Crystal meth

scientific1982

mloc wrote: »

How does that settle it? Your username is a misnomer; that is not a good comparison.

That social cost of alcohol, it's impact on society and public health and the lobbying power of the alcohol industry makes, quite reasonably, meth look like a very small issue indeed.

Alcohol related issues, indeed, trump the negative effects of every illegal drug, combined.

Ok. Compare the LD 50 of say vodka vs crystal meth.

In relation to its impact on society, alcohol has a larger impact because its more prevalent. If the same number of people who consume alcohol consumed crystal meth regularly, Ireland would be like a scene from 28 days later.

sbsquarepants

What have the ld50's of meth and vodka got to do with anything? The ld50 of a substance has absolutely no bearing on it's impact to society.
Take paracetemol, has quite a low ld50 in relation to similar drugs, it has hardly ravaged society though has it?
I don't think you're as scientific as your user name implies!

Terry

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I agree with you, of course some things are more addictive than others, but you can be guaranteed that it's nowhere near as bad as the press will tell you, and for the most part the people who will end up addicted to it, would end up addicted to something else if meth didn't exist. Addiction to anything doesn't happen overnight, there are warning signs which must be either missed or ignored before a full blown addiction can take place. The kind of disinformation contained in the media helps no one, except the media!

You seem to be quite naive as to the addictiveness of drugs. I would suggest that you stay away from anything illegal.

scientific1982 wrote: »

Simple way to settle it. Have someone take alcohol everyday for the next year and have someone else take crystal meth. Gee I wonder who would be worse off.

I've been drunk every night for he past year and I'm still functional.

mloc wrote: »

How does that settle it? Your username is a misnomer; that is not a good comparison.

That social cost of alcohol, it's impact on society and public health and the lobbying power of the alcohol industry makes, quite reasonably, meth look like a very small issue indeed.

Alcohol related issues, indeed, trump the negative effects of every illegal drug, combined.

Alcohol is nowhere near as strong as crystal meth. It's not even as strong as cannabis.
Think about how many drinks it takes to get drunk. Then think about how many drags of a joint it takes to get high. Factor in the time difference too.

Then look at crystal meth and how strong that is.

Of course alcohol causes problems, but not for everyone who drinks. Anyone doing crystal meth on a regular basis will become addicted to it. There is no disputing that fact.
This isn't like going on the lash for two week in Benidorm, or where ever is fashionable these days. You will come back from that holiday and not be an alcoholic. If you do crystal meth for two weeks straight, there is a very high probability of becoming addicted to it when you wake up.

Legalising other drugs will just lead to the same problems caused by alcohol. To ignore that fact would be foolish.

scientific1982

sbsquarepants wrote: »

What have the ld50's of meth and vodka got to do with anything? The ld50 of a substance has absolutely no bearing on it's impact to society.
Take paracetemol, has quite a low ld50 in relation to similar drugs, it has hardly ravaged society though has it?
I don't think you're as scientific as your user name implies!

Because we're fcuking talking about how harmful a drug is. I think its toxicity would be a consideration.

Zascar

Like a lot of 'drugs' alcohol can be enjoyed in moderation by 99% of the population, it’s the 1-2% that develop a problem that ruin it for the rest of us.

If everyone in the country was out smoking Meth a few times a week, it would be a hell of a lot more than 1-2% that would develop a problem.

Honestly, if you have not already, watch the documentaries mentioned above – and you’ll understand just how horrific this drug is.

sbsquarepants

Terry wrote: »

You seem to be quite naive as to the addictiveness of drugs. I would suggest that you stay away from anything illegal..

I've done plenty of addictive drugs in my time, without addiction, i'm far from naive. But thanks for your concern!

Terry wrote: »

I've been drunk every night for he past year and I'm still functional..

I think you might be the naive one

scientific1982 wrote: »

Because we're fcuking talking about how harmful a drug is. I think its toxicity would be a consideration.

We were talking about the damage to society, not to the individual. Alcohol already is way more damaging to society (see chart below) The Ld50 comparison is less than meaningless in this regard.

scientific1982

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I've done plenty of addictive drugs in my time, without addiction, i'm far from naive. But thanks for your concern!





I think you might be the naive one




We were talking about the damage to society, not to the individual. Alcohol already is way more damaging to society (see chart below) The Ld50 comparison is less than meaningless in this regard.

We were talking about the actual substance. Yeah you're right, toxicity is only a minor concern when accessing the harmfulness of a drug. I dont know why pharmaceutical companies bother compiling drug safety data.

