Great big bunch of coke heads!!

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

Why should these people have to say anything. The OP is obviosly a tantrum throwing control freak. Better off w/o her at the grad imo.

If that was the case everyone would be ignoring her. They aren't, susanna has posted that enough people feel the same that the graduation party could be disrupted. So instead of ignoring how these people are feeling, or belittling them and calling them names (very mature) just cause you don't agree that taking cocaine (a illegal and dangerous hard drug BTW) is wrong in a public setting, perhaps it would be more constructive if the people who are actually breaking the law were a bit more accommadating to the people who find this uncomfortable.

I mean whats the big deal, surely they can go a day or two without the need to take cocaine?

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

I'm not a cocaine user but the point I was making is that when it comes to the issue of drugs there is huge hypocrisy.

As far as I can tell she isn't saying she doesn't want people to do it, just not around her and her friends, which considering the way most people act on coke is in my view perfectly reasonable. And I don't think she is calling for people to get rat faced on drink and start fighting and throwing up either :rolleyes:

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

As far as I can tell she isn't saying she doesn't want people to do it, just not around her and her friends, which considering the way most people act on coke is in my view perfectly reasonable. And I don't think she is calling for people to get rat faced on drink and start fighting and throwing up either :rolleyes:

Considering how most people act on Coke? And how do most people act on Coke? How do most people act on drink? That is a ridiculous generalization about behaviour. And no I dont think it is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask. Why should these people compromise the enjoyment of their graduation because this person has issues. The point is and that was made earlier is that in all likelyhood the OP's problem isnt with coke or the people that use it but with herself.

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

If that was the case everyone would be ignoring her. They aren't, susanna has posted that enough people feel the same that the graduation party could be disrupted. So instead of ignoring how these people are feeling, or belittling them and calling them names (very mature) just cause you don't agree that taking cocaine (a illegal and dangerous hard drug BTW) is wrong in a public setting, perhaps it would be more constructive if the people who are actually breaking the law were a bit more accommadating to the people who find this uncomfortable.

I mean whats the big deal, surely they can go a day or two without the need to take cocaine?

Suzanna also posted in reference to the OP's character ... Try reading it again. By the way I am well aware of what Coke is. There is no need to be typing in bold.

AARRRGH

Playboy wrote:

Why should these people have to say anything. The OP is obviosly a tantrum throwing control freak. Better off w/o her at the grad imo.

Agree 100%.

Dave!

^
Me too

audge

Jeff_Lebowski wrote:

Another point - the OP stated that people using cocaine should get educated and realise they are snorting cement and rat poison up their nose. I'm sorry but rat poison being mixed in with drugs is an urban legend. Dealers tend not to put it in cause it kills people.

If this is the sort of facts you come out with when lecturing people about drug use then I'd say people just laugh at you.

While I agree that coke is bad and a problem I think perhaps that you need a bit of education. You can't lecture anybody on a topic if your facts are erroneous.

I never claimed to have all the facts, i I even admitted to needing some education on the topic myself, but what I do know, and can state as fact is that coke is bad for you, and can kill!

audge

drunkenfool wrote:

go back to bed audge, stop whining. I dont like it when people get drunk and start fights be abusive, get fat, puke everywhere, beat their wives, rape women, commit public order offences. people on drugs (in most cases) are alot more in control of themselves then with alcohol.

Some one call mensa, we have ourselves a genius! Drug users are actually calm, pleasant, polite and fun to be around... who knew?

audge

Ok, this is my final post on the topic. (although no doubt I will be provoked into further comments )I agree with some of you in that I am judgemental, Perhaps it is none of my business and I shouldn't preach! Fair enough, you point has been made, taken on board and I do agree that as these people are no friends of mine it is none of my business and I should keep my nose out.

However, the use of drugs, and coke in particular, I am still strongly against. Despite the liberal warbblings of some of the posters about how its a persons own choice and we are all free to do what we wish. This freedom to do what we wish does not lessen the harmfulness of the substance, that the users, and myself, and not truly educated about.

My stance on drugs remains the same, I do not, and will not, agree with usage, at any level, recreational or otherwise, as I believe that dependency is eventually inevitable.

sobriquet

My stance on drugs remains the same, I do not, and will not, agree with usage, at any level, recreational or otherwise, as I believe that dependency is eventually inevitable.

I hate weighing in a such a long thread, but this makes any other comments of yours hard to take seriously. Dependency is inevitable? I'd genuinely like to see your evidence to back this up. For myself, and people I know who use drugs recreationally, I'd like to know what kind of risk we're apparently at.

Further, you said, "recreational or otherwise" - so you rule out the use of (for example) cannabis in relieving the pain of MS or cancer sufferers, under medical supervision?

Personally, I believe that people have different capacities for enjoying drugs, as with alcohol, and making such blanket statements doesn't help in the slightest. I know people who can't take certain hard drugs (myself for example, I have a minor heart condition so I won't risk it), and some who can practically live off the stuff, if they so choose. Incidentally, the only thing that's caused serious trouble with dependency among people I know is alcohol.

Bonus on topic link: Study Finds No Psychological or Cognitive Deficits among Native Americans Who Use Peyote Regularly in Religious Settings - released last friday.

audge

"Crack cocaine is perhaps the deadliest of all drugs, it can be addictive from the very first time it is used, can also prove fatal in its first use and can make the user "violently berserk”. "
http://www.stopdrugaddiction.com/news-left.htm?aid=63

Effects
Cocaine is a powerful stimulant, and users feel more alert and energetic, and also feel less hungry or thirsty. These effects can last for up to 20 minutes after each use. Smoking 'crack' cocaine gives a shorter but more intense high.

Side-Effects
Because of its powerful effects, cocaine users are often left craving for more. Large doses can lead to exhaustion, anxiety and depression, and sometimes users may become aggressive.

Risks
Snorting cocaine can cause permanent damage to the inside of the nose. Cocaine use can damage the heart and lungs, and high doses can cause death from heart attacks or blood clots. The depression that follows the 'high' can be severe, and can lead to suicide attempts. With long-term or binge use, the excitement caused by cocaine can turn to restlessness, sleep loss and weight loss. Some people can develop a paranoid psychosis where they may be violent. The strong cravings for cocaine, especially 'crack', can lead to an urge to take the drug all the time, and the person can lose control of their drug use.

http://www.addictionireland.ie/faq/article.asp?FID=45&T=F

Cocaine addiction is one of society's greatest problems today. Individuals addicted to cocaine will do almost anything to get the drug. It has penetrated all levels of our society infecting the rich, poor, and everyone in between. Family members connected to individuals with a cocaine addiction live in chaos and confusion because they do not understand the underlying mechanics of cocaine addiction
http://www.addictionca.com/FAQ-cocaine.htm

What is Cocaine addiction?

