If you drink alcohol, yet you are against other drugs...

gosuckonalemon

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

The way I look at it is that while one E or shot of heroin etc could kill you, one drink is very unlikely to unless you mix it with drugs or are allegric or something. Personally I wouldn't touch them.

If you wish to do drugs and are ok with the risks then that's your business but do not lable me a hyprocrit because I choose not to.

One E could NOT kill you unless you have some undiagnosed underlying medical condition. The same as one drinking session could kill you if you had some undiagnosed condition.

lividduck

mattjack wrote: »

Where are you getting this from ? The only two drugs that can kill during withdrawal are alcohol and benzos . Withdrawal from heroin and most opiates almost never causes death.

Which is it, if it is almost never causes death then you accept that it sometimes does cause death . Make your mind up.

gosuckonalemon

lividduck wrote: »

Pretty obvious who the clueless one is!
Do some actual research (watching Trainspotting doesn't count).

Links to discount what I said please.

ntlbell

IrishEyes19 wrote: »

R But if you have a history of mental illness in your family, smoking joints ect....can trigger it with awful effects. That's fact.

As can alcohol.

foxyboxer

What all this boils down to is common sense.

It is common sense to refrain from cigarettes because it causes lung cancer.
It is common sense to refrain from narcotics as they are proven to be addictive.

I may be labelled a sheep because I enjoy a drink (but don't enjoy being drunk) but at least I'm a sheep with common sense. If a day came where alcohol became a problem (affecting family, work or health), I'd like to think I'd have the common sense to seek help for it too. Baa.

Alcohol is a major problem because it's availability is saturated in the market. It's 10am now on a Thursday morning. I'm sure I could buy a naggin of whiskey or vodka within the next 10-15 minutes if I choose to. Coke, heroin et al are a little harder to come by. To suggest that they would not be as problematic as Alcohol if widely available is short sighted.

gosuckonalemon

foxyboxer wrote: »

What all this boils down to is common sense.

It is common sense to refrain from cigarettes because it causes lung cancer.
It is common sense to refrain from narcotics as they are proven to be addictive.

I may be labelled a sheep because I enjoy a drink (but don't enjoy being drunk) but at least I'm a sheep with common sense. If a day came where alcohol became a problem (affecting family, work or health), I'd like to think I'd have the common sense to seek help for it too. Baa.

It is common sense to refrain from alcohol as it causes cirrhosis/liver failure.

I may be labelled a sheep because I enjoy a joint (but don't enjoy being stoned) but at least I'm a sheep with common sense. If a day came where weed became a problem (affecting family, work or health), I'd like to think I'd have the common sense to seek help for it too. Baa.

(See what I did there?)

foxyboxer

gosuckonalemon wrote: »

It is common sense to refrain from alcohol as it causes cirrhosis/liver failure.

You are mixing up use with abuse.

There are guidelines available on alcohol use (though these are generally ignored. Some people are stupid, what can you do). The guideline states that you should not regularly drink more than the daily unit guidelines of 3-4 units of alcohol for men (equivalent to a pint and a half of 4% beer) or you risk cirrhosis, liver damage etc. That's the choice you make. If you decide to drink more it's your own choice.

I don't think I need to elaborate on the health effects of Cigarette use.

I'm not condoning drug 'use'. That's a personal choice. The problem is the abuse part including alcohol.
We see guidelines for alcohol but what are the guidelines for narcotic use?
Would it be wise to suggest a guideline as opposed to a 'Say no to Drugs' campaign?

srsly78

foxyboxer wrote: »

You are mixing up use with abuse.

There are guidelines available on alcohol use (though these are generally ignored. Some people are stupid, what can you do). The guideline states that you should not regularly drink more than the daily unit guidelines of 3-4 units of alcohol for men (equivalent to a pint and a half of 4% beer) or you risk cirrhosis, liver damage etc. That's the choice you make. If you decide to drink more it's your own choice.

I don't think I need to elaborate on the health effects of Cigarette use.

I'm not condoning drug 'use'. That's a personal choice. The problem is the abuse part including alcohol.
We see guidelines for alcohol but what are the guidelines for narcotic use?
Would it be wise to suggest a guideline as opposed to a 'Say no to Drugs' campaign?

So you don't refrain from narcotics at all, good lad.

foxyboxer

srsly78 wrote: »

So you don't refrain from narcotics at all, good lad.

