The Law recreational drugs decriminalize or not?

[Number37]

yeah, that's why you drink water. 250ml per hour if lounging, 500ml if dancing. oh no won't somebody think of the children!?



all avoidable by the responsible user with the right amino acid.



well, in an informal sense i use "safe" to mean you don't OD or die from taking mdma. i realise you'll have some ignorant media example in contrast, but in reality mdma deaths are mostly caused by alcohol, substances that aren't mdma, or people who can't manage the 250/500 water rule. there are innumerable prescription drugs that are more dangerous or require more management.

ive referenced the lancet study before, but here it is again. mdma almost last.

eta- i mean do we really have to bring out all the studies about how dangerous bacon, sitting down, or using the internet is? life is a risk.

It doesn't look like a lot but how many of those 'others' is someone minding their own business?

That alcohol stat is something we should all have a good think about!

 

[Number37]

did they use it incorrectly? people that inhale water irresponsibly don't do so well.

You can't change the goal posts!

If 100 people drink a bottle of water, how many will have an adverse reaction?
If 100 people pop an MDMA pill, how many will have an adverse reaction?

 

[Snake_Baker]

im not that interested in politicising the debate. it's just factual that the crackdown on mdma has caused a massive influx of substitutes that are demonstrably more dangerous. it's a good argument because those that support prohibition on "safety" grounds are unable to justify their position given the impact of their opinion makes drugs less safe.

Reports on PMA deaths in S.A. at the time, suggest they were locally made.

https://www.maps.org/images/pdf/1998_byard_1.pdf

https://www.mja.com.au/system/files/issues/188_07_070408/letters_070408_fm.pdf

 

[Long Live HFC]

You can't change the goal posts!

If 100 people drink a bottle of water, how many will have an adverse reaction?
If 100 people pop an MDMA pill, how many will have an adverse reaction?

you would need to define "adverse reaction", but if you mean "life-threatening" the answer to both is "none" (assuming no allergic or other reaction that can occur with just about anything).

you are correct (and i agree with you) that taking mdma is not necessarily "harmless", but then again almost nothing is. i am simply opposing you putting it in the same group as meth or or similar.

 

[Number37]

you would need to define "adverse reaction", but if you mean "life-threatening" the answer to both is "none" (assuming no allergic or other reaction that can occur with just about anything).

you are correct (and i agree with you) that taking mdma is not necessarily "harmless", but then again almost nothing is. i am simply opposing you putting it in the same group as meth or or similar.

To the extent that they are all recreational drugs that do not come without adverse consequences, I put them in the same basket.

Of course, the nature and severity of the adverse consequences vary between drugs.

 

[Number37]

Utter, utter, utter bullshit.

You are continually filling this thread up with DUNG

You've already made it clear that you don't believe anything that doesn't fit your view.


The prevalence of psychotic symptoms among methamphetamine users.
McKetin R1, McLaren J, Lubman DI, Hides L.

Abstract
AIMS:
To examine the prevalence of psychotic symptoms among regular methamphetamine users.

DESIGN:
Cross-sectional survey.

SETTING:
Participants were recruited from Sydney, Australia, through advertisements in free-press magazines, flyers and through word-of-mouth.

PARTICIPANTS:
Methamphetamine users (n = 309) who were aged 16 years or over and took the drug at least monthly during the past year.

MEASUREMENTS:
A structured face-to-face interview was used to assess drug use, demographics and symptoms of psychosis in the past year. Measures of psychosis included: (a) a psychosis screening instrument derived from the Composite International Diagnostic Interview; and (b) the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale subscales of suspiciousness, unusual thought content, and hallucinations. Dependence on methamphetamine was measured using the Severity of Dependence Scale.

FINDINGS:
Thirteen per cent of participants screened positive for psychosis, and 23% had experienced a clinically significant symptom of suspiciousness, unusual thought content or hallucinations in the past year. Dependent methamphetamine users were three times more likely to have experienced psychotic symptoms than their non-dependent counterparts, even after adjusting for history of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders.

CONCLUSION:
The prevalence of psychosis among the current sample of methamphetamine users was 11 times higher than among the general population in Australia. Dependent methamphetamine users are a particularly high-risk group for psychosis.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16968349

 

[Number37]

The relationship between crystalline methamphetamine use and methamphetamine dependence.
McKetin R1, Kelly E, McLaren J.

Abstract
BACKGROUND:
The aim of the current study was to determine whether crystalline methamphetamine users are more dependent on methamphetamine than people who use other forms of the drug, and if so, whether this could be accounted for by their methamphetamine use history.