A) Cocaine addiction can occur very quickly and can be very difficult to break. Animal studies have shown that animals will work very hard (press a bar over 10,000 times) for a single injection of cocaine, choose cocaine over food and water, and take cocaine even when this behavior is punished. Animals must have their access to cocaine limited in order to prevent taking toxic or even lethal doses.

Researchers have found that cocaine stimulates the brain's reward system inducing an even greater feeling of pleasure than natural functions. In turn, its influence on the reward circuit can lead a user to bypass survival activities and repeat drug use. Chronic cocaine use can lead to a cocaine addiction and in some cases damage the brain and other organs. An addict will continue to use cocaine even when faced with adverse consequences. Dependency can develop in less than 2 weeks. Some research indicates that a psychological dependency may develop after a single dose of high-potency cocaine. As the person develops a tolerance to cocaine, higher and higher doses are needed to produce the same level of euphoria.

---

Q) How does Cocaine effect the brain?

A) Through the use of sophisticated technology, scientists can actually see the dynamic changes that occur in the brain as an individual takes cocaine. They can observe the different brain changes that occur as a person experiences the "rush," the "high," and finally the craving of cocaine. They can also identify parts of the brain that become active when a cocaine addict sees or hears environmental stimuli that trigger the craving for cocaine.


Researchers know that certain kinds of experiences, such as those involved in learning, can physically change brain structure and affect behavior. Now, new research in rats shows that exposure to stimulant drugs such as cocaine can impair the ability of specific brain cells to change as a consequence of experience.

“The ability of experiences to alter brain structure is thought to be one of the primary mechanisms by which the past can influence behavior and cognition,” says NIDA Director Dr. Nora D. Volkow. “However, when these alterations in brain structure are produced by drugs of abuse, they may lead to the development of compulsive patterns of drug-seeking behaviors that are the hallmark of addiction.”

The researchers conducted a series of experiments to examine how drugs of abuse and experience might interact to produce changes in brain structure. To accomplish this, they administered amphetamine, cocaine, or saline repeatedly for 20 days to individually housed rats. This pattern of drug administration was previously shown by these investigators to produce both behavioral changes in response to the drugs and structural changes in several brain regions. However, in the current study, the researchers went one step further. After the 20-day drug exposure, the rats were housed in a new environment for 3 to 3.5 months. Half of the drug- and saline-injected animals were placed in standard laboratory cages; the other animals in each group were housed in a complex environment. The environment contained a variety of stimuli: multiple levels with ramps, bridges, a climbing chain, tunnels, and toys that were rearranged once a week to encourage continued exploration of the environment. At the end of 3 or 3.5 months, the rats’ brains were analyzed for changes in dendritic branching and spine density. Specifically, the researchers examined the spiny neurons in the nucleus accumbens and the pyramidal cells in the parietal cortex. These areas were shown in previous studies to be altered by experience and/or drugs of abuse. The nucleus accumbens is involved in motivation and reward, and the parietal cortex is important for sensory-motor function.

Remarkably, animals that had been given amphetamine and then placed in the complex environment did not show the same environmental-induced structural changes in the nucleus acccumbens and parietal cortex as did saline-treated animals in the complex environment. The results for those animals treated with cocaine were similar, in that prior treatment with cocaine blocked the environment-induced changes in the medium spiny neurons of the nucleus accumbens (the only region examined).


“The findings from this study indicate that at least some of the cognitive and behavioral advantages that accrue with experience may be diminished by prior exposure to psychostimulant drugs,” says Dr. Kolb. “This impairment of the ability of specific brain circuits to change in response to experiences may help explain some of the behavioral and cognitive deficits seen in people who are addicted to drugs. More research is warranted to determine whether certain experiences, such as exposure to complex or rewarding environments, can alter the ability of drugs to induce structural changes in the brain. If exposure to psychostimulant drugs can alter the effects of subsequent experience, experience may be able to influence the later effects of drugs. It may even be possible for certain experiences to counteract the effects of psychostimulant drugs.”

http://www.addictionca.com/FAQ-cocaine.htm

Call to address cocaine addiction

Cocaine addiction is a growing problem in Scotland, experts say
Tougher measures are needed to combat the growing problem of cocaine addiction, the Scottish Executive has been warned.
A Scottish Drugs Forum conference has heard that cocaine use has doubled in four years and that users are taking the drug and heroin at the same time.

Some experts believe there should be more centres offering specialist help.

The executive has said it is up to individual services to decide how to tackle local problems.

Taking cocaine and heroin at the same time, which is known as "snowballing", creates a need for more fixes of the drugs.

Recreational drug

Cocaine is a stimulant, negating the calming effect of heroin, causing users to need greater amounts.

The drug was used by about 8% of addicts in Scotland in 2004, compared to 4% in 2000.

That figure may be higher as some drug experts in Edinburgh say it is running just behind ecstasy as a recreational drug.

Cocaine users obviously are potentially paranoid, they're very concerned about issues of confidentiality and actually want an immediate service


The conference has been hearing concerns that drug services are mainly geared towards heroin users, substituting it with methadone, but there is no alternative to cocaine.

The Scottish Drugs Forum, funded by the executive, said a rethink was due on the services offered to addicts.

David Liddell said: "Potentially, as we've seen in other European countries, we start to see a more substantial shift in that direction, so that the primary drug is no longer heroin but actually becomes cocaine.

"Cocaine users obviously are potentially paranoid, they're very concerned about issues of confidentiality and actually want an immediate service.

"So they want to go to a service and get an immediate response and that's quite different from the average opiate user."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4395771.stm

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

Considering how most people act on Coke? And how do most people act on Coke?

Like hyper idiots ... BTW coke mixed with alochol greatly increases aggression, so where people got the idea that coke was a nice mello drug like hash I have no idea.

Playboy wrote:

That is a ridiculous generalization about behaviour.

No it isn't, if I asked you to explain how most people acted when drunk it would be pretty easy for you to give a list of noticable behaviours, such as sluring of speach, lack of balance, aggressiveness etc

Playboy wrote:

And no I dont think it is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask. Why should these people compromise the enjoyment of their graduation because this person has issues.

Sure thats like saying why shouldn't I be allowed masterbate in a public cinema? No problem in the privacy of ones home, but in public ... And thats before you get on to the fact that it is illegal

Playboy wrote:

The point is and that was made earlier is that in all likelyhood the OP's problem isnt with coke or the people that use it but with herself.