Unfortunately I do. Rich man's aspirin like.

gosuckonalemon

foxyboxer wrote: »

You are mixing up use with abuse.

There are guidelines available on alcohol use (though these are generally ignored. Some people are stupid, what can you do). The guideline states that you should not regularly drink more than the daily unit guidelines of 3-4 units of alcohol for men (equivalent to a pint and a half of 4% beer) or you risk cirrhosis, liver damage etc. That's the choice you make. If you decide to drink more it's your own choice.

I don't think I need to elaborate on the health effects of Cigarette use.

I'm not condoning drug 'use'. That's a personal choice. The problem is the abuse part including alcohol.
We see guidelines for alcohol but what are the guidelines for narcotic use?
Would it be wise to suggest a guideline as opposed to a 'Say no to Drugs' campaign?

The reason there are no guidelines for drugs other than alcohol is that they are not legal. If something is not legal what group/authority would publish safe guidelines?

If alcohol was still illegal today, as it was in the past, would official guidelines still be drawn up do you think?

Seachmall

foxyboxer wrote: »

I'm not condoning drug 'use'. That's a personal choice. The problem is the abuse part including alcohol.
We see guidelines for alcohol but what are the guidelines for narcotic use?
Would it be wise to suggest a guideline as opposed to a 'Say no to Drugs' campaign?

In Canada (Vancouver I believe) they had a huge heroin problem, after years of simply enforcing stricter and stricter laws they decided to take an alternative approach. They opened needle exchange programs as well as clinics for users to shoot up in. They essentially decriminalized heroin use.

They saw a drop in crime, a drop in HIV/AIDS, a drop in addicts overdosing, and a drop in the number of addicts in general. Users had direct access to nurses who worked in the clinic and had direct access to rehab facilities and programs. Money was saved in not prosecuting users who shot up in the clinics and because of clean syringes and water the hospitals weren't full of users who had gotten infections or were being diagnosed with diseases.

Politicians didn't like it of course, they see it as condoning drug use, but the objective facts are there. Regulating and monitoring drug use is better for everyone involved. It saves money and it saves lives.

So, "Would it be wise to suggest a guideline as opposed to a 'Say no to Drugs' campaign?"

Yes. But people don't like to think it would be. People are blinded by opinion and bias. The biggest problem with drug use is not the users, it's the public and the lawmakers.

Edit - Links
The project even has a website.
A brief write-up on it.

mikom

Seachmall wrote: »

In Canada (Vancouver I believe) they had a huge heroin problem, after years of simply enforcing stricter and stricter laws they decided to take an alternative approach. They opened needle exchange programs as well as clinics for users to shoot up in. They essentially decriminalized heroin use.

They saw a drop in crime, a drop in HIV/AIDS, a drop in addicts overdosing, and a drop in the number of addicts in general. Users had direct access to nurses who worked in the clinic and had direct access to rehab facilities and programs. Money was saved in not prosecuting users who shot up in the clinics and because of clean syringes and water the hospitals weren't full of users who had gotten infections or were being diagnosed with diseases.

Politicians didn't like it of course, they see it as condoning drug use, but the objective facts are there. Regulating and monitoring drug use is better for everyone involved. It saves money and it saves lives.

So, "Would it be wise to suggest a guideline as opposed to a 'Say no to Drugs' campaign?"

Yes. But people don't like to think it would be. People are blinded by opinion and bias. The biggest problem with drug use is not the users, it's the public and the lawmakers.

Edit - Links
The project even has a website.
A brief write-up on it.

Same result in Portugal.

The government in Portugal has no plans to back down. Although the Netherlands is the European country most associated with liberal drug laws, it has already been ten years since Portugal became the first European nation to take the brave step of decriminalizing possession of all drugs within its borders—from marijuana to heroin, and everything in between. This controversial move went into effect in June of 2001, in response to the country’s spiraling HIV/AIDS statistics. While many critics in the poor and largely conservative country attacked the sea change in drug policy, fearing it would lead to drug tourism while simultaneously worsening the country’s already shockingly high rate of hard drug use, a report published in 2009 by the Cato Institute tells a different story.


Glenn Greenwald, the attorney and author who conducted the research, told Time: “Judging by every metric, drug decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success. It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country."


