Professor advocates heroin use

[Kron3007]

Anyone who refuses to understand that putting smoke in their lungs is bad for them...deserves to.

I think most people would admit that inhaling snake is not healthy, and choose to do so with their eyes open.  This does not however, mean that all smoke is created equal, and the evidence just does not support the conclusion that cannabis is as harmful as tobacco for many reasons.  It is also true that the cannabis market is shifting away from smoking and other forms of injection are growing, so cannabis use is not necessarily inexorably linked to smoking.

This is also the case for alcohol, fried food, etc.  However, I don't judge people who choose to eat doughnuts instead of carrots or wish them harm. 

[Kron3007]

Awright, I'll face up, 'maximizing personal freedom' is of little to no concern to me.  I am an opponent of godless libertarianism, and, yes, am essentially a Purtianesque paternalist.   Heroin use, whether legalized or otherwise, is unambiguously awful, and should not be permitted.   Period.  As to weed, it ain't good either-- before one cries 'medical marijuana', explain why it is that the THC in weed cannot be distilled to pill form for the user to take--- we know comparatively little about weed's ill effects as opposed to baccky because we were largely prevented from studying the former, whereas the latter has been studied up the wazoo for three generations.  But what we are learning now about weed is enough to confirm what I have to look at daily, at Walmart, even in users that have never used hard drugs and likely never will.   I am in favor of strong governmental intervention to suppress vice and create better living conditions for people, period.

I got to thinking more at work today regarding why tobacco cigs are considered bad now whereas weed is increasingly viewed as 'chic', even by those who'd never think of using it.   50-60 years back, smoking was more or less equally distributed across American socioeconomic classes, but then we began to experience a significant quit-off amongst middle class and above folks, meaning that now cig use is largely confined to the working and lower classes, acquiring thereby an increased social stigma from their betters.   Weed, otoh, whilst many of the lower classes use it, is also 'chic' amongst many of the upper orders.

Perhaps you should move to China or something then, or maybe Iran to get more religious zeal.  Would you also want the government to prescribe your diet due to the obesity epidemic (causes way more harm than weed ever will)?

[marshwiggle]

I got to thinking more at work today regarding why tobacco cigs are considered bad now whereas weed is increasingly viewed as 'chic', even by those who'd never think of using it.   50-60 years back, smoking was more or less equally distributed across American socioeconomic classes, but then we began to experience a significant quit-off amongst middle class and above folks, meaning that now cig use is largely confined to the working and lower classes, acquiring thereby an increased social stigma from their betters.   Weed, otoh, whilst many of the lower classes use it, is also 'chic' amongst many of the upper orders.

That makes sense.

Perhaps you should move to China or something then.  Would you also want the government to prescribe your diet due to the obesity epidemic?

Food is necessary for life. Non-medicinal drugs aren't. And in fact, there are all kinds of government regulations about possession and labelling of substances that are poisonous. With all of the deaths due to fentanyl, where tiny quantities are fatal, is it reasonable to believe that giving freer access to it will somehow be an improvement, no matter what sort of community "supports" there are? Human beings make all kinds of short-sighted and simply bad decisions, as evidenced by the obesity epidemic. There is a balance to be sought between personal freedom and epidemics of harm due to *bad impulse control.


*Everyone has issues about which they struggle to make good choices. It's not limited to any one group or socioeconomic status.

[Kron3007]

Awright, I'll face up, 'maximizing personal freedom' is of little to no concern to me.  I am an opponent of godless libertarianism, and, yes, am essentially a Purtianesque paternalist.   Heroin use, whether legalized or otherwise, is unambiguously awful, and should not be permitted.   Period.  As to weed, it ain't good either-- before one cries 'medical marijuana', explain why it is that the THC in weed cannot be distilled to pill form for the user to take--- we know comparatively little about weed's ill effects as opposed to baccky because we were largely prevented from studying the former, whereas the latter has been studied up the wazoo for three generations.  But what we are learning now about weed is enough to confirm what I have to look at daily, at Walmart, even in users that have never used hard drugs and likely never will.   I am in favor of strong governmental intervention to suppress vice and create better living conditions for people, period.

I got to thinking more at work today regarding why tobacco cigs are considered bad now whereas weed is increasingly viewed as 'chic', even by those who'd never think of using it.   50-60 years back, smoking was more or less equally distributed across American socioeconomic classes, but then we began to experience a significant quit-off amongst middle class and above folks, meaning that now cig use is largely confined to the working and lower classes, acquiring thereby an increased social stigma from their betters.   Weed, otoh, whilst many of the lower classes use it, is also 'chic' amongst many of the upper orders.

As for the reason that people don't want to rely on extracted and purified THC if you actually care (which is unlikely), if is because THC is one of many bioactive compounds in the plant.  The belief is that many of these compounds interact and that the end effect is different depending on the specific combination.  As such, the pharma approach may not have the same effect.