METHOD:
A structured face-to-face interview was used to assess drug use patterns and demographics among a convenience sample of 309 regular methamphetamine users from Sydney, Australia. Dependence on methamphetamine in the past year was measured using the Severity of Dependence Scale. The use of crystalline methamphetamine in the past year was confirmed using a photographic identification sheet.

RESULTS:
Participants who had used crystalline methamphetamine in the past year were significantly more likely to be dependent on methamphetamine than participants who took only other forms of methamphetamine during this time (61% versus 39%). Methamphetamine dependence was also associated with injecting or smoking methamphetamine (67% and 58%, respectively versus 30% for intranasal or oral use), using methamphetamine more than weekly (68% versus 34%), having used the drug for more than 5 years (61% versus 36%), and having used 'base' methamphetamine in the past year (59% versus 39%). Crystalline methamphetamine use remained significantly associated with methamphetamine dependence after adjusting for these patterns of methamphetamine use.

CONCLUSIONS:
Methamphetamine users who took crystalline methamphetamine in the past year were more likely to be dependent than methamphetamine users who had not taken the crystalline form of the drug during this time.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16723192

 

[Number37]

E. Kelly, R. McKetin & J. McLaren
Health Service Utilisation among Regular Methamphetamine Users
NDARC Technical Report No. 233

Almost one third of participants (31%) had been to an emergency department within the past year, one in five had used an ambulance service during this time, and 16% had been admitted to hospital. Almost one third (31%) of participants who had utilised these services within the past year indicated that methamphetamine was the main reason for their attendance.


https://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/ndarc/resources/TR.233.pdf

 

[Number37]

Does methamphetamine use increase violent behaviour? Evidence from a prospective longitudinal study

There was a dose-related increase in violent behaviour when an individual was using methamphetamine compared with when they were not after adjusting for other substance use and sociodemographics[cf. no use in the past month: 1–15 days of use odds ratio (OR) = 2.8, 95% confidence interval (CI) =1.6–4.9; 16+ days of use OR = 9.5, 95% CI = 4.8–19.1].

The odds of violent behaviour were further increased by psychotic symptoms (OR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.1–3.6), which accounted for 22–30% of violent behaviour related to methamphetamine use.
Heavy alcohol consumption also increased the risk of violent behaviour (OR = 3.1, 95% CI = 1.4–7.0) and accounted for 12–18% of the violence risk related to methamphetamine use.

Conclusions There is a dose-related increase in violent behaviour during periods of methamphetamine use that is largely independent of the violence risk associated with psychotic symptoms.



https://www.atdc.org.au/wp-content/...oes-methamphetamine-use-increase-violence.pdf

 

[The Passenger]

25% of people that use ice experience methamphetamine psychosis

I'm not exactly going to go out recommending people try ice as it's a very seedy drug but this is just not even remotely close to true.

 

[Number37]

I'm not exactly going to go out recommending people try ice as it's a very seedy drug but this is just not even remotely close to true.

I don't go around counting ice users that develop psychosis as part of their ice use.
There is research to that effect.
The abstract stated a quarter, so I assumed 25%, the actual figure is 23%.

Do you have some evidence that supports the view that this number is incorrect?

 

[The Passenger]

Do you have some evidence that supports the view that this number is incorrect?

Only calling bullshit through personal experience. I haven't actually sat there and tested everyone in lab environments.

I reckon in the circles I've travelled I would know roughly 100 people (including second and third degree mates) who used the drug at various levels. I know of one guy who flipped out and went down the rabbit hole and ended up in a mental hospital. Another couple of guys had a few issues but sorted them out in time. 90% of people were regular average Joe's who held a normal 9-5 job and did nothing more than the monthly puff to try and go hard for the weekend. Most have grown out of it now as we've all moved into our 30's. It's been at least 5 years since I've seen a pipe at a house party.

I've seen this 25% figure bandied about before and I always thuogh unless I've got a remarkably resilient circle of friends it seems like scaremongering to me. 5% would appear far more likely, maybe 10% at the max. Obviously a psychotic episode doesn't mean every time someone uses it. But even if it were 1 in every 10 uses, that would mean 1 in every 40 people using ice at any given time are having a psychotic episode or about to have one. Given the usage rates in Sydney and Melbourne, if that were the case both cities would be on fire every Friday and Saturday night.

Like I said though it's a seedy drug and aside from staying awake to party it as no psychological benefits.

 

[Number37]

Only calling bullshit through personal experience. I haven't actually sat there and tested everyone in lab environments.