Back in 2001, Portugal had the highest rate of HIV among injecting drug users in the European Union—an incredible 2,000 new cases a year, in a country with a population of just 10 million. Despite the predictable controversy the move stirred up at home and abroad, the Portuguese government felt there was no other way they could effectively quell this ballooning problem. While here in the U.S. calls for full drug decriminalization are still dismissed as something of a fringe concern, the Portuguese decided to do it, and have been quietly getting on with it now for a decade. Surprisingly, most credible reports appear to show that decriminalization has been a staggering success.

The DEA sees it a bit differently. Portugal, they say, was a disaster, with heroin and HIV rates out of control. "Portugal's addict population and the problems that go along with addiction continue to increase," the DEA maintains. "In an effort to reduce the number of addicts in the prison system, the Portuguese government has an enacted some radical policies in the last few years with the eventual decriminalization of all illicit drugs in July of 2001."


However, as Glenn Greenwald, the author of the Cato study, concludes: "By freeing its citizens from the fear of prosecution and imprisonment for drug usage, Portugal has dramatically improved its ability to encourage drug addicts to avail themselves of treatment. The resources that were previously devoted to prosecuting and imprisoning drug addicts are now available to provide treatment programs to addicts."



Under the perfect system, treatment would also be voluntary, but as an alternative to jail, mandatory treatment save money. But for now, "the majority of EU states have rates that are double and triple the rate for post-decriminalization Portugal," Greenwald says.


For those looking for clues about how the U.S. government can tackle its domestic drug problem, the figures are enticing. Following decriminalization, Portugal eventually found itself with the lowest rates of marijuana usage in people over 15 in the EU: about 10%. Compare this to the 40% of people over 12 who regularly smoke pot in the U.S., a country with some of the most punitive drugs laws in the developed world.



Drug use of all kinds has declined in Portugal: Lifetime use among seventh to ninth graders fell from 14.01% to 10.6%. Lifetime heroin use among 16-18 year olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8%. And what about those horrific HIV infection rates that prompted the move in the first place? HIV infection rates among drug users fell by an incredible 17%, while drug related deaths were reduced by more than half. "There is no doubt that the phenomenon of addiction is in decline in Portugal," said Joao Goulao, President of the Institute of Drugs and Drugs Addiction, at a press conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the law.


http://www.alternet.org/drugs/151635/ten_years_ago_portugal_legalized_all_drugs_--_what_happened_next

Sense.

Awaits "But, but Ireland is different.......... won't somebody think of the children.

Temptamperu

mikom wrote: »

Same result in Portugal.



Sense.

Awaits "But, but Ireland is different.......... won't somebody think of the children.

They will only think of the children when the chidren are users by then they are filthy junkies and no-one cares.
Everyone who has a bad opinion on heroin should watch that documentery three pages back. You will realise its te lawmakers creating a black market with no quality control, no laws and ultimitley the death of our friends and family who get stuck in this hole.

ntlbell

foxyboxer wrote: »

What all this boils down to is common sense.

It is common sense to refrain from cigarettes because it causes lung cancer.
It is common sense to refrain from narcotics as they are proven to be addictive.

I may be labelled a sheep because I enjoy a drink (but don't enjoy being drunk) but at least I'm a sheep with common sense. If a day came where alcohol became a problem (affecting family, work or health), I'd like to think I'd have the common sense to seek help for it too. Baa.

Alcohol is a major problem because it's availability is saturated in the market. It's 10am now on a Thursday morning. I'm sure I could buy a naggin of whiskey or vodka within the next 10-15 minutes if I choose to. Coke, heroin et al are a little harder to come by. To suggest that they would not be as problematic as Alcohol if widely available is short sighted.

why is it not common sense to stay away from alcohol when it causes

liver damage

that's the number one most harmful drug beating heroin and crack cocaine?

the problem with common sense is it's not very common


he Most Harmful Drugs

Here are the scores each drug received for overall harm caused on a scale of 0 to 100:

• Alcohol 72
• Heroin 55
• Crack Cocaine 54
• Methamphetamine 33
• Cocaine 27
• Tobacco 26
• Amphetamine 23
• Marijuana 20
• GHB 19
• Benzodiazepines 15
• Ketamine 15
• Methadone 14
  
• Anabolic Steroids 10
• Ecstasy 9
• LSD 7
• Buprenorphine 7
• Mushrooms 6

mattjack

lividduck wrote: »

Which is it, if it is almost never causes death then you accept that it sometimes does cause death . Make your mind up.