And the other people in the class who agree with her?.. and society? ... and the law? ... everyone has a problem but the people actually taking coke right? :rolleyes:

the_syco

audge wrote:

My stance on drugs remains the same, I do not, and will not, agree with usage, at any level, recreational or otherwise, as I believe that dependency is eventually inevitable.

Drugs include the legal type, such as alcohol, cigerattes, etc.

=-=

Also, as the entire class seem to be coke heads, what course where you doing?

sobriquet

Thanks for the links, Audge.

Could you first clarify something for me: In what I quoted, you said 'drugs', but all the links refer to coke. Which are we taking about?

However, I can't see anything in what you pasted to suggest specifically that "dependency is inevitable." It's destructive, I don't dispute that, but this isn't the same as saying anyone who uses it at all will become an addict.

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on my question regarding medical use of drugs (more accurately narcotics, I suppose), by the way.

dahooligan

the_syco wrote:

Drugs include the legal type, such as alcohol, cigerattes, etc.

See this is where it gets subjective, yes cigarettes and alcohol are addictive but at the moment they are legal and are somewhat part of 'normal' society. I personally hate cigarettes but I am prone to an occasional intake of pints - thats my issue though. Trying to justify coke (or any other drug use) on the back of legal drugs is just pants. That argument will go round and round.

Then you get people coming in with the whole "we break the law all the time cos we speed on the motor way and litter and sometimes don't pay full fare on the Luas".. the law isn't open to debate though. Its illegal to take banned substances, and I'm happy that its illegal and I can see a definite reason for it being illegal.

The medical use line of thinking is for a different day.

sobriquet

dahooligan wrote:

The medical use line of thinking is for a different day.

That's fair enough, I just brought it up as it becomes an issue with respect to Audges' categorical statement on drugs being bad.

I think it's relevant, but if it derails the thread, then ignore.

Zombrex

sobriquet wrote:

That's fair enough, I just brought it up as it becomes an issue with respect to Audges' categorical statement on drugs being bad.

I think it's relevant, but if it derails the thread, then ignore.

Well i think it is safe to assume she was talking about illegal drugs, or drugs used in an illegal way. There are lots of drugs such as pain killers than can be abused in a recreational fashion.

audge

Susanna, you posted me a private message on the 4th of November regarding my "issue", we spoke on the 5th, resolved the matter and put it behind us, so I am curious to know why you then felt the need to post a public message, repeating issues that I believed we had already resolved?
I have addressed here, some of the issues that you presented in the public forum, and I would also like to point out that I sent an apology email to everyone in my mailing list for attempting to organise an alternative celebration location, in which I agreed, publicly, that it be for the best that the group stick together.

Basically, I am a little confused as to why your post made the public forum, seeing as how you stated in your private message that you would prefer to leep our discussion private?

Anyhow, none of this matters now, I have stated time and time again that I will continue in my dislike and distaste of the use of narcotics, but I will not continue to preach as I agree it is none of my business, and furthermore, not in my interest to worry about peopel I have never liked or considered friends.

I would ask that this be the last time that we converse on the matter, as I, and I am sure you too, are well and truly sick of it.

Audrey


"You used to look at people getting pissed on nights out and think they were off there heads when they were simply drunk, nothing more and nothing less." susanna


I have never, in my life, confused a drunk person for someone on drugs, the reaction to drink is very different to the reaction from drugs and I have never had a problem distinguishing the two.



"those who might will do it very discretely" susanna

If it where done so discreetly, how would I even be aware of it?


"Some of us are actually really upset/ pissed off by the way you're carrying on, because we've done nothing to deserve this kind of treatment" susanna

Who are we talking about it? and what treatment is it that is upsetting these people?


"we're not a filthy bunch of drug addicts!" susanna


You are absolutely right, I never referred to you as a filthy drug addict, and I sincerly hope that my class mates are not filthy drug addicts either, for their own sake.

susanna

Audrey

I posted that message before I spoke to you on the phone. I texted you to tell you to read what I said on here! I posted it because I felt it was relevent to the discussion. Anyway, if I was a bit harsh at first, before I spoke to you, I'm sorry but my basic opinion is still the same.

I'm happy to forget all this, as I was on Saturday, but you're the one who brought it up again.

audge

Now, with regard to narcotics being used for medicinal purposes, I was of course referring to the use of illegal narcotics in my posts, as was pointed out by several other posters.
However, as narrow minded as everyone seems to believe I am, I am open to educating myself on the use of narcotics for medicinal purposes, and only then could I really give you my informed opinion on the matter.

This post was moved from PI forum, as it transformed from a thread on my personal issue with the use of narcotics, into a moral debate on the rights and wrongs of illegal use of narcotics, this however, was not my intention.

I freely admit that I may be a little naive on the subject matter, and I certainly need to better educate myself. Perhaps it is for this reason that my my debating skills may not meet the standards of the regular humanities poster. (again my thread was originally started in the hope of resolving a personal issue, and in doing so, I expected to obtain advice and opinions, and not to have the enlightening factual debate that I received)

My personal issue was never to attempt to change my moral standing on the issue of illegal use of narcotics, I am quite comfortable and confident in my stance.

In addressing my personal issue, (the way I was reacting to people using such substances) I have agreed with the majority of the posters here that what these people do is none of my business, and I have no right to lecture them, or force my opinion on them, so please, I really do not this advice reworded and re posted every 5 minutes.

I have taken this point on board, and it has already been applied in my dealings with use of narcotics.

audge

susanna wrote:

Audrey

I posted that message before I spoke to you on the phone. I texted you to tell you to read what I said on here! I posted it because I felt it was relevent to the discussion. Anyway, if I was a bit harsh at first, before I spoke to you, I'm sorry but my basic opinion is still the same.

I'm happy to forget all this, as I was on Saturday, but you're the one who brought it up again.

I brought it up again because it was the first time I had the pleasure of viewing your post.
Ok, lets shake hands and seriously drop this, as I have already sworn not to preach or lecture anyone from now on!

sobriquet

audge wrote:

Now, with regard to narcotics being used for medicinal purposes, I was of course referring to the use of illegal narcotics in my posts, as was pointed out by several other posters.
However, as narrow minded as everyone seems to believe I am, I am open to educating myself on the use of narcotics for medicinal purposes, and only then could I really give you my informed opinion on the matter.
[...]
I freely admit that I may be a little naive on the subject matter, and I certainly need to better educate myself. [...]

As was I, I thought it was understood that the use of the word 'drugs' in this thread referred solely to narcotics - of course drugs are used in medicine in a stricter sense of the word.

