an extended heroin habit. On whose dime should all this policing and supervision fall?
In countries with socialized medicine, the economic decisions are relatively cut and dried. If sending doctors to nightclubs to watch people engage in recreation costs less than paying for their hospital bills, then I guess it makes sense. But should we not raise the same questions about ski hills and scuba diving?
If we adopt a userpay model - ie, we legalize but regulate and tax drugs to cover the expenses, we need to make sure the net price is less than what dealers are currently selling the stuff for now. Unfortunately, the markups seem to be very high for most narcotics, and the businesspeople who run the economy are pretty resilient and capable of coming up with new ways to avoid barriers. Unlike alcohol or tobacco - where it can be argued that people's home brews or home grown tobacco (where that even exists) would never replace the 'regulated' or at least 'entrenched' industries in place; many narcotics are relatively easily produced.
Another issue is that of legal liability. Already we've seen a number of successful lawsuits against 'big tobacco'. I haven't heard of the same against 'big booze' but I'm sure lawyers are looking for ways. Certainly the lawsuits against 'big pharma' have a measurable impact on pharmaceuticals today. I find it hard to believe that Pfizer really would be that interested in producing 'iEcstasy - take 2 tabs, stay hydrated, go to a place with music, lights & a medic for 'just in case', chew gum or suck on a hard candy to prevent teeth grinding, carry appropriate STD protective devices because you may be horny' - the potential for lawsuits is just too high.
Fundamentally, I have no qualms with allowing people the freedom to injest whatever they want. I also don't want the burden of policing/paying for it. It is a rather delicate balancing act.
Whilst every addict is a tragedy, it is peanuts compared to large organisations of murderous thugs destabilising whole nations and killing tens of thousands of people in the process.
We in the consumer countries have lost all sense of proportion in this regard.
The producer countries are bearing the brunt of the war on drugs and the price they pay astonishingly high.
I don't think they are. And my comment was not meant as an attack.
But saying that we cannot decriminalise/legalise because of people ****** up their life with drugs, means that we keep it illegal. And that means a black market, turf wars, billions of $ in the pockets of deeply immoral people who can use this cash to subvert and corrupt political and legal institutions that are the bedrock of stable and fair societies.
The idea I want to explore is ending the war on drugs with a minimum of damage on users and the societies they live in. A kind of smart legalization where we kill the black market and protect the user.
A comprehensive harm reduction strategy would have the state providing instructions on how to use heroin, meth and crack as safely as possible. At what point should the state say 'sorry, what you're about to do is so reckless you're on your own'?
Think about sex-education: almost everyone understands that abstinence-only education does not work, and its actually more harmful because it seriously undereducates or even seriously misinforms people on how to be safe. People will do whatever the hell they want, knowing how to protect themselves from harm is absolutely invaluable. Stating that condoms prevent transmission of HIV does not advise teens to start having sex.
Abstinence-only approaches to recreational drug usage don't work either, so the focus should be on harm reduction. People end up in the hospital all the time from heroin usage not because they overdose, but they blow an air bubble into their veins. People seriously injure or kill themselves because they don't have access to information which could have potentially avoided the situation.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
