WHO: Cocaine not so bad after all

[Eos of the Eons]

http://www.pharmacytechs.net/blog/old-school-medicine-ads

Old ads - stuff to make you feel better! Cocaine and heroin were rather popular.

The drug of choice around here for teenagers is alcohol. It is legal, and therefore very easy to get.

Cocaine numbs the nerves in the mouth. In the linked ads-it's for teething! I can't imagine what it does to the brain exactly when it is snorted. Being addictive via that route is not good. It is usually contaminated, and is worse as crack.

From the OP article:

The most common acute problem related to cocaine use is overdose, though these overdoses are often a combination of cocaine with other substances such as alcohol and minor tranquillisers. ​

Negative physical consequences most commonly reported from cocaine use include: sinus problems, perforated nasal septum, scarring and collapsed veins with injection, appetite and weight loss, and cardiovascular, pulmonary or nervous system damage.
...cocaine does not, in itself, induce weight loss. Rather, users may experience appetite loss or may lack sufficient resources to ensure a healthy diet. These factors would, in turn, foster undernutrition and weight loss. Cocaine often contributes to or exacerbates the conditions reported, rather than causing them.
Cocaine use is associated with impulsive acts which can lead to accidents
Even occasional cocaine use can lead to impaired judgement, increased risk of unsafe sex, and chaotic sexual behaviour.
A range of mental health problems are associated with cocaine use, though they are mainly limited to high-dosage users.
The most commonly mentioned mental health consequences of cocaine use include: paranoia (especially among crack users), memory loss, depression, anxiety, loss of cognitive skills or intellectual capacity, apathy, mood swings, aggression, social withdrawal and low self-esteem. A small number of respondents reported hallucinations, psychosis, sociopathy and obsessive-compulsive behaviour.

I find the study relies on subjective user reported data, rather than objective hard data. This is a big problem if they want to use this report to base recommendations on.

In 2003 studies looked at the effect of cocaine on the brain:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-01/uomh-chb121302.php

New research results strongly suggest that cocaine bites the hand that feeds it, in essence, by harming or even killing the very brain cells that trigger the "high" that cocaine users feel.

This first-ever direct finding of cocaine-induced damage to key cells in the human brain's dopamine "pleasure center" may help explain many aspects of cocaine addiction, and perhaps aid the development of anti-addiction drugs. It also could help scientists understand other disorders involving the same brain cells, including depression.

Messing with dopamine receptors long term will result in the long term paranoia effects.

The team previously showed that cocaine users have higher numbers of dopamine transporters, suggesting that the cells tried to make more return gateways to compensate for blocked ones. Recently, they showed in cell cultures that cocaine causes more dopamine transporters to travel from the interior of a cell to the membrane, increasing the overall dopamine uptake level.

This is what happens (more dopamine uptake than is normal) to schizophrenics when their brains go haywire, and the increased dopamine load causes widespread damage to the entire brain's system-leading to permament changes in thinking-leading to hallucinations and delusions of grandeur and paranoia. At least with LSD-the damage is not permanent and the symptoms dissappear after LSD use stops. This permanent damage from the cocaine use will cause the symptoms to be more permanent. Then, we lose dopamine receptors over time, and this could then start to reverse the effects, which could explain why my mom seems to improving over time (my mom has schizophrenia), but it is a wild ride until this finally starts to happen and causes an easing of symptoms. I would recommend not doing this to yourself and loved ones.

This is a different kind of damage than what is caused by tobacco and alchohol.
All three are bad for similar reasons for overall physical damage. Cocaine though, will lead to more permanent brain processing damage because of what it does to the dopamine system. Cigarettes cause another type of receptor to proliferate:

Chronic treatment of neuronal cultures with nicotine for 7 days differentially affected the number of nicotinic receptors in cells from different brain areas; it significantly increased the number of nicotinic binding sites in cells from the cerebral cortex, hippocampus, and caudate, but not in cells from the brainstem.

...but at least those will decrease once the nicotine is stopped. Alcohol causes a brain damage that will result in decreased brain matter-a totally different type of damage because of a "pickling" effect.

Alcohol, tobacco, and cocaine use will result in damage depending on the amount ingested, and depending on how long it is ingested. One therefore isn't "worse" or "better" than another, they just all cause different kinds of damage-and all lead to physical damage of some sort. Take your pick. Cocaine and alcohol impair judgement and really do a number on the brain. Tobacco causes cancer over time, but less damage results to the brain overall-especially if a person quits.

 

[RichardR]

Cocaine users 'risk getting Hep C'

A cloud for the silver lining.

Only amateurs use bank notes.

 

[The Painter]

If not, If we cannot factor out the "cut" and impurities ALL street drugs have, how can we know?

Most coke is cut with powdered baby formula.

 

[theMark]

Do you have a link to the study that article is based on?

I'm pretty much certain it's this one:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080

"Although postdecriminalization
usage rates have remained roughly the same or
even decreased slightly when compared with other
EU states, drug-related pathologies—such as sexually
transmitted diseases and deaths due to drug
usage—have decreased dramatically."

"In fact, for those two critical groups of
youth (13–15 years and 16–18 years), prevalence
rates have declined for virtually every
substance since decriminalization (see Figures
4 and 5)."

Sounds pretty much like a success story, but that's just a quote from the executive summary and from the content that I glanced over. I'm always ready to be told I read it wrong...

 

[Cavemonster]

I'm pretty much certain it's this one:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080

"Although postdecriminalization
usage rates have remained roughly the same or
even decreased slightly when compared with other
EU states, drug-related pathologies—such as sexually
transmitted diseases and deaths due to drug
usage—have decreased dramatically."

"In fact, for those two critical groups of
youth (13–15 years and 16–18 years), prevalence
rates have declined for virtually every
substance since decriminalization (see Figures
4 and 5)."

Sounds pretty much like a success story, but that's just a quote from the executive summary and from the content that I glanced over. I'm always ready to be told I read it wrong...

What I'm not sure about is the data they draw their conclusions from, the studies by the Institute on Drugs and Drug dependency of Portugal. How was the research conducted? It seems that self reporting would be the only way to get the data of drug use among teens and HIV patients, and even though these activities no longer carry jail time, there's still mandatory drug treatment, and social stigma, and for teens especially, many social reasons to reply dishonestly.

My search-fu is weak, anyone able to find links to the original studies the CATO paper is based on?

 

[Eos of the Eons]

What are the stats for STIs and deaths before and after the decriminalization?