With regard to the education issue, if I may offer an opinion, I think that part of the problem is the effects as described in your previous quotes don't tally with experience, my experience at least. I don't do hard drugs, as it could potentially be very dangerous for me, but I know very many people who do all sorts of drugs, many without anything like the kind of problems described.

I think much anti-drugs material does itself a disservice by making it seem that all effects of narcotics are negative. Then, when someone tries it and has a good time, this creates the impression that the anti-drugs people are being outrightly dishonest, and then can't really be trusted to impart correct information. It breeds a disregard for anti-drugs information and I think the rift between the two sides (both in this thread and in a wider sense) is formented there. The same information gives those without personal experience of the drugs a sense that all effects are negative, and the debate becomes polarised.

Anyway though, I agree with that coke is a very ugly drug - the aggressiveness it brings on just isn't pleasant to be around, especially combined with drink and i've also discouraged friends from doing it.

AARRRGH

Audge, you sound like a very young person who is trying to find her own opinions about the world.

Just tone yourself down a bit. Your extremeness is making you sound like a bit of a nutter!!!

audge

dublindude wrote:

you sound like a bit of a nutter!!!

Ha, thats not the first time someone has said that to me, and I very much doubt it will be the last time!

Perhaps I am coming off a bit exteme, but I don't see how being anti drugs could ever be described as a bad thing?

AARRRGH

You are not just anti-drugs, you are anti5000PRO-drugs!

I personally am "bored" of drugs, so would consider myself reasonably anti-drugs, but I still think they should be legalised...

Dave!

audge wrote:

My personal issue was never to attempt to change my moral standing on the issue of illegal use of narcotics, I am quite comfortable and confident in my stance.

...which you admitted about a hundred times is based on ignorance and naivity...

dublindude wrote:

Audge, you sound like a very young person who is trying to find her own opinions about the world.

Just tone yourself down a bit. Your extremeness is making you sound like a bit of a nutter!!!

Yes, please do tone it down. You clearly have no clue what you are talking about, and are basing your opinion on "drugs" (except of course for alcohol, which you indulge in occassionally, or nicotine, which you probably see no problem with) on something you heard in Church or something your parents told you. Read a f*cking book about the subject, get some perspective (ie. "it's illegal" ≠ "it's evil"), and let other people live their lives without your input, pleasant as it may be.

Tenner bets you end up on coke yourself, lol...

Good day madam.

I think Audge's issues have been resolved, she's promised to stop whining and to stop trying to ruin everyone's night, so just thinking, this should probably be closed so that more people don't come in and start pointing out inconsistancies and idiocies in her posts, and have her freak out.

Or else we could continue discussing the subject from a humanitarian perspective.

EDIT:

audge wrote:

Ha, thats not the first time someone has said that to me, and I very much doubt it will be the last time!

Perhaps I am coming off a bit exteme, but I don't see how being anti drugs could ever be described as a bad thing?

Not using "drugs" (please specify... cocaine? heroin? alcohol? nicotine? marijuana? caffeine? paracetamol?) is one thing, but trying to stop other grown adults, who are conscience of the fact that the drug is illegal and bad for them (thank you very much), from enjoying themselves is another thing.

AARRRGH

LOL, it's Monday. Let's start the week by being nice to each other...

audge

DaveMcG wrote:

...which you admitted about a hundred times is based on ignorance and naivity...



Yes, please do tone it down. You clearly have no clue what you are talking about, and are basing your opinion on "drugs" (except of course for alcohol, which you indulge in occassionally, or nicotine, which you probably see no problem with) on something you heard in Church or something your parents told you. Read a f*cking book about the subject, get some perspective (ie. "it's illegal" ≠ "it's evil"), and let other people live their lives without your input, pleasant as it may be.

Tenner bets you end up on coke yourself, lol...

Good day madam.

I think Audge's issues have been resolved, she's promised to stop whining and to stop trying to ruin everyone's night, so just thinking, this should probably be closed so that more people don't come in and start pointing out inconsistancies and idiocies in her posts, and have her freak out.

Or else we could continue discussing the subject from a humanitarian perspective.

EDIT:



Not using "drugs" (please specify... cocaine? heroin? alcohol? nicotine? marijuana? caffeine? paracetamol?) is one thing, but trying to stop other grown adults, who are conscience of the fact that the drug is illegal and bad for them (thank you very much), from enjoying themselves is another thing.

Bit harsh and uncalled for!

Dave!

dublindude wrote:

LOL, it's Monday. Let's start the week by being nice to each other...

For you (both)

:v:

EDIT:

audge wrote:

Bit harsh and uncalled for!

Right on.

Sorry, your post just irritated me to no end. Disregard what I said.

audge

Thank you

I just think a difference of opinion is ok, but personal insults are not really the answer.
I have admitted a thousand times to needing more info on the subject, but I really don't think this request for information should be reason to brand me stupid, I am far from it, as is almost everyone who uses boards. I find that generally, people with opinions, who are capable of handling some level of debate, are actually quite intelligent.

But I accept your apology, and the lovely flowers, thank you!!!

sobriquet

I don't see how being anti drugs could ever be described as a bad thing?

It can if it comes from an emotional or otherwise irrational standpoint - this is why I took issue with your categorical statement that illegal narcotics are bad irrespective of use, and why I brought up the medicinal use of cannabis.

Rejecting the use of any drugs, narcotic or otherwise, in the face of evidence that it could be used in treatment of disease is, to my mind, irrational and unreasonable. While I'm at it, so is the attitude that it is impossible for a mature adult to use drugs recreationally in a safe and educated manner, this flies in the face of reason.

audge

sobriquet wrote:

Rejecting the use of any drugs, narcotic or otherwise, in the face of evidence that it could be used in treatment of disease is, to my mind, irrational and unreasonable. QUOTE]

I refused to comment on the use of marcotics for medicinal purposes until I researched the topic, so I never gave my opinion on that matter.

And yes, my original post was quite irrational and emotional as it was posted as a personal issue, and at the time of post was something I was very worked up about.

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

Like hyper idiots ... BTW coke mixed with alochol greatly increases aggression, so where people got the idea that coke was a nice mello drug like hash I have no idea.

Tbh Wicknight I am bit suprised with you. You usually can argue a point quite well but you have to be able to see the obvious flaws with your pov. Cocaine like any other drug has certain characteristics. But you cannot generalize behaviour on any drug. Some people behave like hyper idiots on the drug but others do not. I can garuntee you that for every hyper idiot you see on cocaine there are 2 who you wouldnt even notice were on the drug. The reason why cocaine is popular as a drug is because it is a discreet drug. You can socialize and even work on the drug w/o anyone even noticing you have taken it.

