Addiction - are all of the studies flawed?

--amadeus--

At the turn of the 20th century drugs - particularly opiates - were very widely available. We all know that Sherlock Holmes was a cocaine user, for example. We are told that:

although the use of opiates in the United States and England during the 19th century was greater than it is now, the incidence of dependence and addiction never reached one percent of the population and was declining at the end of the century

Which flies in the face of animal studies into addiction. Scientists have shown that rats and monkeys will ignore other activities and repeatedly self administer opiates to teh exclusion of other basic drives (food, sex).

So how can you square that circle? Why do animals seem to get heavily addicted but humans when using widely apparently didn't?

Step up Canadian psychologist Bruce K. Alexander. He theorised that the lab animals were addicted because they were bored and depressed. They lived in bare wire cages and the only recreation available was pulling a lever to get high!

So he designed a very interesting experiment, read all about it here.


[Note - I'm not condoning drug use, just interested in the concept that happy, fulfilled people / animals won't get addicted and teh argument that current drug laws and prohibitions are based on a teh disease theory of drug addiction that has been experimentally proven inaccurate and teh impact this could have on the prohibition / legalisation debates]

WindSock

''although the use of opiates in the United States and England during the 19th century was greater than it is now, the incidence of dependence and addiction never reached one percent of the population and was declining at the end of the century ''

How did they know this though? Did they have means, methods or public interest into the study of drug addictions in the 19th Century. Opiates were also smoked and not injected and possibly more pure, so they were probably less addictive.

watty

@ OP Your assertions are flawed.

Apart from anything else "Sherlock Holmes" is fictional.

Some people will sniff shoe-polish if nothing else is available. Other People if given an addictive drug by a 3rd person agaist their will, will not be addicted, or at least won't look for more.

There are a wide spectrum of situations, personalities, Drugs and ways of taking them.

Probably best to start with studying Nicotine Addiction and Smoking Addiction (which are not 100% the same thing).

Most people are not happy and fulfilled, at least that's my explanation for the success of sime TV programs.

Euro_Kraut

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Step up Canadian psychologist Bruce K. Alexander. He theorised that the lab animals were addicted because they were bored and depressed.

As many humans with tend to be.

--amadeus--

WindSock wrote: »

''although the use of opiates in the United States and England during the 19th century was greater than it is now, the incidence of dependence and addiction never reached one percent of the population and was declining at the end of the century ''

How did they know this though? Did they have means, methods or public interest into the study of drug addictions in the 19th Century. Opiates were also smoked and not injected and possibly more pure, so they were probably less addictive.

In the original research paper (link) he says:

Although the use of opiates in the U.S. and England during the 19th century was enormously greater than it is now, both through physician-prescribed injections and ubiquitous patent medicines which were used as tonics and for recreational purposes, the incidence of dependence and addiction never reached 1% of the population and was declining at the end of the century before the restrictive laws were passed (Brecher, 1972; Ledain, 1973; Courtwright, 1982).

Since he's referencing academic papers I'm assuming they stand up on methodology. And I would have thought that purity would increase addictiveness, rather than decrease?

watty wrote: »

@ OP Your assertions are flawed.

Apart from anything else "Sherlock Holmes" is fictional.

I know Holmes is fictional! I was using that as an illustration of how socially unexceptional opiate use was at that time.

watty wrote: »

Some people will sniff shoe-polish if nothing else is available. Other People if given an addictive drug by a 3rd person agaist their will, will not be addicted, or at least won't look for more.

There are a wide spectrum of situations, personalities, Drugs and ways of taking them.

Probably best to start with studying Nicotine Addiction and Smoking Addiction (which are not 100% the same thing).

Most people are not happy and fulfilled, at least that's my explanation for the success of sime TV programs.

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

As many humans with tend to be.

Now both of these pretty much hit the nail on the head. In a traditional examination of drug use the assertion is that opiates are addictive. Therefore they must not be used and that in turn informs the propaganda surrounding teh drug war - we've all heard teh claim that Crack Cocaine is instantly addictive for example.

However the Rat Park experiments seem to disprove that claim. Instead they seem to indicate that addiction is a function of environment as much as physiology. Something borne out by historical evidence and intuition.