This may sounds like hippy mumbo jumbo to you, but it is actually very common with medicinal plants.  For example, they have done a lot of work with at John's wort, and found that the crude plant extract was more effective than the equivalent amount of the main compounds.  Likewise, some quinine resistant strains of malaria are still susceptible to crude extracts from the chinchona tree (where the compound originates).  So, the use of purified compounds is not necessarily equivalent to whole plant products.

I know you don't care about freedoms so much, but now you want to tell people how they should medicate?  Why does it matter to you if they get THC in a pill or plant?  In both cases they would be high.

[Kron3007]

I got to thinking more at work today regarding why tobacco cigs are considered bad now whereas weed is increasingly viewed as 'chic', even by those who'd never think of using it.   50-60 years back, smoking was more or less equally distributed across American socioeconomic classes, but then we began to experience a significant quit-off amongst middle class and above folks, meaning that now cig use is largely confined to the working and lower classes, acquiring thereby an increased social stigma from their betters.   Weed, otoh, whilst many of the lower classes use it, is also 'chic' amongst many of the upper orders.

That makes sense.

Perhaps you should move to China or something then.  Would you also want the government to prescribe your diet due to the obesity epidemic?

Food is necessary for life. Non-medicinal drugs aren't. And in fact, there are all kinds of government regulations about possession and labelling of substances that are poisonous. With all of the deaths due to fentanyl, where tiny quantities are fatal, is it reasonable to believe that giving freer access to it will somehow be an improvement, no matter what sort of community "supports" there are? Human beings make all kinds of short-sighted and simply bad decisions, as evidenced by the obesity epidemic. There is a balance to be sought between personal freedom and epidemics of harm due to *bad impulse control.


*Everyone has issues about which they struggle to make good choices. It's not limited to any one group or socioeconomic status.

Most (or at least many) people who overdose on fentanyl were not out trying to do fentanyl.  It is often found as a contaminant in relatively safer drugs and results in accidental OD.  If it were legal, this would not happen.

As for food, yes it is needed to live, but you don't need to deep fry it   your mention of labelling is interesting.  Why not ban it if it is poisonous? 

[marshwiggle]

Perhaps you should move to China or something then.  Would you also want the government to prescribe your diet due to the obesity epidemic?

Food is necessary for life. Non-medicinal drugs aren't. And in fact, there are all kinds of government regulations about possession and labelling of substances that are poisonous. With all of the deaths due to fentanyl, where tiny quantities are fatal, is it reasonable to believe that giving freer access to it will somehow be an improvement, no matter what sort of community "supports" there are? Human beings make all kinds of short-sighted and simply bad decisions, as evidenced by the obesity epidemic. There is a balance to be sought between personal freedom and epidemics of harm due to *bad impulse control.


*Everyone has issues about which they struggle to make good choices. It's not limited to any one group or socioeconomic status.

Most (or at least many) people who overdose on fentanyl were not out trying to do fentanyl.  It is often found as a contaminant in relatively safer drugs and results in accidental OD.  If it were legal, this would not happen.

As for food, yes it is needed to live, but you don't need to deep fry it   your mention of labelling is interesting.  Why not ban it if it is poisonous?

Is legally requiring seatbelt use a good thing? What about wearing helmets for motorcycles and bicycles? Except for underage passengers, the vast majority of the benefit of these things goes to the adults doing them. The reason these have been legislated is that they save the lives of the people who wouldn't voluntarily make these choices.

There are lots of safety requirements put into law that apply even when the only person to benefit is the one being restricted. Libertarians take the rather cold, but consistent, position that people should not be restricted this way and they simply have to live with the consequences of their own choices. I can't recall libertarians pushing for things like safe injection sites, so I don't think many people wanting to decriminalize drugs are libertarians.

[Kron3007]

Perhaps you should move to China or something then.  Would you also want the government to prescribe your diet due to the obesity epidemic?

Food is necessary for life. Non-medicinal drugs aren't. And in fact, there are all kinds of government regulations about possession and labelling of substances that are poisonous. With all of the deaths due to fentanyl, where tiny quantities are fatal, is it reasonable to believe that giving freer access to it will somehow be an improvement, no matter what sort of community "supports" there are? Human beings make all kinds of short-sighted and simply bad decisions, as evidenced by the obesity epidemic. There is a balance to be sought between personal freedom and epidemics of harm due to *bad impulse control.


*Everyone has issues about which they struggle to make good choices. It's not limited to any one group or socioeconomic status.

Most (or at least many) people who overdose on fentanyl were not out trying to do fentanyl.  It is often found as a contaminant in relatively safer drugs and results in accidental OD.  If it were legal, this would not happen.