I used the term "most opiates" in my post . Methadone , not heroin can cause fatalities very rarely.I,ve never specifically heard of anyone dying from heroin withdrawal.

DyldeBrill

I'd disagree with your initial statement.It all depends on the person themselves and the drug.

John could go out and get hammered most nights, yet he may disagree with weed and all it does...ok I'd call him a hypocrite.It would be different if he had a few social drinks every now and again

I wont' even comment on coc, heroine and stuff like that because they are all filthy drugs! they shouldn't be brought into this argument whatsoever.

I would have no problem with someone disagreeing with me on those drugs.I'd be more open to Acid , DMT and what not.Drugs that could have a hidden cause

gosuckonalemon

DyldeBrill wrote: »

I'd disagree with your initial statement.It all depends on the person themselves and the drug.

John could go out and get hammered most nights, yet he may disagree with weed and all it does...ok I'd call him a hypocrite.It would be different if he had a few social drinks every now and again

I wont' even comment on coc, heroine and stuff like that because they are all filthy drugs! they shouldn't be brought into this argument whatsoever.

I would have no problem with someone disagreeing with me on those drugs.I'd be more open to Acid , DMT and what not.Drugs that could have a hidden cause

Heroin is not a filthy drug. It is one the best drugs ever discovered. Has an absolutely brilliant effect on the body, with NO side effects. If you have a clean supply of heroin, along with the money to support it, you could take it all day everyday for the rest of your life. Look at The Rolling Stones.

The only problem is that it is so addictive..people spend all they have on it until they are left with nothing, sharing needles, contracting HIV/AIDS/Hep.B and robbing their own grandmother to get their fix.

Pure cocaine is also a brilliant drug. As in the quality that you can get easily enough in Bogota for 3-4€ a gram of 70-80% purity.

NOT the shi.te you buy here for €80 or so which has, at most, a purity of 2-3%.

paddyandy

The Headshop Crowd are here in force trying at another effort to sell their destruction and there is little point in argument with them ;if they get their way then Ireland is on to a new road to resembling parts of the third world that you would'nt take a holiday in .

mikom

paddyandy wrote: »

The Headshop Crowd are here in force trying at another effort to sell their destruction and there is little point in argument with them ;if they get their way then Ireland is on to a new road to resembling parts of the third world that you would'nt take a holiday in .

Was never in a Headshop in my life.
Pure muck in there.

gosuckonalemon

paddyandy wrote: »

The Headshop Crowd are here in force trying at another effort to sell their destruction and there is little point in argument with them ;if they get their way then Ireland is on to a new road to resembling parts of the third world that you would'nt take a holiday in .

The headshop crowd off loaded all of their stock to the drug gangs before the government made them illegal.

The drug gangs then used said drugs to sell on or to manipulate batches of speed and coke.

DyldeBrill

gosuckonalemon wrote: »

Heroin is not a filthy drug. It is one the best drugs ever discovered. Has an absolutely brilliant effect on the body, with NO side effects. If you have a clean supply of heroin, along with the money to support it, you could take it all day everyday for the rest of your life. Look at The Rolling Stones.

The only problem is that it is so addictive..people spend all they have on it until they are left with nothing, sharing needles, contracting HIV/AIDS/Hep.B and robbing their own grandmother to get their fix.

Pure cocaine is also a brilliant drug. As in the quality that you can get easily enough in Bogota for 3-4€ a gram of 70-80% purity.

NOT the shi.te you buy here for €80 or so which has, at most, a purity of 2-3%.

Well I was talking about the effects really it had on the person.Just as you said, people get hooked to it and rely on it on a daily basis.Coc and heroine Just aren't for me.Coc doesn't suit a lot of people, makes a lot of people fairly aggressive but then again that could be down to the ****e coc thats around these parts

For me hallucinogenics are the best drugs such as Acid, and DMT.I cannot really comment on DMT as I have not tried it yet but Acid is nothing but positive experiences that is non addictive.Ok there are dangers to them but its all down to wether the person can handle it or not.

partyatmygaff

gosuckonalemon wrote: »

Heroin is not a filthy drug. It is one the best drugs ever discovered. Has an absolutely brilliant effect on the body, with NO side effects.

Too bad that's all completely incorrect.

Even medicinal grade Heroin (and most other opioids like codeine or morphine) do have side effects and fairly significant ones at that.

Temptamperu

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Too bad that's all completely incorrect.