Put another way - as a happily married father of two with disposable income, a challenging work life and a range of interests (physical and intellectual) I have no interest in trying opiates, although I am pretty sure I could access them if I wished. If I were unemployed, single, broke and with no prospects, if all I had to look forward to was daytime TV then I would be more inclined to use recreational drugs and become addicted to them.

Which has interesting implications for drug therapy. Most treatment and rehab centres focus on treating teh addiction disease, breaking the physical addiction. The Rat Park experiments prove that animals who exhibit addiction traits voluntarily stop using opiates when placed in a more stimulating environment. So if you want to stop drug use and it's associated crime then focussing on teh societal rather than physical and legal issues may yield better results.

Minder

--amadeus-- wrote: »

So if you want to stop drug use and it's associated crime then focussing on teh societal rather than physical and legal issues may yield better results.

So if you want to stop chaotic, dependant drug use, improve the environment that the user inhabits? What to do about the multitudes of casual drug users who are not dependant? Those people who are in every respect, normal members of society, with families, jobs etc - the only difference being that they put two lines up their noses at the start of a night out?

A great argument for changing society's attitude to drugs was written by Nick Davies for the Guardian in 2001. Some of the content might surprise people...

Part 1

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2001/jun/14/drugsandalcohol.socialsciences

Part 2

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2001/jun/15/drugsandalcohol.socialsciences

Ostrom

Minder wrote: »

So if you want to stop chaotic, dependant drug use, improve the environment that the user inhabits? What to do about the multitudes of casual drug users who are not dependant? Those people who are in every respect, normal members of society, with families, jobs etc - the only difference being that they put two lines up their noses at the start of a night out?

A great argument for changing society's attitude to drugs was written by Nick Davies for the Guardian in 2001. Some of the content might surprise people...

Part 1

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2001/jun/14/drugsandalcohol.socialsciences

Part 2

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2001/jun/15/drugsandalcohol.socialsciences

He recently published an interesting expansion in Flat Earth News.

Howard Becker is a good starting point for filling the the gaps between biological effects/conditioning behaviour.

Biologists and psychologists alone will never be able to completely explain addiction, it is far too complex. Nor is boredom sufficient to contextualise addictive behaviour, the very notion of enjoyment has to come from somewhere besides physical effect. Davenport-Hines' Pursuit of Oblivion also traces the development of narcotic trade networks, and (although I dont agree with much of their line of inquiry) Levitt (of Freakonomics - co-authored a paper on gangs and the economy of drug trading with Sudhir Venkatesh) also makes an interesting case for the emergence of crack use in urban america. You cant remove a complex process from its social context.

At the risk of fighting my corner a little strongly , much of what was suggested in the OP's experiment, Becker had observed through qualitative research with Chicago drug users. Until the 1950's (academically), it was widely accepted that substance was the determining factor, rather than envionment. Becker (and earlier Freud) had begun to suggest that there wasn't much intrinsically addictive about the substances, but rather the pattern of learned behaviour conditioned by environment produced addictiction.

--amadeus--

Minder wrote: »

What to do about the multitudes of casual drug users who are not dependant? Those people who are in every respect, normal members of society, with families, jobs etc - the only difference being that they put two lines up their noses at the start of a night out?

I've seen that article before but it was a while ago so I'll need to re-read it. In answer to your question about casual users... They are the rats in Rat Park who use a drug rather than being controlled by it. In my personal opinion I don't see a need to do anything about them - in fact it would be preferable to legalise the trade and tax it, ring fencing teh revenues to provide treatment to those who were addicted, but thats a very different debate.

Prof.Badass

WindSock wrote: »

How did they know this though? Did they have means, methods or public interest into the study of drug addictions in the 19th Century. Opiates were also smoked and not injected and possibly more pure, so they were probably less addictive.

Actually when you smoke drugs they reach the brain faster than when you inject them. Injecting is just more economically friendly but the exact same effects can be achieved with both methods and they are both considered equally addictive.

Route of administration seems to be an important factor in drug addiction. Why do you think crack is considered more addictive than regular cocaine? Why is smoking tobacco more addictive than taking some drugs which are far more euphoric?

inhalation-7 seconds
injection-10 seconds
insuffulation- 3-5 minutes
oral-20 minutes

A rapid onset (rush) seems to add a lot to a drug's addictiveness. Imo if everyone took their drugs orally addiction rates for each drug could be slashed.