As for food, yes it is needed to live, but you don't need to deep fry it   your mention of labelling is interesting.  Why not ban it if it is poisonous?

Is legally requiring seatbelt use a good thing? What about wearing helmets for motorcycles and bicycles? Except for underage passengers, the vast majority of the benefit of these things goes to the adults doing them. The reason these have been legislated is that they save the lives of the people who wouldn't voluntarily make these choices.

There are lots of safety requirements put into law that apply even when the only person to benefit is the one being restricted. Libertarians take the rather cold, but consistent, position that people should not be restricted this way and they simply have to live with the consequences of their own choices. I can't recall libertarians pushing for things like safe injection sites, so I don't think many people wanting to decriminalize drugs are libertarians.

I don't actually consider myself a libertarian, and fully support seatbelt laws. 

This may seem like a contradiction, but isn't.  The reason is that there is good data showing that seatbelt laws reduce harm.  There is no such data showing that drug laws reduce harm, and a lot that shows the opposite. 

Riding motorcycles is dangerous.  Parachuting is dangerous.  Mountain biking is dangerous.  However, we do not ban these activities, we establish safety standards to minimize harm.  It should be the same with drugs.

Policy needs to be driven by data.  If you are asking me to give up personal choice for the greater good, you better be able to show me data supporting that it will work. 

[marshwiggle]

Is legally requiring seatbelt use a good thing? What about wearing helmets for motorcycles and bicycles? Except for underage passengers, the vast majority of the benefit of these things goes to the adults doing them. The reason these have been legislated is that they save the lives of the people who wouldn't voluntarily make these choices.

There are lots of safety requirements put into law that apply even when the only person to benefit is the one being restricted. Libertarians take the rather cold, but consistent, position that people should not be restricted this way and they simply have to live with the consequences of their own choices. I can't recall libertarians pushing for things like safe injection sites, so I don't think many people wanting to decriminalize drugs are libertarians.

I don't actually consider myself a libertarian, and fully support seatbelt laws. 

This may seem like a contradiction, but isn't.  The reason is that there is good data showing that seatbelt laws reduce harm.  There is no such data showing that drug laws reduce harm, and a lot that shows the opposite. 

I support seatbelt laws as well.

Note that the argument above is very similar to what many in the US gun lobby use about opposing gun laws. "Guns don't kill people; people kill people", "All it takes to stop one bad person with a gun is one good person with a gun", etc.

Unfettered access to dangerous things will result in more people using those things, of whom a certain percentage will have very bad outcomes.

Riding motorcycles is dangerous.  Parachuting is dangerous.  Mountain biking is dangerous.  However, we do not ban these activities, we establish safety standards to minimize harm.  It should be the same with drugs.

Policy needs to be driven by data.  If you are asking me to give up personal choice for the greater good, you better be able to show me data supporting that it will work.

Should we stop requiring prescriptions for any medications? We could make pharmacies just like the grocery store, where everyone can just buy what they want. Would that be an improvement? Presumably doctors would still tell people what to buy, there just wouldn't be any gatekeepers restricting "personal choice".

[dismalist]

Ah, compulsory seat belt laws are not all that straightforward: Some drivers are safer with the belt than they want to be. To get back to their desired level of risk, they drive less carefully. Doesn't hurt them much in a crash, for they are belted, but more innocent pedestrians get nailed!

The pharmaceutical problem is different form recreational drugs. It's largely a lack of information on the part of the patient that makes the prescription useful for efficacy and safety. Some drugs are over-the counter where efficacy and safety are straightforward. One can argue about where the line should be drawn.

Of course guns kill people, additional people, more than would be killed with knives or baseball bats!

Be that as it may, the non consequential moralizing upthread is just that, moralizing. What's at stake is lives. Legalization plus taxation will save lives. Wishful thinking will not.

[kaysixteen]

Almost against my better judgment, I am going to continue this thread.   Weed is bad, heroin is worse, and there ain't no reason to allow either.   

I am perhaps willing to entertain the perhaps nonsensical argument used in favor of smoking medicinal weed, rather than just taking TCH pills, but the overwhelming majority of potheads around here would not qualify for med weed under any reasonable set of criteria.  Weed makes people stinky, do-nothing, brain-addled morons.   And some of these stellar citizens have children.

Eating too many French fries does not do that.

There is no way to make opioid use beneficial to users, or to society.

I had ignored the nutty idea that we should be legalizing these things in order  to tax them, as part of my religious belief woudl be to assert that it be a dumb and immoral idea to tax people for their use of bad substances, gambling, etc.

[marshwiggle]

The pharmaceutical problem is different form recreational drugs. It's largely a lack of information on the part of the patient that makes the prescription useful for efficacy and safety. Some drugs are over-the counter where efficacy and safety are straightforward. One can argue about where the line should be drawn.