Even medicinal grade Heroin (and most other opioids like codeine or morphine) do have side effects and fairly significant ones at that.

Your right they have side effects, a dicky stomach for a week and amazing pain relief... its f**king terrible joe.

gosuckonalemon

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Too bad that's all completely incorrect.

Even medicinal grade Heroin (and most other opioids like codeine or morphine) do have side effects and fairly significant ones at that.

Bit of constipation, that's about it. OD by respiratory depression.

BunShopVoyeur

jimpump wrote: »

explain...

cocaine is used in dentistry

heroin,cannabis are used to relieve pain

only thing alcohol does is maybe clean a wound and damage your liver

Cannabis is also used to increase cancer patients appetites.

Alcohol is good for your heart in moderation.

DyldeBrill

BunShopVoyeur wrote: »

Cannabis is also used to increase cancer patients appetites.

Alcohol is good for your heart in moderation.

Red wine especially

partyatmygaff

Temptamperu wrote: »

Your right they have side effects, a dicky stomach for a week and amazing pain relief... its f**king terrible joe.

gosuckonalemon wrote: »

Bit of constipation, that's about it. OD by respiratory depression.

Diamorphine Hydrochloride

Opioid analgesics share many side-effects, although qualitative and quantitative differences exist. The most common side-effects include nausea and vomiting (particularly in initial stages), constipation, dry mouth, and biliary spasm; larger doses produce muscle rigidity, hypotension, and respiratory depression (for reversal of opioid-induced respiratory depression, see section 15.1.7). Other common side-effects of opioid analgesics include bradycardia, tachycardia, palpitation, oedema, postural hypotension, hallucinations, vertigo, euphoria, dysphoria, mood changes, dependence, dizziness, confusion, drowsiness, sleep disturbances, headache, sexual dysfunction, difficulty with micturition, urinary retention, ureteric spasm, miosis, visual disturbances, sweating, flushing, rash, urticaria, and pruritus. Overdosage: see Emergency Treatment of Poisoning.

Long term use of opioids can cause hypogonadism and adrenal insufficiency in both men and women. This is thought to be dose related and can lead to amenorrhoea, reduced libido, infertility, depression, and erectile dysfunction. Long-term use of opioid analgesics has also been associated with a state of abnormal pain sensitivity (hyperalgesia). Pain associated with hyperalgesia is usually distinct from pain associated with disease progression or breakthrough pain, and is often more diffuse and less defined. Treatment of hyperalgesia involves reducing the dose of opioid medication or switching therapy; cases of suspected hyperalgesia should be referred to a specialist pain team.

The BNF suggests otherwise. But don't let that put you off. I'm sure those Pharmacists and Clinicians are nowhere near as knowledgeable or experienced with drugs as the good people of After Hours.

Temptamperu

partyatmygaff wrote: »

The BNF suggests otherwise. But don't let that put you off. I'm sure those Pharmacists and Clinicians are nowhere near as knowledgeable or experienced with drugs as the good people of After Hours.

Back pain; constipation; dizziness; drowsiness; dry mouth; headache; increased appetite; light-headedness; nausea; runny or stuffy nose; sluggishness; sore throat; stomach pain or upset; tiredness; vomiting; weakness; weight gain.
Severe allergic reactions (rash; hives; itching; difficulty breathing; tightness in the chest; swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue); confusion; difficult or painful urination; fainting; fast, slow, or irregular heartbeat; fever, chills, or persistent sore throat; hallucinations; increased saliva production or drooling; increased sweating; memory loss; menstrual changes; muscle pain, stiffness, or weakness; new or worsening mental or mood changes (eg, aggressiveness, agitation, anxiety, depression, exaggerated feeling of well-being, hostility, impulsiveness, inability to sit still, irritability, panic attacks, restlessness); numbness, burning, or tingling; persistent, painful erection; red, swollen, blistered, or peeling skin; seizures; severe or prolonged dizziness, light-headedness, or headache; shortness of breath; suicidal thoughts or actions; swelling of the hands, legs, or feet; symptoms of high blood sugar (eg, increased thirst, hunger, or urination; unusual weakness); tremor; trouble concentrating, speaking, or swallowing; trouble sleeping; trouble walking or standing; uncontrolled muscle movements (eg, arm or leg movements, jerking or twisting, twitching of the face or tongue); vision changes.