--amadeus-- wrote: »

[Note - I'm not condoning drug use, just interested in the concept that happy, fulfilled people / animals won't get addicted and teh argument that current drug laws and prohibitions are based on a teh disease theory of drug addiction that has been experimentally proven inaccurate and teh impact this could have on the prohibition / legalisation debates]

I strongly dissagree with the "disease theory" and people who think addiction is inevitable with certain classes of drugs. There are many factors involved in drug addiction. As well as environmental factors and route of administration, how much a drug impairs your normal functioning seems to be a significant factor. It is quite easy to function normally while under the influence of stimulants or opiates, perhaps this helps increase their addiction potential?

Even with street heroin most users do not end up addicted (I remember reading the dependancy rate was 23%, although i'm not sure what exactly they meant by that). This is a far cry from the 99% the general population seem to think it is. Apparently most people who try heroin find it boring and move on.

I found this article very interesting.

watty

The advisory council's chairman Professor David Nutt has called on the government to enforce a general ban on cannabinoids, because suppliers can make new versions of the chemical in the laboratory.

He said: "Spice and other synthetic cannabinoid products are being sold legally as harmless 'herbal legal highs'.

These are not harmless herbal alternatives and have been found to cause paranoia and panic attacks
Professor David Nutt, Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs

"However, the herbal content is coated in one or more dangerous chemical compounds that mimic the effects of cannabis.

"These are not harmless herbal alternatives and have been found to cause paranoia and panic attacks."

Later this year the Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, is expected to change the law to ban Spice and similar products. They are likely to be made a class B drug, alongside cannabis.

The move to classify Spice with cannabis was welcomed by the charity, Drugscope.

However its chief executive, Martin Barnes, said it would be hard for the law to keep pace with new synthetic drugs.

"It is consistent with the Misuse of Drugs Act to control substances which have the potential to cause significant harms - 'Spice' falls into this category," he said.

"While we support this pre-emptive move, it does highlight important questions about the ability of the legislation to cover so called 'legal highs' and to keep up with the development of new synthetic drugs."

A Home Office spokesman said: "We are determined to crack down on those 'legal highs' that pose a significant health risk.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8196953.stm
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/12/synthetic_cannabis_banned/

watty

I thought it was well established over 60 years ago that that self Motivation (and to an extent environmental circumstances) was the most important aspect overcoming Addictions or Self Abusive behaviour. Therapy has to find a way to leverage the inner will. Chemical or other physical rehab treatments are a support in this.

There is a lot of "same old obvious thing" rehashed as "new" research in all fields. People have to publish a few papers as well as write a Theseus to get a PhD. If they get a College job, they have to keep publishing. The actual novelty doesn't count. Just the number of papers.

Higher up the academic ladder it's how many people cite you gets important

Why people get addicted to some things that are not inherently addictive and why some few appear to lees susceptible to addictive materials is more complex.

WindSock

Yeah fair point and about the crack. I always thought injecting into the bloodstream would be quicker. And regarding purity I thought it was less damaging, such as the difference between opium and heroin. I read somewhere that it takes a few months of injecting to become properly addicted. Don't know if that is true or not.

Prof.Badass

WindSock wrote: »

Yeah fair point and about the crack. I always thought injecting into the bloodstream would be quicker. And regarding purity I thought it was less damaging, such as the difference between opium and heroin. I read somewhere that it takes a few months of injecting to become properly addicted. Don't know if that is true or not.

It's something to do with the blood having to go from your veins to your heart then to your lungs, back to your heart and then to your brain. Whereas when inhaled the drug enters at the lung stage. Although difference probably isn't significant.

However, with the health issues and social perceptions of iv drug use you'll probably see a far higher number of addicts among injecters because simply put you'd have to be more desperate to inject heroin than to smoke it.
I doubt purity would have an effect on addictiveness, afterall the same receptors in your brain are being activated regardless. Although from a physical health point of view purer drugs are obviously better.

You raise a good point about opium vs heroin because heroin has an undeserved reputation as being more addictive than opium. As a result opium users will generally be of the more addiction-avoiding type and thus opium will appear to be less addictive. Kind of a self fulfilling prophecy.