Fremen

scientific1982 wrote: »

Because we're fcuking talking about how harmful a drug is. I think its toxicity would be a consideration.

In that case, you should be looking at the ratio (Active dose) : (LD 50)

By the LD50 criterion alone, it would appear that Nicotine is about 700 times more dangerous than crystal meth.

scientific1982

Fremen wrote: »

In that case, you should be looking at the ratio (Active dose) : (LD 50)

By the LD50 criterion alone, it would appear that Nicotine is about 700 times more dangerous than crystal meth.

Fair enough. Id say the information derived from the LD 50 alone is important when considering a substances harmfulness wouldnt you.

Also, I didnt say that we should look at LD 50 alone. However, by that criteria, crystal meth is 10 times more dangerous than alcohol.

mloc

scientific1982 wrote: »

Fair enough. Id say the information derived from the LD 50 alone is important when considering a substances harmfulness wouldn't you.

I think it depends on your definition of harmfulness.

LD50 merely tells us the dose at which 50% of certain population given that dose, died.

Death is rarely an issue with illegal drugs, heroin and cocaine aside. The vast majority of so-called "drug related deaths" are as a result of a combination of large quantities of alcohol and drugs. The most obvious danger for someone taking drugs alone is getting arrested.

Deaths attributable to drugs such as cannabis, MDMA and hallucinogenics alone are virtually non-existent.

Fremen

scientific1982 wrote: »

Ok. Compare the LD 50 of say vodka vs crystal meth.

My point is that this comparison is meaningless. The LD50 of caffeine is way lower than vodka or meth. It's silly to compare them in absolute terms.

K-9

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I've done plenty of addictive drugs in my time, without addiction, i'm far from naive. But thanks for your concern!





I think you might be the naive one




We were talking about the damage to society, not to the individual. Alcohol already is way more damaging to society (see chart below) The Ld50 comparison is less than meaningless in this regard.

Certain alcoholics can manage fine, others can't. Usually long term it catches up on them though.

Anyway, I don't like the "sure look at alcohol" defence. It's like the "have you stopped beating your wife?" defence in politics. Comparing meths to one drug that cause huge social problems isn't an argument for it, it's a very lazy defence of it.

Kotek Besar

sbsquarepants wrote: »

(see chart below)

Khat looks good. Might try that.

scientific1982

Fremen wrote: »

My point is that this comparison is meaningless. The LD50 of caffeine is way lower than vodka or meth. It's silly to compare them in absolute terms.

Where did I say that it should be the sole test used to assess the harmfulness of alcohol vs meth. I just used it as one example.

scientific1982

mloc wrote: »

I think it depends on your definition of harmfulness.

LD50 merely tells us the dose at which 50% of certain population given that dose, died.

Death is rarely an issue with illegal drugs, heroin and cocaine aside. The vast majority of so-called "drug related deaths" are as a result of a combination of large quantities of alcohol and drugs. The most obvious danger for someone taking drugs alone is getting arrested.

Deaths attributable to drugs such as cannabis, MDMA and hallucinogenics alone are virtually non-existent.

Yeah death would be the ultimate adverse effect. What about a comparison of the two substances in relation to neurotoxicity, mutagenicity, teratogenicity, ect. Id be fairly confident that a substance like meth, which is manufactured with drain cleaning fluid amongst other dubious ingredients, is going to be more harmful to an individuals health.

sbsquarepants

K-9 wrote: »

Certain alcoholics can manage fine, others can't. Usually long term it catches up on them though.

Anyway, I don't like the "sure look at alcohol" defence. It's like the "have you stopped beating your wife?" defence in politics. Comparing meths to one drug that cause huge social problems isn't an argument for it, it's a very lazy defence of it.

It is a bit lazy, but only because it's stating the obvious. Yes meth is addictive and some people will run into problems using it, probably a higher percentage than would with alcohol (for example). But lets not forget, over in america they prescribe this stuff to millions of kids! My whole point is yes, it's bad, but it's not THAT bad! There is really no need for hysteria.
I would be absolutely certain that i could do it without getting addicted, 100% certain, and the vast majority of people could too

Also, i'm not sure what the wife beating thing is, but i'd pay good money to hear Enda Kenny say it to biffo in the dail!:D

Zascar

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I would be absolutely certain that i could do it without getting addicted, 100% certain, and the vast majority of people could too

Strange comment. Are you referring to doing it once? I'm sure you'd be fine, but try doing it every weekend for a few months and then a few times a week for a while, and then every day - and then see how you're doing.

Do you think you could inject heroin and not get addicted?