Wicknight wrote:

No it isn't, if I asked you to explain how most people acted when drunk it would be pretty easy for you to give a list of noticable behaviours, such as sluring of speach, lack of balance, aggressiveness etc

I didnt ask you how people act when drunk .. I asked how do people act when they drink. Big difference. Does everybody get drunk when they drink? No they don't because quite a few people drink in moderation. Also people can be very different when drunk. Some people can be agressive others are not. Like I said earlier you are making ridiculous generalizations.

Wicknight wrote:

Sure thats like saying why shouldn't I be allowed masterbate in a public cinema? No problem in the privacy of ones home, but in public ... And thats before you get on to the fact that it is illegal

Ye you are right ... its the very same thing :rolleyes:

Wicknight wrote:

And the other people in the class who agree with her?.. and society? ... and the law? ... everyone has a problem but the people actually taking coke right? :rolleyes:

You and people like you can bury your head in the sand all ye like. The fact is that drug laws and drug policy in this country and many others are out of date. Drugs are part of our society and always will be. People can continue to ignore obvious facts and listen to misinformation and propogandist claims but it doesnt change the widespread use and increase in use of illegal drugs in this country and others. It is this intolerant and uneducated attitude that causes rapists and peadaeophiles to get more leniant sentences than first offence hash dealers. People have to face up the problem of drugs in our society with an open mind or the whole situation is only going to get worse

old_lady

Ok, i haven't read all of the posts, cos there are about a million of them, but from, what I can gather, no need for people to keep attacking the OP.

she had an issue, which has been resolved.
she has even admitted to being a bit wrong in her original opinion.
She has taken a lot of advice on board and agreed that lecturing these people is not th way to go....

so maybe, just maybe, if we still wish to discuss the pro's and con's of illegal drug use, we could heave her out of it?



(please don't attack me now, I'm fragile:p )

Dave!

*angry mob slowly approaches old lady*

:mad:

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

Cocaine like any other drug has certain characteristics. But you cannot generalize behaviour on any drug.

Yes you can because cocaine has the same biological effect on everyone who takes it. Of course the degree will vary with certain people, just as you can find drunk person who shows no outward signs of being drug (especially if they are alcholoics).

But the majority of people when drunk experience the same effects, just like the majority of people on coke experience the same effects.

To say that coke effects everyone differently is nonsense, the effects of cocaine on the human body are well documented. For someone going on about spreading propaganda about drug use you don't seem to be really listening to your own advice.

Playboy wrote:

I can garuntee you that for every hyper idiot you see on cocaine there are 2 who you wouldnt even notice were on the drug.

I doubt it

Playboy wrote:

I didnt ask you how people act when drunk .. I asked how do people act when they drink. Big difference.

Like I said before it is not possible to consume a "safe" level of cocaine, anyone on cocaine is "drunk" on cocaine by simply taking it, in that they have taken more than can be safely processed by the human body, just like a drunk person has with alcohol. The same is not true of drink, it is possible to consume a low level of alcohols so that the body can safely process that amount (though most people in Ireland don't).

Playboy wrote:

You and people like you can bury your head in the sand all ye like.

Funny, I was just claiming that the pro-illegal drug crowd was doing the same thing -

- Cocaine dealers are nice and friends, they wouldn't harm you or others.

- Buying drugs doesn't fund crime and murder (see above)

- Cocaine has no damaging effects on the human body, especially not as bad as the occasional drink or two

- Cocaine is not mixed with other dangerous substances to increase the profit of drug dealers (who are nice and friendly after all)

- Cocaine doesn't lead to outward behavioural effects (most people on cocaine, sure you don't even notice)

- Cocaine doesn't lead to dependence

- Cocaine doesn't cause lasting and serious damage to those taking it.

All of the above are not true, despite the constant repetition of people on this thread, who clearly don't know what they are talking about, saying they are.

Playboy wrote:

The fact is that drug laws and drug policy in this country and many others are out of date.

You are right, I think cigeraettes should be added to the list.

Playboy wrote:

People can continue to ignore obvious facts and listen to misinformation and propogandist claims but it doesnt change the widespread use and increase in use of illegal drugs in this country and others.

Gun crime is on the increase too, should guns be legalised?

Playboy wrote:

People have to face up the problem of drugs in our society with an open mind or the whole situation is only going to get worse

Exactly, which is why the posts that cocaine is harmless to you that you get above, by people who just don't want to feel guilty about taking it, are not helpful.

People can believe all they like that there is no down side to taking a drug like cocaine. As I have said time and time again, I don't care if people take cocaine. I object when people post mis-information about the subject in a public discussion board. The very fact that so much bulls**t is being posted about the drug here shows that people really don't know much about it, they just choose to believe that it is safe and harmless, because they want to keep taking it.

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

Yes you can because cocaine has the same biological effect on everyone who takes it. Of course the degree will vary with certain people, just as you can find drunk person who shows no outward signs of being drug (especially if they are alcholoics).

But the majority of people when drunk experience the same effects, just like the majority of people on coke experience the same effects.

To say that coke effects everyone differently is nonsense, the effects of cocaine on the human body are well documented. For someone going on about spreading propaganda about drug use you don't seem to be really listening to your own advice.

There is a big difference between feeling and behaviour. People feel similar effects when consuming substances such as cocaine but their behaviour varies greatly. I'm not spreading propoganda about anything. You are the stereotyping and generalizing w/o any hard facts to back you up.

Wicknight wrote:

I doubt it

You can doubt it all you want but until you take the drug you wont know.

Wicknight wrote:

Like I said before it is not possible to consume a "safe" level of cocaine, anyone on cocaine is "drunk" on cocaine by simply taking it, in that they have taken more than can be safely processed by the human body, just like a drunk person has with alcohol. The same is not true of drink, it is possible to consume a low level of alcohols so that the body can safely process that amount (though most people in Ireland don't).

My point is that it is an individuals choice if they want want to take that risk .. not yours. Just like with smoking, alcohol or skydiving.

Wicknight wrote:

- Cocaine dealers are nice and friends, they wouldn't harm you or others.

Somare nice people and can be friends. Others are not. It is stupid to generalize either way.

Wicknight wrote:

- Buying drugs doesn't fund crime and murder (see above)

Yes ofc it does. What can we do about that? We have to realize that people are not going to stop taking drugs so we are going to have to try and do something about it. I'm not saying legalize drugs but a solution to the problem needs to be worked on as a blanket ban just isnt working.

Wicknight wrote:

- Cocaine has no damaging effects on the human body, especially not as bad as the occasional drink or two

Ofc it has damaging effects but if you are a moderate or recreational user then these effects are no worse than most of the prescribed medication out there such as anti-deppressants or sleeping pills.