Another point I'd like to make is the way that the effects of "physical addiction" (a term i dissagree with) are blown way out of proportion by potheads and prohibitionists (each with their own agenda). Addiction is psychological. If you had no psychological addiction to a substance, you could sit through hell without feeling any cravings (in fact upon realising that the drug caused this agony, you probably wouldn't want to take any more of it).

Many non-addictive drugs such as steroids and beta blockers can cause withdrawal symptoms when stopped abrubptly. I can agree that some addicts may use to avoid withdrawals, but surely this is different from addiction. If it was "physical addiction" that made heroin so addictive then addicts would not relapse after they have succesfully gone through withdrawals. In reality, relapse rates are high. Withdrawal from alcohol is a lot worse, yet alcohol is not anywhere near as addictive as heroin.

watty wrote: »

There is a lot of "same old obvious thing" rehashed as "new" research in all fields. People have to publish a few papers as well as write a Theseus to get a PhD. If they get a College job, they have to keep publishing. The actual novelty doesn't count. Just the number of papers.

Prohibition has completely warped drug and addiction research away from what it would have been if drugs were legal. If "addiction research" was truly apolitical we would have come to some sensible balanced conclusions years ago and the likes of gráinne kenny wouldn't be able to spout complete nonsense about drug addiction and get away with it. With such a one-sided system, people only want to hear the one thing.

JC 2K3

WindSock wrote: »

Yeah fair point and about the crack. I always thought injecting into the bloodstream would be quicker. And regarding purity I thought it was less damaging, such as the difference between opium and heroin. I read somewhere that it takes a few months of injecting to become properly addicted. Don't know if that is true or not.

Yes, this is true. The idea that you can take one hit of anything and get hooked instantly is a complete myth.

Opiates in pure form are actually more or less physically harmless to the human body, although the addiction potential is obviously still there. Obviously, the same weight of heroin with a higher purity will be stronger, and thus more addictive than purer stuff, but impure stuff could contain anything, including chemicals which could be actually physically harmful.

Heroin addiction is much more complicated than heroin being an evil drug that morphs first time users into hopeless junkies.

Like pretty much any common recreational drug, if a problem develops it's not because of the drug, it's because of the person involved and their situation. A large number of respected doctors and scientists back in the 50s and 60s were morphine addicts, and yet they lived long, productive lives. There do exist functional (and by that I mean normal, not just barely able to function) heroin addicts today, you just don't hear about it because it's not exactly something you want to advertise (see the link vinylmesh posted). Like has been mentioned in the OP, the problem occurs when people with little money and little hope in life begin to take it.

Of course, it's not all to do with class, we've all heard of the middle class coke addicts who go the same way, but there needs to be a huge rethink on the whole matter of addiction.

I often think that the War on Drugs is analogous to the ongoing war in 1984, with drugs and addiction being scapegoats for much more of societies problems than they really are, or would be if they were legal/regulated. Is that a bit too conspiracy theoryish for here?

Boston

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Yes, this is true.

Says you with your long life of injecting class A drugs.

Beruthiel

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Like pretty much any common recreational drug, if a problem develops it's not because of the drug, it's because of the person involved and their situation.

A large number of respected doctors and scientists back in the 50s and 60s were morphine addicts, and yet they lived long, productive lives. There do exist functional (and by that I mean normal, not just barely able to function) heroin addicts today, you just don't hear about it because it's not exactly something you want to advertise (see the link vinylmesh posted). Like has been mentioned in the OP, the problem occurs when people with little money and little hope in life begin to take it.

It's been a while since I've read such misguided, misinformed tripe on boards.

The_Minister

Beruthiel wrote: »

It's been a while since I've read such misguided, misinformed tripe on boards.

We try to encourage intelligent discussion on this board.
Rather than just say that he is wrong, can you please rebut some specific aspects of his post?

The_Minister

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Yes, this is true. The idea that you can take one hit of anything and get hooked instantly is a complete myth.

Opiates in pure form are actually more or less physically harmless to the human body, although the addiction potential is obviously still there. Obviously, the same weight of heroin with a higher purity will be stronger, and thus more addictive than purer stuff, but impure stuff could contain anything, including chemicals which could be actually physically harmful.

Heroin addiction is much more complicated than heroin being an evil drug that morphs first time users into hopeless junkies.