Kotek Besar

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I would be absolutely certain that i could do it without getting addicted, 100% certain, and the vast majority of people could too

What a knob head.

K-9

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It is a bit lazy, but only because it's stating the obvious. Yes meth is addictive and some people will run into problems using it, probably a higher percentage than would with alcohol (for example). But lets not forget, over in america they prescribe this stuff to millions of kids! My whole point is yes, it's bad, but it's not THAT bad! There is really no need for hysteria.
I would be absolutely certain that i could do it without getting addicted, 100% certain, and the vast majority of people could too

Also, i'm not sure what the wife beating thing is, but i'd pay good money to hear Enda Kenny say it to biffo in the dail!:D

It's the definition of a loaded question! Because one drug is ok, so should meths.

As for the wife beating thing, it is a variation of this:
Back on the Gonzo trail

as in this 'ancient and honourable' story of how Lyndon Johnson first got elected to Congress in 1948 when his opponent was a wealthy and politically favoured pig farmer: 'Lyndon was running about 10 points behind, with only nine days to go... He was sunk in despair. He was desperate... he called his equally depressed campaign manager and instructed him to call a press conference at two or two-thirty ( just after lunch on a slow news day) and accuse his high-riding opponent (the pig farmer) of having routine carnal knowledge of his barnyard sows, despite the pleas of his wife and children...

His campaign manager was shocked. 'We can't say that, Lyndon,' he said. 'It's not true.' 'Of course it's not,' Johnson barked at him, 'but let's make the bastard deny it.'

sbsquarepants

scientific1982 wrote: »

Yeah death would be the ultimate adverse effect. What about a comparison of the two substances in relation to neurotoxicity, mutagenicity, teratogenicity, ect. Id be fairly confident that a substance like meth, which is manufactured with drain cleaning fluid amongst other dubious ingredients, is going to be more harmful to an individuals health.

In work, i've recently purchased 50 litres of ethanol (ie drinking alcohol) for cleaning and degreasing metal bars, prior to them being glued. Does this mean a €1000 bottle of vintage champagne was made using dubious ingredients such as industrial degreaser? A lot of things can be made to sound worse than they really are.
There are all sorts of nasty chemicals in all sorts of things!

But don't get me wrong, meth is not health food:)

sbsquarepants

Zascar wrote: »

Strange comment. Are you referring to doing it once? I'm sure you'd be fine, but try doing it every weekend for a few months and then a few times a week for a while, and then every day - and then see how you're doing.

Do you think you could inject heroin and not get addicted?

I wouldn't permit myself to escalate like that, that's what i meant earlier by saying there are warning signs to addiction. They don't just happen overnight!

I wouldn't inject anything, so no. In fact i wouldn't try heroin at all.

Kotek Besar wrote: »

What a knob head.

Please like me!

mloc

scientific1982 wrote: »

Yeah death would be the ultimate adverse effect. What about a comparison of the two substances in relation to neurotoxicity, mutagenicity, teratogenicity, ect. Id be fairly confident that a substance like meth, which is manufactured with drain cleaning fluid amongst other dubious ingredients, is going to be more harmful to an individuals health.

By some definitions, alcohol is an industrial cleaning fluid.

edit:
Just noticed someone else has pointed this out already.

scientific1982

sbsquarepants wrote: »

In work, i've recently purchased 50 litres of ethanol (ie drinking alcohol) for cleaning and degreasing metal bars, prior to them being glued. Does this mean a €1000 bottle of vintage champagne was made using dubious ingredients such as industrial degreaser? A lot of things can be made to sound worse than they really are.
There are all sorts of nasty chemicals in all sorts of things!

But don't get me wrong, meth is not health food:)

No methanol isnt "drinking alcohol", thats ethanol. Nevertheless, you dont pop down the pub and order a pint of pure ethanol do you. You're right in saying that there are a lot of nasty chemicals in many of the beverages and foods that we eat, but we have very strict legislation concerning their manufacture and the levels of said cheimcals allowed. These foods and drinks are also extensively tested. Maybe im wrong but I dont think your average meth cook is bound by such tight controls.

scientific1982

mloc wrote: »

By some definitions, alcohol is an industrial cleaning fluid.

edit:
Just noticed someone else has pointed this out already.

Yep. 70% alcohol is a very effective disinfectant too. Other common meth ingredients include chloroform, ether and acetone. Point.

sbsquarepants

scientific1982 wrote: »

No methanol isnt "drinking alcohol", thats ethanol. Nevertheless, you dont pop down the pub and order a pint of pure ethanol do you. You're right in saying that there are a lot of nasty chemicals in many of the beverages and foods that we eat, but we have very strict legislation concerning their manufacture and the levels of said cheimcals allowed. These foods and drinks are also extensively tested. Maybe im wrong but I dont think your average meth cook is bound by such tight controls.

