WHO: Cocaine not so bad after all

Interesting link, I wonder if it's legit? Raises a few big and important questions for me if so. Mainly, what other studies are being "suppressed", and the "drug war" policy seems even more ridiculous in this light.

AgeGap said:
Cocaine users 'risk getting Hep C'

A cloud for the silver lining.
Click to expand...


Not the most effective rebuttal:

"By sharing the same gear to inject or snort cocaine, you could get Hepatitis C."
Click to expand...


I understand that it's not because of the substance itself, just don't share your needles or "bills".
 
Last edited:
Kuko 4000 said:
Not the most effective rebuttal:

I understand that it's not because of the substance itself, just don't share your needles or "bills".
Click to expand...

Agreed. Also, I suspect risk of transmission is lower for inhalers than for injectors, just due to the somewhat less direct pathway. (Nasal tissues *are* extremely porous though. Which is why inhalants work so well; it's a direct hop to the bloodstream once you get past that one bit of tissue. But that tissue *does* provide some at least filtering effect.)

I don't recall whether the recent Lancet article covers this.
 
+2

It's not the cocaine usage that puts someone at risk for Hep C, it's the insuffilation through bank notes. You shouldn't use bills to snort coke the same way shouldn't suck Coke (a-cola) through a rolled up bank note. Use a fresh straw. (for both products)
 
Now I've seen it all: a Satanic Sheep in Korea who loves coke products.

That, and Obama making a major speech dressed in a Batman outfit, are the final signs of the Apocalypse. One down, one to go. Repent, people.
 
Kuko 4000 said:
Interesting link, I wonder if it's legit?
Click to expand...

Based on a half an hour digging through the TDPF site I can't find any reason for not trusting them. Great organization, I think! But If you do find something shady, please share it :).

Raises a few big and important questions for me if so. Mainly, what other studies are being "suppressed", and the "drug war" policy seems even more ridiculous in this light.
Click to expand...

Agreed. To me this is one more reason to think of the UN (especially USA's participation in it) as little more than a joke (meaning the gap between what's claimed as goals and the actual direction headed towards by decisions). Sadly, it's one of the most influential jokes in the world...
 
paximperium said:
Strange...I guess coke wasn't the cause all those folks to die after all?
Click to expand...

Bad counterargument. Certainly heavy cocaine use is involved in sickness, problematic addiction, and death. However, so is heavy usage of alcohol or tobacco.

The argument to make is whether it is, overall, worse than those two drugs which are legally sanctioned and culturally promoted. If we consider them good enough to be permissible, then logically, anything that is better than them in terms of public health outcomes should be too.

Do you have data to support that overall comparison?

Magnifico2.0 said:
That, and Obama making a major speech dressed in a Batman outfit, are the final signs of the Apocalypse. One down, one to go. Repent, people.
Click to expand...

Huh, I don't seem to remember that part. Care to cite chapter and verse? ;)
 
paximperium said:
Sorry. I've seen way to many 20 year olds with heart attacks and heart failure to be sympathetic.
Click to expand...

How many drunk driving mashup victims have you seen? Alcohol-related violence victims? Cyrrhosis? Korsakoff's? Acute intoxication?

Yes, both suck. The question is whether cocaine sucks worse than alcohol or tobacco, because that's where we've drawn the line of what is an acceptable amount of suckage.
 
From what I can tell the paper was from 1995, and many of the 'medical consequences' were those reported by the users.

I am not sure that is a reliable way to judge mitral valve prolapse.

I am not countering the paper, I am comment on methodology.

The main issues with addiction (of which cocaine is highly addictive) are multiple, health, relationships and economic. Now is it a good thing to deal with addiction the way that many counties do, no. But I am not sur ethis study addresses the consequences of addiction either.
 
Last edited:
saizai said:
How many drunk driving mashup victims have you seen? Alcohol-related violence victims? Cyrrhosis? Korsakoff's? Acute intoxication?