Like pretty much any common recreational drug, if a problem develops it's not because of the drug, it's because of the person involved and their situation. A large number of respected doctors and scientists back in the 50s and 60s were morphine addicts, and yet they lived long, productive lives. There do exist functional (and by that I mean normal, not just barely able to function) heroin addicts today, you just don't hear about it because it's not exactly something you want to advertise (see the link vinylmesh posted). Like has been mentioned in the OP, the problem occurs when people with little money and little hope in life begin to take it.

Of course, it's not all to do with class, we've all heard of the middle class coke addicts who go the same way, but there needs to be a huge rethink on the whole matter of addiction.

I often think that the War on Drugs is analogous to the ongoing war in 1984, with drugs and addiction being scapegoats for much more of societies problems than they really are, or would be if they were legal/regulated. Is that a bit too conspiracy theoryish for here?

Parts of what you have said are true. Some parts are true and yet the way you have phrased them is misleading.

I'd like you to provide citations for all the factual statments you have made please, and to clarify what you consider to be fact, and what is your own opinion.
Drugs are a difficult issue, and irresponsible discussion can have real world ramifications, so we are going to have to moderate discussions on this issue more closely in future.

--amadeus--

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Yes, this is true. The idea that you can take one hit of anything and get hooked instantly is a complete myth.

Opiates in pure form are actually more or less physically harmless to the human body, although the addiction potential is obviously still there. Obviously, the same weight of heroin with a higher purity will be stronger, and thus more addictive than purer stuff, but impure stuff could contain anything, including chemicals which could be actually physically harmful.

Heroin addiction is much more complicated than heroin being an evil drug that morphs first time users into hopeless junkies.

Like pretty much any common recreational drug, if a problem develops it's not because of the drug, it's because of the person involved and their situation. A large number of respected doctors and scientists back in the 50s and 60s were morphine addicts, and yet they lived long, productive lives. There do exist functional (and by that I mean normal, not just barely able to function) heroin addicts today, you just don't hear about it because it's not exactly something you want to advertise (see the link vinylmesh posted). Like has been mentioned in the OP, the problem occurs when people with little money and little hope in life begin to take it.

Well I would certainly like to see the evidence that suggests that opiates are "physically harmless". Do you have the evidence, scientific reports or articles that back that claim up?

Because everything I have seen indicates that there are two distinct elements to addiction. One - as discussed in the article linked to in the OP - is strongly psychological. Some people - through their social setting, personality or whatever - are more inclined to become dependent than others. This goes for everything from drinking coke to sniffing it.

But there is a physical element. The original article talks about rats showing withdrawal symptoms and I have seen someone undergoing cold turkey from prescription medication. It's not a whole heap of fun so I personally wouldn't dismiss it too lightly.

Boston

The_Minister wrote: »

We try to encourage intelligent discussion on this board.
Rather than just say that he is wrong, can you please rebut some specific aspects of his post?

Pure heroin will kill you. That posts makes out that the purer the substance the less damaging it is.

Prof.Badass

Boston wrote: »

Pure heroin will kill you. That posts makes out that the purer the substance the less damaging it is.

When you get morphine in a hospital it's not cut with caffeine/quinine/other substances now is it?
The whole point of modern pharmaceuticals is to give you the drug in as pure a form as possible.

Sometimes, on the street, unexpectedly pure heroin can cause a user to miscalculate their dose and hence overdose. Not only is this rare, but it also has nothing to do with the dangers of heroin itself. It happens because (as a result of prohibition) the user is used to taking impure heroin. It does not mean that pure heroin is more damaging. In fact the opposite is true, impure heroin is more damaging. This should be common sense.

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Well I would certainly like to see the evidence that suggests that opiates are "physically harmless". Do you have the evidence, scientific reports or articles that back that claim up?

It's generally accepted by those in the medical profession that the commonly used opiates are relatively non-toxic in the long term.

Studies that prove what experts already knew for decades aren't really that note-worthy, and hence not that esay to find without proper digging.

Here's a page about heroin myths from the uk group Drugscope. They are not pro-drugs or anti-prohibtion so they'd hardly lie to make heroin seem safer than it is;

http://www.drugscope.org.uk/resources/mediaguide/heroinmyths.htm

Heroin is relatively non-toxic


Heroin itself is relatively non-toxic (it doesn't destroy skin tissue or other cells in the body as does alcohol and tobacco). Most of the health problems that stem from heroin use are life-style related or linked to the route of administration (injecting drug use for example - through sharing needles or improper use - often leads to various blood-borne diseases or viruses such as HIV or Hepatitis B/C and/or abscess or collapsed veins).