Wicknight wrote:

- - Cocaine is not mixed with other dangerous substances to increase the profit of drug dealers (who are nice and friendly after all)

It is rarely mixed with a very dangerous substance. Mostly cociane and speed will be cut with a harmless substance like glucose.

Wicknight wrote:

- Cocaine doesn't lead to outward behavioural effects (most people on cocaine, sure you don't even notice)

Yes it does lead to a change in behaviour but the change in behaviout is not always negative. Most users will tell you that they just feel more confident and chatty.

Wicknight wrote:

- - Cocaine doesn't lead to dependence

Ofc it can lead to dependence .. anyone who says different is just plain stupid. It is also physically addictive and can potentially destroy someones life. But again this is just like alcohol. That choice is up to the individual.

Wicknight wrote:

- - Cocaine doesn't cause lasting and serious damage to those taking it.

That depends on just how much you take and for how long. Same as with most other drugs legal and illegal.

Wicknight wrote:

- You are right, I think cigeraettes should be added to the list.

I thin so too because cigarettes have the potential to harm someone else.

Wicknight wrote:

- Gun crime is on the increase too, should guns be legalised?

I dont know why you make these kinds of comments. This is completely different issue. And btw I'm not pro-drugs either and dont think they should be legalized.

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

People feel similar effects when consuming substances such as cocaine but their behaviour varies greatly.

Not really, the biological effects are pretty much the same, as is the bodies response to it. Cocaine, like any drug including alcohol, has a physical effect on the human body as soon as it is consumed.

Increased temperature, dilated pupils, increased blood pressure, restricted blood vessels, an increased heart rate are all common effects of cocaine. They create a feeling of pressure in the person, resulting in hyper-activity, lack of concentration, and in later stages increase in stress as the effects wear off.

Playboy wrote:

I'm not spreading propoganda about anything. You are the stereotyping and generalizing w/o any hard facts to back you up.

Don't be ridiculous, it is nothing to do with stereotyping someone. That's like stating that "Everyone will fall asleep given a strong enough tranqualiser" is stereotyping people. Cocaine, just like alochol, has a specific effect on the human body, it doesn't matter what type of person you are.

Playboy wrote:

My point is that it is an individuals choice if they want want to take that risk .. not yours. Just like with smoking, alcohol or skydiving.

Like I have said a millions times, if someone wants to take coke I have no problem with that.

Playboy wrote:

I'm not saying legalize drugs but a solution to the problem needs to be worked on as a blanket ban just isnt working.

A start would be to show people the truth about drugs and how it funds crime instead of nonsense about local drug dealers being nice guys.

Playboy wrote:

Ofc it has damaging effects but if you are a moderate or recreational user then these effects are no worse than most of the prescribed medication out there such as anti-deppressants or sleeping pills.

Omg ... You see this is exactly what I am talking about. The effects of cocaine use, even recreational (usage once a week for say a year) are far far worse on the human body than sleeping pills. It is that kinda bulls**t that is the problem. Do you even know what cocaine actually does to the brain and heart?

Playboy wrote:

It is rarely mixed with a very dangerous substance. Mostly cociane and speed will be cut with a harmless substance like glucose.

True, but it is routinely mixed with harmful substances. Do you get a money back guarantee when you buy your cocaine if it kills you? Or has the health inspector made sure you cocaine is supplied in a safe manner? Or are you just taking it on faith?

Of put it another way, would you buy bread from your local supermarket if there was a 1/50 chance it would cause a serious heart attack? What about 1/100 chance? 1/200 chance?

Playboy wrote:

Yes it does lead to a change in behaviour but the change in behaviout is not always negative. Most users will tell you that they just feel more confident and chatty.

Yeah like i said, hyperactive idiots. Not that there is anything wrong with being a hyperactive idiot.

Playboy wrote:

Ofc it can lead to dependence .. anyone who says different is just plain stupid. It is also physically addictive and can potentially destroy someones life. But again this is just like alcohol. That choice is up to the individual.

True. A lot of people on here who preach the joys of cocaine will tell you it is impossible to become dependent on cocaine.

Playboy wrote:

That depends on just how much you take and for how long. Same as with most other drugs legal and illegal.

Actually, as I said before, their is no safe level of cocaine. Even if you only do it once you have damaged your heart vessels and your liver. Not seriously mind, unless you are talking cocaine with cigeretts (dangerous) or alcohol (quite dangerous) or it is mixed with something (very dangerous). But then again who only does cocaine just once?

Playboy wrote:

I thin so too because cigarettes have the potential to harm someone else.

Well my objection is that it should be illegal to make money by feeding the addictions of others in a harmful manner. Same reason I think selling cocaine should be illegal.

Playboy wrote:

I dont know why you make these kinds of comments. This is completely different issue. And btw I'm not pro-drugs either and dont think they should be legalized.

So do you not think education on the truth about drugs and the drugs industry is a good attempt at a dealing with a real problem? And telling people that cocaine use is no more harmful than sleeping pills is not education (or true)

audge

http://www.clamnuts.com/comics/comics-pdf/shiznit%20issue%201.pdf

http://www.clamnuts.com/comics/comics-pdf/shiznit-issue-2.pdf

http://www.clamnuts.com/comics/shiznit.php

Dave!

...is that where you learn about drugs?

What the hell are those magazines?

audge

DaveMcG wrote:

...is that where you learn about drugs?

What the hell are those magazines?

No no, a friend from college, who obviously felt the same way about the class coke situation, put them together with a mate of his, he just sent me the links so thought I would share!

growler

someone must be selling your friends some very strange "coke" indeed, the "you're my bestest friend" is not typically a cocaine user's mental state, in fact I don' think I've ever seen a coke user experience a bout of "loved-upness". ( unless the sentence ended with... "you're my best friend can I have more of your charlie ?" ).

I'm bowing out this polarised debate, unfortunately I believe there is no truly objective viewpoint that any of us can reference in relation to the minutae of the health risks associated with cocaine use for humans of "normal" health, no matter what either side of the pro / anti debate references there will be another website/ report / blog / comic that contradicts.

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

Not really, the biological effects are pretty much the same, as is the bodies response to it. Cocaine, like any drug including alcohol, has a physical effect on the human body as soon as it is consumed.

Increased temperature, dilated pupils, increased blood pressure, restricted blood vessels, an increased heart rate are all common effects of cocaine. They create a feeling of pressure in the person, resulting in hyper-activity, lack of concentration, and in later stages increase in stress as the effects wear off.