That is the side effects of the drug I have to take 400mg of everyday should it be aken of the market too?

partyatmygaff

Temptamperu wrote: »

Back pain; constipation; dizziness; drowsiness; dry mouth; headache; increased appetite; light-headedness; .....
That is the side effects of the drug I have to take 400mg of everyday should it be aken of the market too?

The drug you're taking (S***q**l if i'm not mistaken) has been prescribed and dispensed to you by qualified professionals. You can't just pop in to your local supermarket and decide to buy it.

The same goes for drugs like heroin and cocaine. They may not be readily used in Ireland but similarly powerful drugs are commonly used to manage pain. Just because said powerful drugs aren't available for consumers to purchase on a whim doesn't mean they've been taken off the market.

Temptamperu

I get your point, but maybe we should be taking junkies of the street and giving them morphine instead of methadone. It would be cheaper for the state and less hazardes as methadone is extremly addictive and kills more people than heroin also its nothing like heroin and most junkies dont like methadone and just sell it to get heroin anyway.

mikom

Seachmall wrote: »

In Canada (Vancouver I believe) they had a huge heroin problem, after years of simply enforcing stricter and stricter laws they decided to take an alternative approach. They opened needle exchange programs as well as clinics for users to shoot up in. They essentially decriminalized heroin use.

They saw a drop in crime, a drop in HIV/AIDS, a drop in addicts overdosing, and a drop in the number of addicts in general. Users had direct access to nurses who worked in the clinic and had direct access to rehab facilities and programs. Money was saved in not prosecuting users who shot up in the clinics and because of clean syringes and water the hospitals weren't full of users who had gotten infections or were being diagnosed with diseases.

Politicians didn't like it of course, they see it as condoning drug use, but the objective facts are there. Regulating and monitoring drug use is better for everyone involved. It saves money and it saves lives.

So, "Would it be wise to suggest a guideline as opposed to a 'Say no to Drugs' campaign?"

Yes. But people don't like to think it would be. People are blinded by opinion and bias. The biggest problem with drug use is not the users, it's the public and the lawmakers.

Edit - Links
The project even has a website.
A brief write-up on it.

Latin America on the way to full decriminalization now as well....

BUENOS AIRES – Latin America is headed towards the decriminalization of drug possession for personal consumption, according to experts and officials who took part in a regional conference in Buenos Aires.

Those attending the 1st Latin American Conference on Drug Policy, which ended Friday, also said that legislative reforms are being designed to give smaller sentences “to small traffickers, and to create policies that minimize harm” by encouraging addicts who can’t quit to come into the health system.

They also warned that the war on drugs “did not achieve its goal,” since Bolivia, Peru and Colombia, which together produce all the cocaine in the world, “could not manage in 10 years to reduce the area under cultivation,” according to a communique released at the end of the meeting, sponsored by the Pan-American Health Organization.

Brazilian lawmaker Paulo Teixeira said that his country’s current anti-drug law “increases the harm to users, because once in jail they get involved with organized crime.”

The legislator, originator of Brazil’s first bill to “reduce the harm” of drug consumption, presented a study saying that 84 percent of those sentenced between 2006-2008 for drug possession in that country were not armed and 50 percent of those convicted for marijuana trafficking had less than 100 grams (1/2 ounce) of the substance.

Teixeira said that the ruling Workers Party will submit a bill next month that establishes “a democratic model” for drugs, with the legalization of consumption, alternative penalties for small-scale drug dealing, the inclusion of a strategy for harm reduction and authorization for growing and marketing marijuana in small quantities.

For her part, Ecuador’s deputy planning secretary, Michelle Artieda, said that her country is in the process of debating a drug bill that modifies the current legislation, which dates back to 1992 and “violates the principle of legality.”

During the meeting, organized by the Argentine association Intercambios, the Ecuadorian official said that many of those detained in her country on drug charges “were carrying less than 2 kilos (4 1/2 pounds)” of narcotics.

Artieda also spoke about Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa’s decision to pardon 2,221 people who were arrested for carrying small amounts of drugs and those known as “mules.”

Dionicio Nuñez Tangara, coordinador of the Bolivian Coca and Sovereignty organization, regretted that under his country’s existing legislation, “coca-leaf growers are the same as drug traffickers,” and went into detail about the Evo Morales government’s initiative to industrialize the growing of that plant.