Boston

So what you're saying is that If I get the correct dose of pure Heroin I can take it without any long term negative effects, and I can take it for months without becoming addicted.

Use of terms like "relatively", "commonly held belief", "more or less" "common sense" is called hedging. Why don't you tell me how much heroine I can take before I become addicted, and how pure it has to be before it wont physically damage me Dr vinylmesh. You don't know because you're not a medical professional. You're taking something and reading your own slant into it.

Prof.Badass

Boston wrote: »

So what you're saying is that If I get the correct dose of pure Heroin I can take it without any long term negative effects,

With a suitable route of administration then yes, it seems unlikely you would suffer any. Every website I have gone onto in relation to this states that heroin (in it's pure form) has negligible long term effects on the body. It annoys me that i cannot find a reference for this statement (despite the fact that it is apparently common knowledge) possibly for the reason i gave in one of my previous posts. If you're really up for it, perhaps the wikipedia page on opiod safety would be a good place to start. It starts with the line;

Studies over the past 20 years have repeatedly shown opioids to be safe when they are used correctly.

and then continues to give quite a few references (although they all seem to be about short term effects). It might point you in the right direction though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid#Safety

and I can take it for months without becoming addicted.

Show me where I said anything of the sort :mad:?

If you're going to debate with me, please stick to things i actually said.

Use of terms like "relatively", "commonly held belief", "more or less" "common sense" is called hedging.

Relatively- I would have assumed that what drugscope meant was relative to other drugs and bearing in mind obvious factors such as overdose (afterall even water can be fatal in the right quantities). I would have thought that this was clear. Obviously you think otherwise. Perhaps you should tell them of your concern; http://www.drugscope.org.uk/aboutus/contactus.htm .

commonly held belief- The actual words i used were "it is generally accepted". I chose these words deliberetely to include the possibility that there could be a small number of maverick doctors out there who stray from what the standard othodoxy. Every website i can find states that pharmaceutical grade heroin causes negligible long term damage. At this point all I can do is defer you on to these websites and make your complaints with them.

common sense- Yes. I would take it to be common sense that a drug is less damaging without adulterants and contaminants. I think I was fully justified in saying this. I do not think i was "hedging".

What i do think however is that basing your argument on trivial details such as a throwaway remark involving the words "common sense" is called nit-picking and is not conducive to a reasoned debate.

Why don't you tell me how much heroine I can take before I become addicted, and how pure it has to be before it wont physically damage me Dr vinylmesh. You don't know because you're not a medical professional. You're taking something and reading your own slant into it.

Are you suggesting that one needs to be a medical proffessional to know anything about drugs (or was it that you have to have used class A drugs-as you stated in another post)?
To argue that because a person does not have a formal qualification in the area they are therefore automatically wrong is a logical fallacy.

Besides, I would trust the experts at drugscope over some unknown doctor any day. Now, if they actually had any proof, that would be a different story.

vinylmesh, I know you've provided some links, but I'd be interested in seeing evidence for the claim that opiates, including heroin, when in their pure form, have negligible long term effects. It has become important in EYH as of late to provide evidence for controversial claims.

Boston

vinylmesh wrote: »

Probably yes, it seems unlikely you would suffer any. Every website I have gone onto in relation to this states that heroin (in it's pure form) has negligible long term effects on the body. It annoys me that i cannot find a reference for this statement (despite the fact that it is apparently common knowledge) possibly for the reason i gave in one of my previous posts. If you're really up for it, perhaps the wikipedia page on opiod safety would be a good place to start. It starts with the line;

"Probably", "seems", "unlikely", "common knowledge". Hedging, it allows you to make statements without having to stand over them at a later date.

And are you seriously references Wikipedia to me? Lets see a per-reviewed medical journal. Is pure heroin likely to be safer then street heroin which is cut with god knows what? Probably, that doesn't make it safe. "used correctly" in that context does not mean, nor would it ever mean recreational use.

(although they all seem to be about short term effects).

Do you think that maybe that might be a clue?