A biological effect doesnt equal behaviour. People can feel sexually aroused on cocaine ... that doesnt mean they are going to try and have sex with someone. We can get into the psychology of behaviour if you want but it would be pointless because you are wrong. Peoples behaviour varies greatly on substances like cocaine and xtc. They can have common features like dancing etc but individuals are unique therfore their reaction to the same feelings or effects are going to be unique.

Wicknight wrote:

Don't be ridiculous, it is nothing to do with stereotyping someone. That's like stating that "Everyone will fall asleep given a strong enough tranqualiser" is stereotyping people. Cocaine, just like alochol, has a specific effect on the human body, it doesn't matter what type of person you are.

You dont be ridiculous. People react to stimulants differently, it has everything to do with the type of person you are. You are applying stereotypes of general behavioural characteristics across the board to everybody.

Wicknight wrote:

A start would be to show people the truth about drugs and how it funds crime instead of nonsense about local drug dealers being nice guys.

Try and deal realistically with the issues instead of repeating someones naive view of drug dealers. Ofc drugs are going to fund crime if they are illegal. How do we solve this problem. People are always going to do drugs so should we leagalize them to take the crime element out of it? What do you suggest?

Wicknight wrote:

Omg ... You see this is exactly what I am talking about. The effects of cocaine use, even recreational (usage once a week for say a year) are far far worse on the human body than sleeping pills. It is that kinda bulls**t that is the problem. Do you even know what cocaine actually does to the brain and heart?

Please point me to the literature that suggests that moderate cocaine use leads to extreme health problems. Here, here and here are articles about the negative effects of sleeping pills.

Wicknight wrote:

True, but it is routinely mixed with harmful substances. Do you get a money back guarantee when you buy your cocaine if it kills you? Or has the health inspector made sure you cocaine is supplied in a safe manner? Or are you just taking it on faith?

What do you mean by routinely? Where are you getting this information? I dont get a safety guarantee with cigarettes or alcohol. If I get lung cancer or die of alcohol poisioning then thats my problem. We all know substances are harmful. It's a risk people take.

Wicknight wrote:

Of put it another way, would you buy bread from your local supermarket if there was a 1/50 chance it would cause a serious heart attack? What about 1/100 chance? 1/200 chance?

Where are you gettting these ridiculous figures? If there was 1/200 chance of getting a heart attack from cocaine there would be bodies everywhere.

Wicknight wrote:

Yeah like i said, hyperactive idiots. Not that there is anything wrong with being a hyperactive idiot.

Stereotyping and generalizing again. I have been around plenty of people who don't act like hyperactive idiots on cocaine. People usually are afraid of what they dont know and can react quite irrationally and negatively to people in a different social circle.

Wicknight wrote:

Actually, as I said before, their is no safe level of cocaine. Even if you only do it once you have damaged your heart vessels and your liver. Not seriously mind, unless you are talking cocaine with cigeretts (dangerous) or alcohol (quite dangerous) or it is mixed with something (very dangerous). But then again who only does cocaine just once?

We have had this discussion. People are free to take whatever risks they like with their own bodies. I think you are greatly exaggerating the health problems associated with moderate cocaine use. People who use cocaine moderatly at the weekend live perfectly normal and healthy lives. People are not droping dead everywhere of heart attacks and suffering from extreme health problems. Like any drug heavy use is going to lead to health problems but thats not what we are talking about.

Wicknight wrote:

So do you not think education on the truth about drugs and the drugs industry is a good attempt at a dealing with a real problem? And telling people that cocaine use is no more harmful than sleeping pills is not education (or true)

And whats your truth about drugs? That everyone who takes cocaine is a hyperactive idiot and every drug dealer is a psycho who wants to either poision you or shoot you? What a media influenced opinion on the subject :rolleyes:

Sarah**

Why do people do coke ?
It's an interesting and fairly subtle drug when taken in moderation, it gives you increased self confidence, it makes you think you are being sophisticated, articulate, charming and amusing, it seems to give you a mental edge (i.e. it makes your brain work faster) , it allows you to drink a lot more than you otherwise could without it. When self confidence mutates into aggression then its not necessarily the drug's fault it is as much to do with the personality involved, a few double Jamesons would probably result in the same attitude.
Many coke users far prefer it to booze, because its often a cheaper than drinking all night, you don't puke, get hangovers or drool , you can tell the taxi driver where you are going without slurring etc. etc. Nosebleeds are usually a sign of very poor quality charlie ( though not always) , and in general the quality of coke in ireland is very poor.

Personally I think that in moderation its no more dangerous than drink.






i totally agree with the above!! Growler is correct in what he says but i also think audge.....your more angry because of your sister who is in trouble is using it and she is your baby sister.....dont impose your thoughts on other ppl especially on such a widely debatable topic.

Each to their own.

Zombrex

Before I continue I would ask both Sarah** and Playboy to define "moderate"

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

Before I continue I would ask both Sarah** and Playboy to define "moderate"

Maybe someone who shares a gram with a couple of their friends when out on a saturday night.

edanto

Playboy wrote:

You can socialize and even work on the drug w/o anyone even noticing you have taken it.

Ya reckon?

Maybe someone could get away with it a little, but not for long. People notice, people talk.

Please point me to the literature that suggests that moderate cocaine use leads to extreme health problems.

There's obviously the problem of defining moderate - but a Pubmed search for 'recreational cocaine use' finds about 70 articles. Some aren't relevant, but a lot of the titles are scary.

Research is linking cocaine use with heart problems, not to mention the obvious effects on the airway and the liver/kidney.

Also, you drew a disingenuous comparison with sleeping pills, since they're prescribed to people with a problem and the benefits/side effects are listed on the packet. Not likely to get a bag of coke with a warning saying 'this powder may turn you into a d1ckhead and give you a heart attack'

But, is it right for the government to regulate what other people choose to put into their own bodies?

Sure it is, for the greater good and all that.

Playboy

edanto wrote:

Ya reckon?

Maybe someone could get away with it a little, but not for long. People notice, people talk.

Listen I don't want to come across like I'm defending or encouraging the use of cocaine as I don't even use recreational drugs myself. I'm not implying that someone can use cocaine regularly at work and not be noticed. What I am saying is that as recreational drugs go, cocaine is one of the most discreet. The signs are not as obvious as say if someone was using xtc, lsd, heroin etc. I have been around many people in different social circles who use cocaine and I have found the behaviour of the majority fine just like I find the behaviour of the majority of people on drink fine. Ofc you are going to get some people who use too much just like you do with alcohol but that is no reason to insinuate that everyone who uses cocaine behaves like a "hyperactive idiot".

edanto wrote:

There's obviously the problem of defining moderate - but a Pubmed search for 'recreational cocaine use' finds about 200 articles. Some aren't relevant, but a lot of the titles are scary.