I reckon in the circles I've travelled I would know roughly 100 people (including second and third degree mates) who used the drug at various levels. I know of one guy who flipped out and went down the rabbit hole and ended up in a mental hospital. Another couple of guys had a few issues but sorted them out in time. 90% of people were regular average Joe's who held a normal 9-5 job and did nothing more than the monthly puff to try and go hard for the weekend. Most have grown out of it now as we've all moved into our 30's. It's been at least 5 years since I've seen a pipe at a house party.

I've seen this 25% figure bandied about before and I always thuogh unless I've got a remarkably resilient circle of friends it seems like scaremongering to me. 5% would appear far more likely, maybe 10% at the max. Obviously a psychotic episode doesn't mean every time someone uses it. But even if it were 1 in every 10 uses, that would mean 1 in every 40 people using ice at any given time are having a psychotic episode or about to have one. Given the usage rates in Sydney and Melbourne, if that were the case both cities would be on fire every Friday and Saturday night.

Like I said though it's a seedy drug and aside from staying awake to party it as no psychological benefits.

You can read the definition of psychosis in those studies that I posted.
From my reading the 23% relates to an episode of psychosis in the last year. So not every time but at least once in the last year.

Edit: One of the studies talks about psychosis that happens in the days after using not on the day or at the time of use.

 

[Snake_Baker]

You've already made it clear that you don't believe anything that doesn't fit your view.

YOU are the one that is ramming square pegs in to round holes in order to facilitate your extreme cognitive dissonance.

The prevalence of psychotic symptoms among methamphetamine users.
McKetin R1, McLaren J, Lubman DI, Hides L.

Abstract
AIMS:
To examine the prevalence of psychotic symptoms among regular methamphetamine users.

DESIGN:
Cross-sectional survey.

SETTING:
Participants were recruited from Sydney, Australia, through advertisements in free-press magazines, flyers and through word-of-mouth.

PARTICIPANTS:
Methamphetamine users (n = 309) who were aged 16 years or over and took the drug at least monthly during the past year.

MEASUREMENTS:
A structured face-to-face interview was used to assess drug use, demographics and symptoms of psychosis in the past year. Measures of psychosis included: (a) a psychosis screening instrument derived from the Composite International Diagnostic Interview; and (b) the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale subscales of suspiciousness, unusual thought content, and hallucinations. Dependence on methamphetamine was measured using the Severity of Dependence Scale.

FINDINGS:
Thirteen per cent of participants screened positive for psychosis, and 23% had experienced a clinically significant symptom of suspiciousness, unusual thought content or hallucinations in the past year. Dependent methamphetamine users were three times more likely to have experienced psychotic symptoms than their non-dependent counterparts, even after adjusting for history of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders.

CONCLUSION:
The prevalence of psychosis among the current sample of methamphetamine users was 11 times higher than among the general population in Australia. Dependent methamphetamine users are a particularly high-risk group for psychosis.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16968349

All this tells you is that 13% of a group had screened positive for psychosis. It doesn't tell you that any psychosis was the result of meth use.

It even admits the presence of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders.

If you actually research the paper properly you will find:

In an Australian study of community METH users, McKetin found that Methamphetamine Acquired Psychosis (MAP) typically occurred in the context of METH abuse or dependence rather than “recreational” METH use. In METH users with no prior history of psychosis, the prevalence of psychosis among dependent users was 27% as compared to 8% in non-dependent users. However, daily METH use, injection use, and socio-demographic factors were not associated with METH psychosis (McKetin et al. 2006).

Only 21% of this group were daily users of Meth and 42% of them were daily users of cannabis (a proven psychotic initiator).

89% of the group used alcohol, 86% Cannabis, 59% "Ecstasy" (?), 45% Cocaine of which 11 had injected the stuff, 40% Heroin of which 39 had injected, 26% of the group had used "hallucinogens".

14 people out of 309 of this population were deemed to have had drug psychosis in the past year (4%), however this is based upon a questionable study that does not involve any real time analysis and relies on screening for past episodes based upon interviews. This data also does NOT prove that methamphetamine was the culprit in these psychotic episodes. This study shows that Alcohol, Cannabis, "Ecstasy", Cocaine, Heroin or "Hallucinogens" or Multiple Dug Abuse may have contributed to drug psychosis episodes.

More likely it reveals that persons who are heavy multi drug users, that have exhibited psychotic tendencies, were targeted by "word of mouth" to engage in a "cross sectional survey". It also reveals that people with psychotic tendencies have a higher prevalence of heavy multi drug use.

Frankly, your capacity to analyse scientific data, is deplorable.