Relatively- I would have assumed that what drugscope meant was relative to other drugs and bearing in mind obvious factors such as overdose (afterall even water can be fatal in the right quantities). I would have thought that this was clear. Obviously you think otherwise. Perhaps you should tell them of your concern; http://www.drugscope.org.uk/aboutus/contactus.htm .

commonly held belief- The actual words i used were "it is generally accepted". I chose these words deliberetely to include the possibility that there could be a small number of maverick doctors out there who stray from what the standard othodoxy. Every website i can find i implies that pharmaceutical grade heroin causes negligible long term damage. At this point all I can do is defer you on to these websites and make your complaints with them.

common sense- Yes. I would take it to be common sense that a drug is safest without adulterants and contaminants. I think I was fully justified in saying this. I do not think i was "hedging".

"assume", "generally ", " possibility"

I love the negligible long term effects. This assumes a short period of exposure followed by a long recovery period with no subsequent exposure.

What i do think however is that basing your argument on trivial details such as a throwaway remark involving the words "common sense" is known as nit-picking and is not conducive to a reasoned debate.

It's called experience. When people start talking about an argument being obvious or common sense or "It clearly follows" the chances are they're talking out their arse.

Are you suggesting that one needs to be a medical proffessional to know anything about drugs (or was it that you have to have used class A drugs-as you stated in another post)?
To argue that because a person does not have a formal qualification in the area they are therefore automatically wrong is a logical fallacy.

Someone with a "formal qualification in the area" has a lot more weight to their opinion then someone whose basing their views on what they've read on wikipedia. You're making a medical argument without any grounds to back it up. You're telling my pure heroin is safe because A) you read that it was online, and your group of friends also think its safe. Are you actually for real?

Besides, I'd trust the experts at drugscope over some unknown doctor any day.

You trust the opinion of people on the internet over someone you actually know to be a doctor? You've kinda hit the nail on the head with that one. These threads are a moronic idea.

Prof.Badass

Boston wrote: »

"Probably", "seems", "unlikely", "common knowledge". Hedging, it allows you to make statements without having to stand over them at a later date. And are you seriously references Wikipedia to me? Lets see a per-reviewed medical journal. Is pure heroin likely to be safer then street heroin which is cut with god knows what? Probably, that doesn't make it safe. "used correctly" in that context does not mean, nor would it ever mean recreational use.

I gave you the wikipedia article as a place to start. Some of the referenced articles might contain a statement on the subject or a reference to another article on the subject. It was merely a helpful suggestion as google searches on scholarly articles are not throwing up anything for me.

Do you think that maybe that might be a clue?

What about the flip side of that argument. Surely if they caused long term damage we would know all about it?

"assume", "generally ", " possibility"

I love the negligible long term effects. This assumes a short period of exposure followed by a long recovery period with no subsequent exposure.

Does it? how do you deduce that?

It's called experience. When people start talking about an argument being obvious or common sense or "It clearly follows" the chances are they're talking out their arse.

So do you have a qualification in this "experience" or what?

When someone starts nit-picking chances are they're out of their depth .

Someone with a "formal qualification in the area" has a lot more weight to their opinion then someone whose basing their views on what they've read on wikipedia. You're making a medical argument without any grounds to back it up. You're telling my pure heroin is safe because A) you read that it was online, and your group of friends also think its safe. Are you actually for real?

Is reading it online any worse than reading it in a book?

Granted I don't spend all my time reading peer-reviewed articles, but most of the sites i go on are not wiki-editable and they generally contain references.

It's easy to be cynical. I think the internet is more accountable than books used to be.

Look. I gave a link to drugscope. I can give links to dozens of other simmilar sites saying the exact same thing. It's the best i can do. Sorry.

Perhaps you should try posting some evidence for your counter-arguments. Untill then I have the advantage evidence-wise. It is better than nothing. You have to give me that.

You trust the opinion of people on the internet over someone you actually know to be a doctor? You've kinda hit the nail on the head with that one. These threads are a moronic idea.

You are on the internet. You are a doctor (i assume). I trust the experts at drug-scope over you (a randomer on the internet who claims to have a qualification). So what qualification do you have anyway?

Boston

Let's not get derailed looking for personal details (qualifications, etc.), okay? No one here is an expert in the field of drugs, but we can argue as well as anybody if we use credible sources for our allegations.