Bolivian law permits the cultivation of 12,000 hectares (29,629 acres) of coca for legal traditional uses, and a similar arrangement prevails in neighboring Peru.

Bolivian President Evo Morales, an Aymara Indian who rose to prominence as the leader of a coca-growers union, came to office in January 2006 pledging to redirect anti-drug efforts from coca eradication to cocaine interdiction.

Meanwhile Peruvian expert Hugo Cabieses warned that “under the pretext of a war on drugs, the borders of the region’s countries are being militarized.”

“In 1992 the hectares (acres) of coca grown in Peru, Bolivia and Colombia were 11,500 (28,395), but by 2004 they had been reduced to 11,000 (27,160). These plans (to militarize borders) do not expand democracy, they restrict it,” he said.

The Argentine government defended Thursday the legalization of drug possession for personal consumption and said that it awaits “almost impatiently” a verdict by the Supreme Court that would make criminal punishment for a drug user unconstitutional.

Legislative reforms in the matter of drug use sparked controversy in several Latin American countries, the region that leads the world in cocaine production.

The conference, held at the seat of the Argentine Congress, was also sponsored by the British and Dutch Embassies in Buenos Aires, as well as by the Latin American Initiative on Drugs and Democracy.

gosuckonalemon

partyatmygaff wrote: »

The BNF suggests otherwise. But don't let that put you off. I'm sure those Pharmacists and Clinicians are nowhere near as knowledgeable or experienced with drugs as the good people of After Hours.

SPC of Ibuprofen:



Aseptic meningitis


Haematopoietic disorders (anaemia, hemolytic anemia, aplastic anemia), leucopenia, thrombocytopenia, pancytopenia, agranulocytosis). First signs are: fever, sore throat, superficial mouth ulcers, flu-like symptoms, severe exhaustion, nose and skin bleeding.


Hypersensitivity reactions with urticaria and pruritus.


In patients with existing auto-immune disorders (such as systemic lupus erythematosus, mixed connective tissue disease) during treatment with ibuprofen, single cases of symptoms of aseptic meningitis, such as stiff neck, headache, nausea, vomiting, fever or disorientation have been observed.
Severe hypersensitivity reactions. Symptoms could be: facial, tongue and larynx swelling, dyspnoea, tachycardia, hypotension, (anaphylaxis, angioedema or severe shock).
Exacerbation of asthma and bronchospasm.


Nervousness


Headache


Visual disturbance


Tinnitus and vertigo


Cardiac failure


Hypertension


Asthma, broncospasm, dyspnoea and wheezing


Abdominal pain, abdominal distension, dyspepsia and nausea.


Diarrhoea, flatulence, constipation and vomiting.


Peptic ulcer, perforation or gastrointestinal haemorrhage, melaena, haematemesis, sometimes fatal, particularly in the elderly (see section 4.4). Exacerbation of ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease (see section 4.4). Mouth ulceration.


Liver disorders, especially in long-term treatment, hepatitis and jaundice.


Various skin rashes.


Severe forms of skin reactions such as bullous reactions, including Stevens-Johnson Syndrome, erythema multiforme and toxic epidermal necrolysis can occur.


Acute renal failure, papillary necrosis, especially in long-term use, associated with increased serum urea and oedema. Haematuria, interstitial nephritis, nephritic syndrome, proteinuria


Oedema, peripheral oedema.


Decreased hematocrit and hemoglobin levels.

gosuckonalemon

partyatmygaff wrote: »

The BNF suggests otherwise. But don't let that put you off. I'm sure those Pharmacists and Clinicians are nowhere near as knowledgeable or experienced with drugs as the good people of After Hours.

Those side effects occur after chronic use, usually at high doses.

No more or less than inbuprofen as I listed above.

partyatmygaff

gosuckonalemon wrote: »

Those side effects occur after chronic use, usually at high doses.

No more or less than inbuprofen as I listed above.

Who enlightened to you to this fact? Or are you just having a guess? Last time I checked, SPCs weren't toxicology reports. If it was as simple as looking at an SPC then the world of medicines would be a lot of simpler.