 

[Snake_Baker]

E. Kelly, R. McKetin & J. McLaren
Health Service Utilisation among Regular Methamphetamine Users
NDARC Technical Report No. 233

Almost one third of participants (31%) had been to an emergency department within the past year, one in five had used an ambulance service during this time, and 16% had been admitted to hospital. Almost one third (31%) of participants who had utilised these services within the past year indicated that methamphetamine was the main reason for their attendance.


https://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/ndarc/resources/TR.233.pdf

What were the hospitalisation rates of legally prescribed methamphetamine users?

 

[Snake_Baker]

Does methamphetamine use increase violent behaviour? Evidence from a prospective longitudinal study

There was a dose-related increase in violent behaviour when an individual was using methamphetamine compared with when they were not after adjusting for other substance use and sociodemographics[cf. no use in the past month: 1–15 days of use odds ratio (OR) = 2.8, 95% confidence interval (CI) =1.6–4.9; 16+ days of use OR = 9.5, 95% CI = 4.8–19.1].

The odds of violent behaviour were further increased by psychotic symptoms (OR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.1–3.6), which accounted for 22–30% of violent behaviour related to methamphetamine use.
Heavy alcohol consumption also increased the risk of violent behaviour (OR = 3.1, 95% CI = 1.4–7.0) and accounted for 12–18% of the violence risk related to methamphetamine use.

Conclusions There is a dose-related increase in violent behaviour during periods of methamphetamine use that is largely independent of the violence risk associated with psychotic symptoms.

https://www.atdc.org.au/wp-content/...oes-methamphetamine-use-increase-violence.pdf

"after adjusting for other substance use and sociodemographics"

!!!!!!!!!!!!

"dose-related increase in violent behaviour"

No kidding? Now go and check out the "dose-related increase in violent behaviour" for alcohol.

Dose related issues are, of course, the result of an unregulated market.

Once again, you have unwittingly supplied data that SUPPORTS the legalisation of methamphetamine.

 

[Number37]

YOU are the one that is ramming square pegs in to round holes in order to facilitate your extreme cognitive dissonance.

If you are serious about the issue then you will take a critical approach to ALL the pros and cons, you are not interested in doing that because you studied chemistry and according to you ALL drugs are safe and that is end of the discussion.

The research that I posted is not the be all and end all. It & research like it has to be part of the discussion that sensible people need to have if we are to address the issue in a beneficial way. Sticking your head up your arse and saying all drugs are safe because I studied chemistry isn't going to cut it.
You clearly have no understanding of what research is and how it is used.

 

[Snake_Baker]

If you are serious about the issue then you will take a critical approach to ALL the pros and cons, you are not interested in doing that because you studied chemistry and according to you ALL drugs are safe and that is end of the discussion.

I never stated that.

The research that I posted is not the be all and end all. It & research like it has to be part of the discussion that sensible people need to have if we are to address the issue in a beneficial way. Sticking your head up your arse and saying all drugs are safe because I studied chemistry isn't going to cut it.
You clearly have no understanding of what research is and how it is used.

I'm convinced that you're a troll.

 

[Number37]

I'm convinced that you're a troll.

Bonafide research is trolling?

Says all anyone needs to know about how much you really know about the issue.

 

[Long Live HFC]

To the extent that they are all recreational drugs that do not come without adverse consequences, I put them in the same basket.

it's not a very useful or instructive position to hold, though. (for example) government policy/media re the dangers of illicit drug use is thoroughly undermined by its lack of nuance. once somebody tries a new substance and realises how generally safe it is, they'll never listen to the warnings about other drugs that pose a more serious threat. GHB for example has a relatively small margin of error, whereas nobody's ever OD'd from THC in its history of use. these differences should be reflected in the public health information provided. poison Acts and scheduling are meant to do this, but often they do not reflect the relative dangers of illicit substances which leads some (for example) putting mdma in the same class as ice.

 

[Long Live HFC]

In contrast, Portugal undertook a monumental experiment: It decriminalized the use of all drugs in 2001, even heroin and cocaine, and unleashed a major public health campaign to tackle addiction. Ever since in Portugal, drug addiction has been treated more as a medical challenge than as a criminal justice issue.

After more than 15 years, it’s clear which approach worked better. The United States drug policy failed spectacularly, with about as many Americans dying last year of overdoses — around 64,000 — as were killed in the Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq Wars combined.

In contrast, Portugal may be winning the war on drugs — by ending it. Today, the Health Ministry estimates that only about 25,000 Portuguese use heroin, down from 100,000 when the policy began.