I was in the process of changing it back to ethanol, spelling mistake (prob form typing meth so many times!) I'm not advocating meth for breakfast or anything like that, i'm just saying it's not as bad as some people are making out, and the "horrible" chemicals used in it manufature are also used in a lot of the things we eat and drink etc.
And as has been pointed out by another poster, it's readily available and widely used on prescription by millions of people, so it can't be that evil! No drug is good or bad, it's how it's used (or abused) that defines that.

Also, no i don't order pints of pure ethanol in a pub, but i can walk into any supermarket or off licence and buy enough to kill myself 10 times over and the nice girl on the till will simply smile and take my money. Society hasn't collapsed because of it, most people are sensible enough not to poison themselves with it, or get addicted to it. It is the same with everything.

Prof.Badass

brendansmith wrote: »

I don't want to talk to a scientist, y'all mother fcukers lyin, and gettin me pissed

I'm not a scientist really must change this username　:(.

Terry wrote: »

Alcohol is nowhere near as strong as crystal meth. It's not even as strong as cannabis.
Think about how many drinks it takes to get drunk. Then think about how many drags of a joint it takes to get high. Factor in the time difference too.

Just because the actual action of taking alcohol takes longer than for other drugs doesn't make you more likely to overdose once you know what a suitable dose is, neither does it make it less addictive.
In fact it has been shown that one of the effects of alcohol is that as time goes on it actually makes you underestimate how drunk you are, which of course could very much lead to you drinking more than you intended.
Cannabis does not make you underestimate how altered you are, at least not to the same degree as alcohol.

Of course alcohol causes problems, but not for everyone who drinks. Anyone doing crystal meth on a regular basis will become addicted to it. There is no disputing that fact.
This isn't like going on the lash for two week in Benidorm, or where ever is fashionable these days. You will come back from that holiday and not be an alcoholic. If you do crystal meth for two weeks straight, there is a very high probability of becoming addicted to it when you wake up.

Yes. Crystal meth is more addictive than alcohol. It's neurotoxic effects are also imo worse than alcohol (even if meth causes less damage than alcohol, the nature of it makes it far worse imo).

If i was dictator i would decriminalise methamphetamine, but because of it's neurotoxicity I would not give it the 'recreational drugs regulatory authority' stamp of approval to be sold explicitly for recreational use. There are plenty of non-neurotoxic stimulants out there that are equally effective.

Legalising other drugs will just lead to the same problems caused by alcohol. To ignore that fact would be foolish.

Drugs belonging to different classes have different effects.
Alcohol (and drugs simmilar to it) are particular in the social harm they can cause and the way they can reduce judgement.
You also seem to assume that the amount of new people taking currently-illegal drugs will be high enough to have a negative social effect that even comes close to the massive social harm caused by the prohibition of drugs.

sbsquarepants

Prof.Badass wrote: »

I'm not a scientist really must change this username　:(.
.

I don't know who to trust anymore. Are you at least a badass?:)

mloc

scientific1982 wrote: »

Yep. 70% alcohol is a very effective disinfectant too. Other common meth ingredients include chloroform, ether and acetone. Point.

They are not "ingredients". They are precursor compounds or reagents used in the manufacture of meth. It is more true to state that cyanide is an ingredient in table salt.

I'm not saying meth is good; it's a harmful, addictive substance with little merit as a recreational drug.

What I am saying is that the level of misunderstanding, hyperbole and exaggeration surrounding the reality of drugs (and in that I include alcohol) in Ireland is staggering.

scientific1982

mloc wrote: »

They are not "ingredients". They are precursor compounds or reagents used in the manufacture of meth. It is more true to state that cyanide is an ingredient in table salt.

I'm not saying meth is good; it's a harmful, addictive substance with little merit as a recreational drug.

What I am saying is that the level of misunderstanding, hyperbole and exaggeration surrounding the reality of drugs (and in that I include alcohol) in Ireland is staggering.

Yes obviously chemical reactions are involved leading to the formation of new chemical species. However, I highly doubt that the final product is subjected to thorough purification do you. What remains will also be floating aroud your blood stream.

Fremen

scientific1982 wrote: »

Where did I say that it should be the sole test used to assess the harmfulness of alcohol vs meth. I just used it as one example.

It was a lousy example. That's all I'm sayin'.