Research is linking cocaine use with heart problems, not to mention the obvious effects on the airway and the liver/kidney.

Also, you drew a disingenuous comparison with sleeping pills, since they're prescribed to people with a problem and the benefits/side effects are listed on the packet. Not likely to get a bag of coke with a warning saying 'this powder may turn you into a d1ckhead and give you a heart attack'

But, is it right for the government to regulate what other people choose to put into their own bodies? Sure it is, the greater good and all that.

I'm not trying to say that long term cocaine use is not going to be bad for your health. My point is that many persription medications from anti-depressants to sleeping pills, which are perscribed all too easy and for long periods of time, have side effects which can be just as scary as moderate cocaine use.

My main objection is the totalitarian and no tolerance attitude people have to drug use in our society. That attitude in many countries has been proven not to work. People need to face up to the fact that there is an ever increasing number of people taking drugs in this country and we need to adjust our attitude and our drug policies to try and deal with the problem whether its user dependency, or as Wicknight said, the funding of crime. It makes me sick when I open a newspaper to see that our society treats petty drug dealers as harshly as paedophiles or rapists if not more harshly in some cases.

edanto

Fair enough - I gather that you're not a supporter of people using cocaine - merely trying to show that the it's not exactly in a class of it's own way above some legal and popular sustances. No argument here.

My mind isn't made up on the best way to deal with the problem though.

Should it be less of crime than it is or, on the other hand, should drug users be more ridiculed in society and generally made to feel embarassed about their habit?

That second approach could be a Pandora's box, given that there's probably some pre-existing connection between cocaine use and confidence problems (I'm basing that on what people have said earlier in this thread about the benefits of snorting).

There's probably more elegant solutions that would involve (expensive) support and treatment facilities and a lot more research into the reasons people take/come off Class As.

Zombrex

playboy wrote:

If there was 1/200 chance of getting a heart attack from cocaine there would be bodies everywhere.

Firstly I didn't saying there was a 1/200 chance, I asked you what odds would you consider "safe" ... I notice no one replied.

Seconldy there are bodies everywhere -

In the first 6 months of 2003 87 people died in UK due to cocaine consumption[1]. That is in 6 months. It is also a rising trend, so its safe to assume that at least 80 people died in the last 6 months of 2003 (probably a lot more due to increase of consumption around Christmas, but we will be conservative with these statistics). That is about 170 people dying in 2003 due cocaine in England. In Scotland the number was 37 for 2004.[2]

These are not binge cocaine users, they are young professionals with expendle income who are using cocaine recreationaly at the weekend. Moderate users as Playboy and Sarah** would say.

A quote from Dr Fabrizio Schifano, addiction researcher at St George's medical school in Tooting -

"People who use drugs after a hard week at work don't consider themselves addicts. They may take a combination of stimulants, which is more often implicated in fatalities. But these drugs can also kill on their own.
...
"Typically, we'll see people in our clinic who have become addicted through social habits. They go to a club, they drink a lot, they are offered coke and they take it. Then they crash out on a Sunday, and are back to work again on Monday morning. They will feel depressed and low, but they can get through the week until Friday when they start all over again.

Cocaine in moderate use is pattern forming. People need it to enjoy the weekend, as it is depresses the brain when it is not been taken. Moderate use is not addictive in the way crack cocaine, heroin or cigaretts are, but if you can't enjoy yourself without it then that can be considered an addiction.

The trends from America are of a similar line [3]-

In Baltimore City (pop approx 640,000) 299 people died due to cocaine consumption in 2002. 204 people died to taking a drug with alcohol (get to that in a minute).

In Atlanta city (pop approx 470,000) 155 people died to cocaine consumption in 2002

Seeing a trend here ...

People die from taking cocaine, and it is not just heavy drug addicts, but "moderate" users as Playboy calls them.

Of course the idea that if a drug doesn't directly kill you straight away it is "safe" is nonsense. Even moderate use of cocaine leads to heart trouble in later life

If you want to take the risks thats fine. I would suggest you have a proper check up with your GP before hand to make sure you heart can take it first, but if taking cocaine is that important to you, and you understand the risks, go right a head.

My objection is the miss-information being propagated through society these days that cocaine is a safe drug (or ridiculous statements that it is as safe as alcohol or sleeping pills). This ignores the fact that you have to seriously abuse alcohol or prescription medicine before you get to the same level of damage that moderate use of cocaine does. And I would be as vocal if someone claimed that binge drinking was harmless to them.

One of the most dangerous elements of "moderate" cocaine use is the fact that it is used in a night out setting and in the vast majority of cases it is mixed with alcohol. Why is this bad? Because of a long word: Cocaethylene

Cocaethylene is produced in the human liver when cocaine is consummed with alochol. From the Observer interview -
"Heavy drinking with the drug really pushes up the level of risk,' said Schifano. 'Most people take it with alcohol, not realising that it increases the chance of having a stroke or a heart attack."

Cocaethylene greatly increase the risk of sudden heart attack in the user as the body -

"Cocaethylene is an active metabolite of cocaine believed to play a causative role in the increased incidence of sudden death in individuals who coadminister ethanol with cocaine".[4]

"Cocaine and ethanol in combination were more toxic than either substance alone. Co-administration resulted in prolonged cardiac toxicity and was dysrhythmogenic. Peak serum cocaethylene concentrations were associated with prolonged myocardial depression."[5]

"Many promising athletes have died due to such pathologies most due to cocaine ingestion."[6]

I wouldn't want anyone to think that if cocaine and drink doesn't kill them that night it hasn't actually done anything. I am not saying this to scare people about sudden death, because that is still relatively rare amoung cocaine users. But point is if it can cause sudden death due to heart attack in some people, just think what it is actually doing to your heart everytime you take cocaine. The strain and damage it does is rather horrifying. Just cause you don't die right there doesn't mean it isn't doing long term damage, even with 4 lines on a saturday night. Combine this with production of Cocaethylene and simply the effects of drink, you are doing serious damage to your body every Saturday night.

By all means do it if you understand the risks and what it actually does. But I hope this will spur some cocaine users who believed cocaine was harmless to actually do some research on the subject and find out exactly what it does to you.

[1] http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1222814,00.html
[2] http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/press/news2005/drug-related-deaths-in-scotland-in-2004.html
[3] http://www.samhsa.gov/news/newsreleases/ACF20D.htm
[4] http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/271/1/319
[5] http://www.aemj.org/cgi/content/abstract/8/3/211
[6] http://sulcus.berkeley.edu/mcb/165_001/papers/manuscripts/_265.html