The number of Portuguese dying from overdoses plunged more than 85 percent before rising a bit in the aftermath of the European economic crisis of recent years. Even so, Portugal’s drug mortality rate is the lowest in Western Europe — one-tenth the rate of Britain or Denmark — and about one-fiftieth the latest number for the U.S.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/22/opinion/sunday/portugal-drug-decriminalization.html

 

[Number37]

it's not a very useful or instructive position to hold, though. (for example) government policy/media re the dangers of illicit drug use is thoroughly undermined by its lack of nuance. once somebody tries a new substance and realises how generally safe it is, they'll never listen to the warnings about other drugs that pose a more serious threat. GHB for example has a relatively small margin of error, whereas nobody's ever OD'd from THC in its history of use. these differences should be reflected in the public health information provided. poison Acts and scheduling are meant to do this, but often they do not reflect the relative dangers of illicit substances which leads some (for example) putting mdma in the same class as ice.

There is a valid reason behind putting all drugs in the same category don't you think?

Sure, the nature and severity of adverse consequences varies dramatically between drugs but there are other considerations, for example:
Doctor provides advice on medicinal drugs all the time and advertising standards and govt regulation in relations to advertising the benefits/pitfalls of any particular drug are fairly restrictive. The default message, even for medicinal drugs, is that there are dangers associated with drug use.

Do you think it would make sense to have less of these types of restrictions/controlled messages on drugs just because they are recreational drugs?
If recreational drugs are to be decriminalised, their decriminalisation has to fit into the current framework as it applies to medicinal drugs, otherwise you end with a situation where there are conflicting/contradictory messages. That would be entirely unhelpful.

 

[King Brown]

Of all the drugs I've tried, and I have tried many, cocaine is the stupidest. Addictive, expensive, short lived and badly mood altering. Meth is just shite.

The weirdest was some 2CI derivative. I felt like my brain had smoked menthols and it just wouldn't end.

Best is one of MDMA, acid or mushrooms. Last time I did mushrooms I ate too many and I spent about five minutes looking at my pupils in the mirror wondering whether I could step inside them.

 

[King Brown]

There is a valid reason behind putting all drugs in the same category don't you think?

Sure, the nature and severity of adverse consequences varies dramatically between drugs but there are other considerations, for example:
Doctor provides advice on medicinal drugs all the time and advertising standards and govt regulation in relations to advertising the benefits/pitfalls of any particular drug are fairly restrictive. The default message, even for medicinal drugs, is that there are dangers associated with drug use.

Do you think it would make sense to have less of these types of restrictions/controlled messages on drugs just because they are recreational drugs?
If recreational drugs are to be decriminalised, their decriminalisation has to fit into the current framework as it applies to medicinal drugs, otherwise you end with a situation where there are conflicting/contradictory messages. That would be entirely unhelpful.

As much as I have enjoyed drugs I would not recommend their full decriminalisation. One issue is impairment - alcohol is quite damaging but you can have a single beer and still drive a car. Aside from weirdos who microdose, no one has a quarter of a pill or fragment of a tab and is still able to function completely. Then you have things with compounding negative effects like meth or opioids.

The war on drugs is stupid and pointless but the solution is very difficult.

That said, there's no reason marijuana should be illegal.

 

[Long Live HFC]

There is a valid reason behind putting all drugs in the same category don't you think?

not in the way you have, no. all the oranges should be classed with the other oranges, but the apples deserve to be put with the apples. it's been referenced multiple times in this thread, but alcohol is demonstrably more dangerous than ecstasy. it really is.

Sure, the nature and severity of adverse consequences varies dramatically between drugs but there are other considerations, for example:
Doctor provides advice on medicinal drugs all the time and advertising standards and govt regulation in relations to advertising the benefits/pitfalls of any particular drug are fairly restrictive. The default message, even for medicinal drugs, is that there are dangers associated with drug use.

as per my previous post, there's rarely much nuance or distinction. sure, when you get to speak to your GP or ER doctor, you can have a reasonable discussion, but that's not the overarcing debate occuring the public sphere.

Do you think it would make sense to have less of these types of restrictions/controlled messages on drugs just because they are recreational drugs?

no, i think the "messages" should be factually accurate and not scaremongering (as scaremongering isnt very successful and often factually incorrect).

If recreational drugs are to be decriminalised, their decriminalisation has to fit into the current framework as it applies to medicinal drugs, otherwise you end with a situation where there are conflicting/contradictory messages. That would be entirely unhelpful.

well, that would definitely be a step in the right direction. but to be consistent you'd need to bring alcohol in for the same meeting of the substances.

as per my previous NYT quote, the experience in portugal is quite illuminating (though im not suggesting it would work as well everywhere, but it's definitely worth a discussion).

...

full disclosure: i've typed these posts after a bottle of red + 3 valiums. i'll be fine though, they're effectively regulated so i know what im getting and im not having to enrich organised criminals.