But it makes no sense to have laws around the distribution of medicinally-useful drugs when purely recreational drugs have none. Why should someone be fined, or possibly even jailed, for some error in protocol for a drug with recognized benefits if there is no required protocol whatsoever for drugs with no medicinal purpose? (Pharmacists would be better off becoming just plain drug dealers at that point to avoid the potential legal hassles. If, instead of "filling prescriptions", they're just "selling drugs", even though they may have looked at the prescription, then they're not responsible for errors or oversights.)

[jimbogumbo]

Almost against my better judgment, I am going to continue this thread.   Weed is bad, heroin is worse, and there ain't no reason to allow either.   

I am perhaps willing to entertain the perhaps nonsensical argument used in favor of smoking medicinal weed, rather than just taking TCH pills, but the overwhelming majority of potheads around here would not qualify for med weed under any reasonable set of criteria.  Weed makes people stinky, do-nothing, brain-addled morons.   And some of these stellar citizens have children.

Eating too many French fries does not do that.

There is no way to make opioid use beneficial to users, or to society.

I had ignored the nutty idea that we should be legalizing these things in order  to tax them, as part of my religious belief woudl be to assert that it be a dumb and immoral idea to tax people for their use of bad substances, gambling, etc.

Edibles. No lung issue, no stinky smell.

[mahagonny]

Almost against my better judgment, I am going to continue this thread.   Weed is bad, heroin is worse, and there ain't no reason to allow either.   

I am perhaps willing to entertain the perhaps nonsensical argument used in favor of smoking medicinal weed, rather than just taking TCH pills, but the overwhelming majority of potheads around here would not qualify for med weed under any reasonable set of criteria.  Weed makes people stinky, do-nothing, brain-addled morons.   And some of these stellar citizens have children.

Eating too many French fries does not do that.

There is no way to make opioid use beneficial to users, or to society.

I had ignored the nutty idea that we should be legalizing these things in order  to tax them, as part of my religious belief woudl be to assert that it be a dumb and immoral idea to tax people for their use of bad substances, gambling, etc.

You have high standards for personal conduct. Although I don't like weed, never did, and I despise peer pressure, some potheads have been regular high achievers and conduct themselves with maturity. Louis Armstrong for example. Obviously it doesn't do the same thing to them that it does to me. I know this won't change your mind. That's fine.
I knew a teenage girl who got in trouble for pot regularly. I tired to dissuade her. After watching her over a period of time (my girlfriend's daughter) I concluded she was actually more sane and relaxed when a little high.

[Kron3007]

Almost against my better judgment, I am going to continue this thread.   Weed is bad, heroin is worse, and there ain't no reason to allow either.   

I am perhaps willing to entertain the perhaps nonsensical argument used in favor of smoking medicinal weed, rather than just taking TCH pills, but the overwhelming majority of potheads around here would not qualify for med weed under any reasonable set of criteria.  Weed makes people stinky, do-nothing, brain-addled morons.   And some of these stellar citizens have children.

Eating too many French fries does not do that.

There is no way to make opioid use beneficial to users, or to society.

I had ignored the nutty idea that we should be legalizing these things in order  to tax them, as part of my religious belief woudl be to assert that it be a dumb and immoral idea to tax people for their use of bad substances, gambling, etc.

You are straight out of reefer madness...

I consume cannabis, and do not consider myself a do-nothing, brain addled moron.  I exercise, eat well, am successful, and even have children. You would be surprised at how many high functioning "potheads" there are all around you, we just dont advertise it. 

The whole stoner stereotype is silly.  It is like believing that anyone who enjoys a glass of wine is a raging alcoholic. There are definitely people who fit the bill, but they are not the majority.

As for the tax angle, the government already taxes all sorts of gambling, alcohol, tobacco, etc, so you have already lost the battle.  I'm just glad for separation of church and state.

[Wahoo Redux]

Weed is bad, heroin is worse, and there ain't no reason to allow either.   

Anybody had / have an alcoholic in the family?

With meth and heroine the physical and psychological toll is almost immediate.  With alcoholic it is usually a long, progressive disease like cancer, but I would say that in a great many cases alcohol has the same effects as hard drugs.  In some ways alcoholism is more insidious precisely because it is a long-term disease, so people become used to the alcoholic personality and lifestyle, and its symptoms are relatively easy to hide until the illness is acute.

40% of all violent crime involves alcohol, and I heard somewhere that it is more like 80%.  Imagine how much safer and saner our college campuses would be without alcohol, not to mention our cities, highways, weekends, holidays, and family dinners.

Plus I have never heard of anyone cracking their best-friend over the head with a bong because they got in a stupid stoned argument about a football game. 

Legalize.  Just don't pretend everything is hunky-dory with these substances.  They are simply dangerous, all of them.