Boston wrote: »

And are you seriously references Wikipedia to me? Lets see a per-reviewed medical journal.

It's a misconception to state that Wikipedia is an irrelevant source. Yes, it's user-editable, but everything stated on the site is usually referenced. The extract that vinlymesh has pointed you to is extremely well referenced, so that's not a valid angle for refutation of his post. Wikipedia itself shouldn't be used as a source, but the references contained in the article itself are usually of a high standard.

tbh

Boston wrote: »

Pure heroin will kill you. That posts makes out that the purer the substance the less damaging it is.

anything can kill you if you use it in the right way. How much pure heroin will kill you? Will it always kill you? would the same amount kill everyone? How about you start providing a few sources of your own boston? Is this something you have a creditible reason for saying, or it is merely recieved wisdom?

Boston

vinylmesh: I ignored you post as it lacked the relevant wikipedia references. Please revise you article and resubmit.

JammyDodger: Since you,. not vinylmesh aren't medical professionals, you're in no position to determine what is a credible source. Please point out to me the per reviewed medical journals which are included in the " extremely well referenced" wiki article.

tbh wrote: »

anything can kill you if you use it in the right way. How much pure heroin will kill you? Will it always kill you? would the same amount kill everyone? How about you start providing a few sources of your own boston? Is this something you have a creditible reason for saying, or it is merely recieved wisdom?

I'm not the one trying to argue that "all the studies are flawed" and that its safe. This debate isn't on an equal footing. The points you raised are the same ones I raised, How much pure heroin wont kill you Will it always be safe for you? would the same amount be safe for everyone? If a person can't answer those questions they can't argue that its safe. They're arguing an absolute (Pure Heroin is safe) all I need is to provide on scenario where this is not true to disprove their assertion. Basic logic.

tbh

Boston wrote: »

I'm not the one trying to argue that "all the studies are flawed" and that its safe. This debate isn't on an equal footing. The points you raised are the same ones I raised, How much pure heroin wont kill you Will it always be safe for you? would the same amount be safe for everyone? If a person can't answer those questions they can't argue that its safe. They're arguing an absolute (Pure Heroin is safe) all I need is to provide on scenario where this is not true to disprove their assertion. Basic logic.

yeha I totally understand where you are coming from. The point is that this is the expand your horizons forum. I thought that this was going to be a forum where the status quo could be challenged. I understand that, in everyday life, the onus of proof is on the person challenging the perceived wisdom, but a lot of the time, that perceived wisdom is based more on culture than fact.
I had hoped the the EYH forum would allow for a suspension of that onus of proof so that common perceptions could be challenged in the way that vinlymesh is doing.

So I would say it's not enough to simply say "pure heroin is safe" but by the same token it's not enough to simply say "pure heroin will kill you". Both statements are true to a degree, and misleading to a degree. I had hoped that this debate would be more focused on arriving at a degree of acceptance by both sides of facts that don't necessarily support their points of view. That has to happen to advance the debate, but it's simply not happening here.

I have no doubt that some people, with a constant supply of clean heroin and needles, can live a life of dependence on heroin with no major problems. I also have no doubt that not everyone who drinks and drives kills someone, or that everyone who smokes goes on to get cancer. None of those facts, however, would lead me to feel that doing any of those actions is a good thing (although I'm smoking as I write this:rolleyes:). I think that is the side of the debate that is being missed.

There is an argument to be made that a lot of the bad things about drug addiction are as a result of it's criminalised status, as opposed to the physical effects of the drug itself. Would you be willing to accept that point at least?

Boston

Maybe it would work on another topic. But if you're arguing that a typically lethal substance can be used safely you better be talking from a position of authority and well able to back up those claims. You also better be able to detail exactly what you mean by safe and the circumstances when it is a valid assertion. Now both vinylmesh JC 2k3 have made some lazy, open ended, and tilted comments which leave a lot of room for interpretation. The reason they've done this is because they are not doctors and they can't actually comment with confidence. It's comments like "relative" which I really take umbrage with. Compared the Black Tar Heroin, Pure Heroin is "safe" but compared to a nice cup of Tea it isn't.

I get what you're saying but if the forum is for lazy and unsubstantiated debating, then lets just merge it with the cuckoo's nest and have done with it.