Chronic use of an NSAID like Ibuprofen (At normal doses following the instructions of a Pharmacist/Doctor) might lead to gastritis and at worst a stomach ulcer. People who take very high overdoses or already have impaired renal/hepatic function might also experience (Usually reversible) renal or hepatic complications. All in all, if a person follows their Pharmacist/Doctor's advice the likelihood of them severely damaging themselves with an NSAID are minimal. The main reason that NSAIDs are allowed to be sold unprescribed and not necessarily under the supervision of a Pharmacist is due to their remarkably low toxicity. Permanent damage is possible but very unlikely to occur unless someone knowingly overdoses. Considering the normal maximum daily dose for Ibuprofen is 3200mg and the LD50 for a rat (Not even a human being) is 636 mg/kg the chance of someone actually dying from an Ibuprofen overdose is minimal.

On the other hand, when Heroin is used (Primarily in palliative care for terminally ill patients) the dose and dosing schedule is tightly controlled and the patient's renal and hepatic function is usually monitored. If too large a dose is given the patient will enter a coma and could possibly suffer respiratory failure. They can also enter a coma and suffer respiratory arrest if they have impaired hepatic function. Considering the fact that Heroin is far more potent than Ibuprofen and has an LD50 of only 15mg the chances of someone dying or seriously harming themselves with Heroin are astronomical in comparison.

There's a very good reason highly potent opiates like heroin aren't available for sale to the general public. It's the exact same reason why the vast majority of drugs available in Ireland are only available for sale when prescribed by a Doctor and/or dispensed under the supervision of a Pharmacist. They're complex drugs that need specialist care and advice.

bodhrandude

Bump:

Check out the Free Marijuana Prisoners: The Tommy Chong Story on Youtube for an interesting slant on the pro-cannabis theory, full doc upped on there. I initially linked it but realised that I could be breaking the charter.

gosuckonalemon

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Who enlightened to you to this fact? Or are you just having a guess? Last time I checked, SPCs weren't toxicology reports. If it was as simple as looking at an SPC then the world of medicines would be a lot of simpler.

Chronic use of an NSAID like Ibuprofen (At normal doses following the instructions of a Pharmacist/Doctor) might lead to gastritis and at worst a stomach ulcer. People who take very high overdoses or already have impaired renal/hepatic function might also experience (Usually reversible) renal or hepatic complications. All in all, if a person follows their Pharmacist/Doctor's advice the likelihood of them severely damaging themselves with an NSAID are minimal. The main reason that NSAIDs are allowed to be sold unprescribed and not necessarily under the supervision of a Pharmacist is due to their remarkably low toxicity. Permanent damage is possible but very unlikely to occur unless someone knowingly overdoses. Considering the normal maximum daily dose for Ibuprofen is 3200mg and the LD50 for a rat (Not even a human being) is 636 mg/kg the chance of someone actually dying from an Ibuprofen overdose is minimal.

On the other hand, when Heroin is used (Primarily in palliative care for terminally ill patients) the dose and dosing schedule is tightly controlled and the patient's renal and hepatic function is usually monitored. If too large a dose is given the patient will enter a coma and could possibly suffer respiratory failure. They can also enter a coma and suffer respiratory arrest if they have impaired hepatic function. Considering the fact that Heroin is far more potent than Ibuprofen and has an LD50 of only 15mg the chances of someone dying or seriously harming themselves with Heroin are astronomical in comparison.

There's a very good reason highly potent opiates like heroin aren't available for sale to the general public. It's the exact same reason why the vast majority of drugs available in Ireland are only available for sale when prescribed by a Doctor and/or dispensed under the supervision of a Pharmacist. They're complex drugs that need specialist care and advice.

You can still get nicely stoned off heroin without having to take anywhere near potentially lethal doses. Low dose, daily use will have very little long term complications.

And max. daily ibuprofen dose of 3,200mg? Where do you get your figures. It's 1200mg.

partyatmygaff

gosuckonalemon wrote: »

You can still get nicely stoned off heroin without having to take anywhere near potentially lethal doses. Low dose, daily use will have very little long term complications.

Indeed. Except perhaps addiction which will lead to tolerance which will lead to higher and higher doses which will lead to kidney/liver damage which will ultimately lead to coma/respiratory arrest and death.

As for "low dose", i'm not quite sure what you mean. The usual normal dose is 5-10mg and that's for pure medicinal grade heroin being prepared and administered by qualified people in a controlled environment. Not people in their homes or on the street using dirty needles and dirty heroin.

And max. daily ibuprofen dose of 3,200mg? Where do you get your figures. It's 1200mg.

The BNF. 1200mg is the maximum dose you should take if using it for self-care. If you're being monitored, the usual maximum dose is 3200mg per day.