Yes, both suck. The question is whether cocaine sucks worse than alcohol or tobacco, because that's where we've drawn the line of what is an acceptable amount of suckage.
Click to expand...


One of the risks is that the addictive profile is very high for cocaine, many more people exposed to it will potentially become addicted, although nicotine, as I recall has the higher addictive profile.

now as to alcohol being a 'bad' drug it sure is, the real issue I used to see with it is that it is physically damaging and easily available.

But these are legislative issue. The death rate from prolonged cocaine use has a faster onset than alcohol, but both are harmful in extended addiction.

(Again I am not passing judgment.)
 
saizai said:
<snip>

The argument to make is whether it is, overall, worse than those two drugs which are legally sanctioned and culturally promoted. If we consider them good enough to be permissible, then logically, anything that is better than them in terms of public health outcomes should be too.

<snip>
Click to expand...

Alcohol & Tobacco are bad for health and legal. Cocaine is bad for health as well, though possibly/probably not quite as bad as the latter two.

Therefore society will be magically improved if we have three (or more) drugs in wide use that are bad for health than two.

:boggled:
 
saizai said:
Bad counterargument. Certainly heavy cocaine use is involved in sickness, problematic addiction, and death. However, so is heavy usage of alcohol or tobacco.

The argument to make is whether it is, overall, worse than those two drugs which are legally sanctioned and culturally promoted. If we consider them good enough to be permissible, then logically, anything that is better than them in terms of public health outcomes should be too.

Do you have data to support that overall comparison?
Click to expand...

This is an issue of legislation, which is often removed from reality (black box warnings on anti-depressants, the high ctiminal status of marijuana, public nudity)

Legislation is often a product of emotion and manipulation. But the harmful effects of cocaine are a seperate issue from the legislative status.

The status of alcohol and tobacco are unrelated to the health risks.
 
saizai said:
How many drunk driving mashup victims have you seen? Alcohol-related violence victims? Cyrrhosis? Korsakoff's? Acute intoxication?

Yes, both suck. The question is whether cocaine sucks worse than alcohol or tobacco, because that's where we've drawn the line of what is an acceptable amount of suckage.
Click to expand...

Alternatively, we've let the cat out of the bag as far as alcohol and tobacco are concerned and there's no going back. The best we can do is damage limitation/mitigation. Why is this a reason to make the same mistake with cocaine?
 
Dancing David said:
One of the risks is that the addictive profile is very high for cocaine, many more people exposed to it will potentially become addicted, although nicotine, as I recall has the higher addictive profile.
Click to expand...

AFAIK nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs known. But yes, all of them are addictive, and that sucks.

now as to alcohol being a 'bad' drug it sure is, the real issue I used to see with it is that it is physically damaging and easily available.

But these are legislative issue. The death rate from prolonged cocaine use has a faster onset than alcohol, but both are harmful in extended addiction.
Click to expand...

All true. But remember what happened the last time the US tried to outlaw alcohol? We got a mafia.

Guess what happens now that we outlaw cocaine? Yup, same deal.

Ivor the Engineer said:
Alcohol & Tobacco are bad for health and legal. Cocaine is bad for health as well, though possibly/probably not quite as bad as the latter two.

Therefore society will be magically improved if we have three (or more) drugs in wide use that are bad for health than two.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about 'improving' society? This is about the status quo.

My point is only about the fact that we've already decided that X is OK. Things that are more ok than X are thus necessarily OK too. I suspect that the overall rates of cocaine usage would stay about the same - but we'd at least not have the problems that come from its illegality (per above).

Do you have any data to support the idea that legalizing cocaine would make us *worse* off?

I've nowhere said that cocaine isn't bad for you, it is. Lots of things are. I prefer to avoid 'em. But that's not in itself justification for outlawing them.

(For that matter - how much do you think our health care system spends as a result of fatty foods vs cocaine, including anything whatsoever related to addiction, violence, increased heart problems, etc.? Should we therefore outlaw fatty foods?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom