Great big bunch of coke heads!!

Zombrex

BTW, I am not using the information above as a reason why cocaine should be illegal or not. My reasons why I believe it should be illegal are different

THe purpose of posting the above is to counter some serious miss-information presented on the thread. If people understand the risks and want to do it anyway that is fine by me. But i very much doubt, from reading this thread, that people understand or even consider the health risks with taking cocaine. And that is a crime in itself.

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

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 -

An Exaggeration don't you think.

Wicknight wrote:

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.

How do you know they were not binge users of cocaine. Links to the report which tells us how much cocaine they had in their system pls.

Wicknight wrote:

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.

An opinion from a researcher. Links to the studies that prove his point.

Wicknight wrote:

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.

And who's opinion is this then? Again links to studies that are not correlational and actually prove the researchers findings.

Wicknight wrote:

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

Are these crack addicts or moderate cocaine users. I would probably think that most if not all of these deaths are related to over consumption.

Wicknight wrote:

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

I'm sure people die from taking cocaine but the risk of dying suddenly from a heart attack is minimal.

Wicknight wrote:

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.

Most drug users are probably well aware of the risks contrary to popular belief. I have yet to meet one person irl who didnt know what they were geting themselves in for.

Wicknight wrote:

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.

Misinformation and propoganda goes both ways. A report in the new scientist a few years back contradicted most of the studies done on the harms of xtc in the US. America has a lot invested in the war on drugs and they are no stranger to propoganda.

Wicknight wrote:

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'm not saying that using drugs and drinking alcohol isnt dangerous. But as you say about 170 people died in the Uk from cocaine. I wonder how many crack or cocaine addicts are in the UK? I wonder how many of the 170 deaths were moderate cocaine users? Come to think of it I would like to see 170 as a percentage of the estimated cocaine users in the UK?

Wicknight wrote:

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.

I applaud your efforts to inform people of the dangers of a drug. But try not insulting them in future b4 you do it.

Zombrex

Playboy no offense, but what are you talking about?

I made claims that you asked me to back up. when I did back them you dismiss them as "propaganda" or try and deflect the issue with statments like "How do you know they were not binge users of cocaine?" or "Well that is just someones opinion" (a doctor in biology and drug abuse) :rolleyes:

You seem to be convinced of this vast international media and government conspiriciy to provide miss information about drug use. Everyone that says something you personally don't want to hear must by lying. THat is nonsense, but it makes it rather pointless to discuss things with you because you dismiss any evidence, opinion or research as being propagranda. The only person who is right is you, despite the fact that you are basing your opinions on nothing but the very limited contact you have had with cocaine users who were probably your friends anyway. Rose tinted classes anyone.

I could spend another hour find even more research to back up my claims, to with you would probably reply "More propaganda.." ... it seems rather pointless.

Laguna

Is this thread still going?

What's the discussion?

<Mr Mackey voice>Drugs are bad m'kay

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

Playboy no offense, but what are you talking about?

I made claims that you asked me to back up. when I did back them you dismiss them as "propaganda" or try and deflect the issue with statments like "How do you know they were not binge users of cocaine?" or "Well that is just someones opinion" (a doctor in biology and drug abuse) :rolleyes:

You seem to be convinced of this vast international media and government conspiriciy to provide miss information about drug use. Everyone that says something you personally don't want to hear must by lying. THat is nonsense, but it makes it rather pointless to discuss things with you because you dismiss any evidence, opinion or research as being propagranda. The only person who is right is you, despite the fact that you are basing your opinions on nothing but the very limited contact you have had with cocaine users who were probably your friends anyway. Rose tinted classes anyone.

I could spend another hour find even more research to back up my claims, to with you would probably reply "More propaganda.." ... it seems rather pointless.

The fact is Wicknight you have provided nothing which backs up your claims. You posted numbers of deaths and you think that this proves moderate cocaine use leads to extreme health problems or death. You have not proved that those deaths are as a result of moderate cocaine use and not binge use. Would you like me to find figures relating to alcohol related deaths and then try and tell you that all these people died from having a few drinks. Get a grip.

How I am supposed know that Dr Fabrizio Schifano, addiction researcher at St George's medical school in Tooting is an independent and reliable source. Where are his studies that back up his claim? Is it an opinion or is it a fact? How am I or you supposed to know? You just expect me to take a claim made on a message board at face value and not be sceptical?

I'm not saying that cocaine isn’t harmful. I'm contending two things here, 1. That all people who take cocaine behave like hyperactive idiots and 2. The over exaggeration of the health problems that stem from moderate cocaine use. You have failed to prove either point so try stop insinuating that I'm looking at the world through rose tinted glasses and am too self righteous to take on board someone else's opinion. Getting Personal in a debate is just a little bit childish.

ger85

i dont think it matters

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

You have failed to prove either point

I have failed to "prove" either point to you because any evidence i post in your mind must be propaganda and incorrect because you refuse to consider any position but the one you have already formed about cocaine, base it seems purely on your own experiences with the drug and your friends who take it. And if they are fine it must mean the drug is relatively harmless in moderation, surely.

I've posted the evidence that shows the real and serious health risks of even moderate cocaine use. People can choose to accept that or they can choose to ignore it. People can continue to believe it is no more harmful than drinking alcohol or using prescription medicine. I would imagine most cocaine users here will choose to ignore what I presented and continue to tell themselves that their cocaine use is too moderate to be harmful.

As I said continuing to argue with you when you won't accept anything I present is, as I said, pointless ... I'm out a here

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

I have failed to "prove" either point to you because any evidence i post in your mind must be propaganda and incorrect because you refuse to consider any position but the one you have already formed about cocaine, base it seems purely on your own experiences with the drug and your friends who take it. And if they are fine it must mean the drug is relatively harmless in moderation, surely.

I've posted the evidence that shows the real and serious health risks of even moderate cocaine use. People can choose to accept that or they can choose to ignore it. People can continue to believe it is no more harmful than drinking alcohol or using prescription medicine. I would imagine most cocaine users here will choose to ignore what I presented and continue to tell themselves that their cocaine use is too moderate to be harmful.

As I said continuing to argue with you when you won't accept anything I present is, as I said, pointless ... I'm out a here

The "evidence" that you produced isnt evidence. That is the problem. You were the one making claims about behaviour and health and you have failed to back them up. I have an opinion and I refuse to change that opinion because someone on a message board puts foward their own biased opinion without sufficent evidence to back it up. Don' try and turn this around to make me sound unreasonable. If you had produced reliable evidence to back up your claims then I would have no hesitation in changing my opinions. Cocaine like any other drug including perscription medication has side effects. I'm not trying to deny that. My pov is that in moderation cocaine isnt going to cause people to drop dead or have serious health problems. My other point was that people don't all behave like "hyperactive idiots" when using cocaine. There was nothing produced in this thread that would make me change that opinion.

growler

growler wrote:

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.

comes back to this, its all subjective and any 3rd party report by any recognised body with likely be influenced by political pressures, as such a political key issue I don't think any respected scientist could / would publish a wholly objective report that concluded that cocaine use was "ok" for certain groups of people without suffering the consequences , and 1st hand reports will be dismissed , correctly, as inignificant.


Also I was surprised that the numbers who died in the UK was so low, so low in fact as to be almost insignificant (statistically speaking) given an estimated 32% of the UK population is thought to have used coke at least once !!! , to put this in perspective 125 people die each year in the USA from an allergic reaction to peanuts, yet peanuts are not illegal, peanut exporting countries are not subject to global political pressures and even though we all know the risks of peanut consumption ( warnings on the relevent packaging) we continue to munch away on this fruit of nature without a second thought.

Penicillin causes 400 deaths per annum in the USA , but because the risks are understood by the medical profession (if not necessarily by patients) this is deemed to be an acceptable risk.

So given the precedents for making the risks known on potentially harmful substances through clear packaging would Wicknight not agree that cocaine, if properly labelled with clear warnings as to the consequences, should be available to consenting adults ? ;-)


Some interesting reading: www.cocaine.org

Zombrex

growler wrote:

to put this in perspective 125 people die each year in the USA from an allergic reaction to peanuts

jesus christ, are you kidding me

You quote figures for the UK (87), then start talking about figures for the USA, and people are saying I am distorting the picture!! :rolleyes: ...

127 people died in America from peanuts, out of a population of 200 million

400 people die in American from peniciln out of a population of 200 million

300 people died in Baltimore from cocaine, out a population of 600,000

You do the math

Bloody hell, I think people should be asking Santa for calculators this year

growler wrote:

So given the precedents for making the risks known on potentially harmful substances through clear packaging would Wicknight not agree that cocaine, if properly labelled with clear warnings as to the consequences, should be available to consenting adults ?

I would be all for educating the public about the health risks of cocaine, considering that from your posts, Playboy's posts and a the rest, there seems to be huge mis-understanding and miss-representation of the risks of cocaine use. Basically people don't seem to have a clue about the risks, or even what cocaine does to the human body.

I would also pointout the people who are in danger of nut allergies stop taking nuts, where as cocaine users continue to use cocaine despite the serious risks to their health.

Playboy

Tbh Wicknight you are just as clueless as the people you claim are clueless.

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

My pov is that in moderation cocaine isnt going to cause people to drop dead or have serious health problems.

That position is based on nothing other than, it seems, you don't want it do. I have no idea why, I would imagine you don't like to think of your friends doing something that damages their health, just like cocaine users don't like to hear about the effects themselves.

I have presented link after link after detailing the serious effects of cocaine use on the human body. You dismissed all of them of hand. If it comes from a government body, its propaganda. If it comes from a Doctor its just his opinion (as if doctors are grumpy and lie about these things cause they don't want kids having fun), if it comes from a newspaper (even the Observer) it is just the anti-drugs (anti-good time) media campaign

I notice you haven't tackled anything actually presented in these links, you have just dismissed them, or claimed they couldn't possibly be true, based apparently on your detail observations of drug culture. And to actually argue the facts I present you bring in something rather irrelivent such as sleeping pill abuse (as if I was even saying sleeping pill abuse is a good thing :rolleyes: ). Admitadly it isn't as bizare as growler talking about peanut allergies (seriously, wtf?), but the idea that cocaine is as harmless and normal sleeping pill use is ridiculous, or the idea that I would in someway support sleeping pill abuse but not cocaine is equally ridiculous.

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

Tbh Wicknight you are just as clueless as the people you claim are clueless.

So we are resorting to personal abuse now ... can't prove me wrong, don't want to listen, so lets just call him clueless, ignoring the fact that it isn't actually him saying it but most of the medical profession ... very impressive, I appauld you debating skills :rolleyes:

BTW, you don't happen to actually have any links to articles in any medical journals or publications supporting any of your claims that moderate cocaine use is harmless do you? Just an idea?

amp

Playboy wrote:

Tbh Wicknight you are just as clueless as the people you claim are clueless.

Attack arguments not users. Yellow card. You will be banned if you do this again.

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

That position is based on nothing other than, it seems, you don't want it do. I have no idea why, I would imagine you don't like to think of your friends doing something that damages their health, just like cocaine users don't like to hear about the effects themselves.

You are the one making the claims so the onus is on you to prove that moderate cocaine use leads to serious health problems.

Wicknight wrote:

I have presented link after link after detailing the serious effects of cocaine use on the human body. You dismissed all of them of hand. If it comes from a government body, its propaganda. If it comes from a Doctor its just his opinion (as if doctors are grumpy and lie about these things cause they don't want kids having fun), if it comes from a newspaper (even the Observer) it is just the anti-drugs (anti-good time) media campaign

I notice you haven't tackled anything actually presented in these links, you have just dismissed them, or claimed they couldn't possibly be true, based apparently on your detail observations of drug culture. And to actually argue the facts I present you bring in something rather irrelivent such as sleeping pill abuse (as if I was even saying sleeping pill abuse is a good thing :rolleyes: ). Admitadly it isn't as bizare as growler talking about peanut allergies (seriously, wtf?), but the idea that cocaine is as harmless and normal sleeping pill use is ridiculous, or the idea that I would in someway support sleeping pill abuse but not cocaine is equally ridiculous.

Ok Link 1 [1] http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...222814,00.html.

A newspaper article that states that 87 people have died in the last 6 months from cocaine abuse. As I said b4 this does not prove anything. We don't know how much cocaine the people who died were using.

Link [2] http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/press...d-in-2004.html

Statistics of deaths related to cocaine use in scotland. Again it doesnt mean anything. We have no idea how much cocaine people were using.

Link [3] http://www.samhsa.gov/news/newsreleases/ACF20D.htm

More death rates ..... probably mostly crack addicts who overdosed.

Link [4] http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/cgi/co...ract/271/1/319

"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."

And the rates of sudden death related to cocaine are? Does this article prove that moderate cocaine use leads to serious health problems ... I think not.

Link [5] http://www.aemj.org/cgi/content/abstract/8/3/211

"Simultaneous abuse of cocaine and ethanol affects 12 million Americans annually"

Thats a lot of people using cocaine. I wonder what % of them are dropping dead every year?

The conclusion of the study is "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.

So what am I supposed to understand from this? I already know cocaine isnt good for you and has side effects. This doesnt prove or even imply that a moderate cocaine user is going to suffer serious health problems.

Link [6] http://sulcus.berkeley.edu/mcb/165_0...ipts/_265.html

An article about sudden death in athletes :rolleyes:


So Wicknight what exactly have you proved? Not much I think And I havent even dismissed anything as propoganda yet My comment on sleeping pills is yet to be proved wrong. I stated that moderate cocaine use is probably no more harmful than plenty of perscription medications such as sleeping pills. If you mix perscription medication with alcohol I'm sure it isnt good for you either just as mixing cocaine and alcohol isnt good for you.

Playboy

amp wrote:

Attack arguments not users. Yellow card. You will be banned if you do this again.

My post was in reply to this one.

Wicknight wrote:

Playboy's posts and a the rest, there seems to be huge mis-understanding and miss-representation of the risks of cocaine use. Basically people don't seem to have a clue about the risks, or even what cocaine does to the human body.

Wicknight wrote:

You seem to be convinced of this vast international media and government conspiriciy to provide miss information about drug use. Everyone that says something you personally don't want to hear must by lying. THat is nonsense, but it makes it rather pointless to discuss things with you because you dismiss any evidence, opinion or research as being propagranda. The only person who is right is you, despite the fact that you are basing your opinions on nothing but the very limited contact you have had with cocaine users who were probably your friends anyway. Rose tinted classes anyone.

Hmmm .. Is this maybe a personal attack on me coming from Wicknight. Maybe you need to give someone else a yellow card?

amp

Pm me in a week and I'll think about letting you back in. Here's a tip: when you're warned not to do something here, just shut up and don't do it.

Back on topic.

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

We don't know how much cocaine the people who died were using.

It is reported in the article that these were "saturday night" people. There is no reason to believe they were taking huge excesses of cocaine. As you yourself said most people take a "moderate" amount.

But for that matter, do you think the risks suddenly jump from being harmless to being able to kill you by moving from less than a gram ("moderate" use) and taking over a gram (don't forget a gram costs £40, I doubt these people were over dosing on hundreds of pounds worth of cocaine in one night).

Playboy wrote:

Statistics of deaths related to cocaine use in scotland. Again it doesnt mean anything. We have no idea how much cocaine people were using.

Or any reason to believe they weren't using a normal moderate amount.

Playboy wrote:

More death rates ..... probably mostly crack addicts who overdosed.

Why "probably" .. this is what I am talking about, you don't want to hear it so you are dismissing it off hand. What are you basing that on?

Playboy wrote:

And the rates of sudden death related to cocaine are? Does this article prove that moderate cocaine use leads to serious health problems ... I think not.

No the article proves moderate cocaine mixed with alcohol use can lead to death in some people. To claim that well if it didn't kill me it most have done nothing is rather naieve. If you think that it is like a switch where at one level you are taking a safe harmless amount and slightly more is enought to kill you you are mistaken. It doesn't work like that.

Playboy wrote:

Thats a lot of people using cocaine. I wonder what % of them are dropping dead every year?

Again, if you think it either kills you straight or otherwise has no effect on you you are not understanding the reasons it kills some people. It is due to huge strain on the hearth. That will kills some people, but it effects every cocaine user.

Playboy wrote:

The conclusion of the study is "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.

So what am I supposed to understand from this? I already know cocaine isnt good for you and has side effects. This doesnt prove or even imply that a moderate cocaine user is going to suffer serious health problems.

It proves that moderate cocaine use, especially mixed with drink, puts a huge strain on the human heart, enough to kill some people. If you think that isn't "serious", I would love to know what you do consider a serious health risk.

Playboy wrote:

An article about sudden death in athletes :rolleyes:

Yeah, cause it must be propaganda. Cause a link between strenious excerise, that puts strain on the heart, and cocaine that attacks and weakness hearth muscles .. well that is just conicidence ...

Playboy wrote:

So Wicknight what exactly have you proved? Not much I think

I have proved what I have always claimed, that cocaine use, even in "moderation" causes serious strain to the heart, enought to kill some people, and that the risks are increased when cocaine is mixed with alcohol. What have you proved?

Playboy wrote:

And I havent even dismissed anything as propoganda yet

"An article about sudden death in athletes :rolleyes:" ... :rolleyes:

Playboy wrote:

My comment on sleeping pills is yet to be proved wrong.

You have yet to put forward any evidence that cocaine is as safe as taking sleeping pills. Or infact any evidence at all that cocaine is safe at all ...

Playboy wrote:

I stated that moderate cocaine use is probably no more harmful than plenty of perscription medications such as sleeping pills. If you mix perscription medication with alcohol I'm sure it isnt good for you either just as mixing cocaine and alcohol isnt good for you.

You are right, it is very dangerous, just like mixing cocaine with alcohol is very dangerous. If your friends where doing that on a night out I would be very worried, just as if you friends where mixing cocaine with alcohol on a night out I would be very worried.

The effects people experience on their health with the abuse of sleeping pills and other perscription drugs is just normal with cocaine use. If your friends were abusing sleeping pills would you think ah sure they are just doing that in moderation its really fine? I doubt it, cause you seem to understand it is dangerous to mess with the substances found in these pills. If your friends were taking 10 sleeping pills with drink before they went out to get out of it, would you go "ah harmless fun." I doubt it as well. What they would be doing would be very dangerous. But when people use cocaine its different? Why? Cause its not abuse its just normal use?

Anyway, I'm sure amp is about to close this thread anyways ...

SpAcEd OuT

Wicknight wrote:

It is reported in the article that these were "saturday night" people. There is no reason to believe they were taking huge excesses of cocaine.

You dont know that for sure though do you?

Wicknight wrote:

But for that matter, do you think the risks suddenly jump from being harmless to being able to kill you by moving from less than a gram ("moderate" use) and taking over a gram (don't forget a gram costs £40, I doubt these people were over dosing on hundreds of pounds worth of cocaine in one night).

Once again you dont know this for sure.

Wicknight wrote:

Or any reason to believe they weren't using a normal moderate amount.

For the third time....you dont know this for sure

Wicknight wrote:

It proves that moderate cocaine use, especially mixed with drink, puts a huge strain on the human heart, enough to kill some people. If you think that isn't "serious", I would love to know what you do consider a serious health risk.

Yes but its not a serouis health risk because the risk is minimal the recorded deaths in Britain from cocaine use to the amount of users prove this.

Wicknight wrote:

Yeah, cause it must be propaganda. Cause a link between strenious excerise, that puts strain on the heart, and cocaine that attacks and weakness hearth muscles .. well that is just conicidence ...

If someone decides to take cocaine after doing strenious excercise then there asking for trouble,how many moderate cocaine users would be doing strenious excercise before doing a few lines?

Wicknight wrote:

I have proved what I have always claimed, that cocaine use, even in "moderation" causes serious strain to the heart, enought to kill some people, and that the risks are increased when cocaine is mixed with alcohol. What have you proved?

Yes it certainly can but when you consider the amount of deaths to user population the risks are very minimal if used in moderation.

Wicknight wrote:

If your friends were taking 10 sleeping pills with drink before they went out to get out of it, would you go "ah harmless fun." I doubt it as well. What they would be doing would be very dangerous. But when people use cocaine its different? Why?

the risks of taken sleeping pills with alcohol are A LOT higher than the risks of taking cocaine with alcohol so I dont really see what your getting out figures proove that while cocaine does have risks not on as large a scale as you argue.

growler

Wicknight wrote:

jesus christ, are you kidding me

You quote figures for the UK (87), then start talking about figures for the USA, and people are saying I am distorting the picture!! :rolleyes: ...


fair enough, I was simply trying to make the point that there are many substances that we are all exposed to on a daily basis that may or may not kill us depending on our individual physiological make up. The statistics seem to me to indicate that there is little risk when compared to the many other innocuous things that may claim us at any moment.

The stats that you quote re. UK deaths suggest to me that the vast majority of intelligent, literate, educated people who chose to use cocaine to whatever level are mostly making an informed choice as to the potential risks to their own well being and as a result tens of thousands of us are not dropping dead every day of the week. You seem to assume all through this debate that cocaine users are wholly ignorant of the risks, but like alcohol ,many, if not the majority of users are aware of their own limits and have respect for it. It seems to me that you assume that because someone would break a societal taboo and the law they must be daft, but that ain't necessarily so.

Zombrex

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

You dont know that for sure though do you?

No reason not to believe it, based on the dangers of even moderate usage of cocaine with alcohol.

Its like saying how do you know all drink drivers in Ireland weren't also on heroin. There is no reason to believe that someone has to be on heroin, or drank 20 bottles of whiskey, or be a chronic alocholic, to wrap their car around a pole. Likewise there is no reason to believe these people had to be serious cocaine addicts who had just spend a week binging on the stuff.

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

Yes but its not a serouis health risk because the risk is minimal the recorded deaths in Britain from cocaine use to the amount of users prove this.

Thats rather warped logic.

If it doesn't kill you flat out with a massive heart attack, it must not be a serious health risk? Not following that one.

Would the fact that it can kill you not hint to you the damage cocaine does to a persons heart? As I said to playboy, do you really believe it is a case of "Few it didn't kill me, I must be fine"

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

How many moderate cocaine users would be doing strenious excercise before doing a few lines?

Such as drinking excesses of alcohol and dancing till the early hours of the morning with little sleep, after a stressful week ... hardly any I would imagine ...

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

Yes it certainly can but when you consider the amount of deaths to user population the risks are very minimal if used in moderation.

The risks of having a massive heart attack and dying right there on the club toilet floor is minimal. But then the risk of developing lung cancer after one cigarette are pretty small too, does that mean smoking is not harmful to your health?

If someone has taken cocaine once or twice and never again, they are fine. Unless they had a weak heart to begin with, it ain't going to kill them, and the long term health risks aren't going to be major.

But who of the cocaine users here has only used it once or twice. Everytime it is taken it puts huge stress on the heart, brain and liver. Combine that with alochol the effects are even worse.

People say they only take it in moderation but then say that means at least once a week. That isn't "moderation", that is chronic use. Every time it is take it is effecting your heart and liver, this is serious wear and tear. If someone is doing that every week, or a few times a month, that is serious damage being done to the heart and liver. Spread that out over a few years, you are going to end up with serious heart and liver problems in later life

I find this idea that if you take cocaine and don't actually physically die right then and there, then "moderate" usage of cocaine (once a week) must be safe? It is a rather puzzling position.

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

the risks of taken sleeping pills with alcohol are A LOT higher than the risks of taking cocaine with alcohol so I dont really see what your getting out figures proove that while cocaine does have risks not on as large a scale as you argue.

Who would be dumb enought to take sleeping pills with alochol??? You would have to be nuts, you are more than likely going to slip into a coma. If someone was actually doing this I would have 999 on my phone read to go.

I am really not following the argument that because large amounts of sleeping pills with alochol will probably kill you and is more dangerous than cocaine with alocohol, therefore cocaine with alochol isn't that bad cause you can buy sleeping pills and cocaine is illegal. You are not supposed to use sleeping pills with alochol unless you want to kill yourself.


You have to abuse sleeping pills to produce this effect, and you would have to be really stupid or suicidal to do this. With cocaine it is part of normal usage. Just using normal amounts of cocaine, mixed with alcohol, produces a dangerous chemical reaction in the liver that is very very bad for your health, and in some cases can kill you.

Like I asked Playboy, would you eat bread from Tescos if it could kill you? Would you eat chicken once a week if you knew it could cause a serious heart problems? What would have to be the odds of that happening for you do go feck it, and munch down? 100/1 .. 1000/1 ... 10,000/1?

Zombrex

growler wrote:

The statistics seem to me to indicate that there is little risk when compared to the many other innocuous things that may claim us at any moment.

There is a small (I wouldn't call it "little", it is a lot higher than a lot of stuff, such a drink or hash), risk that you will actually die right then and there. But as I said, does the fact that this stuff can cause massive heart attacks not give people a bit of an indication of what it actually does to the human body when taken?

growler wrote:

The stats that you quote re. UK deaths suggest to me that the vast majority of intelligent, literate, educated people who chose to use cocaine to whatever level are mostly making an informed choice as to the potential risks to their own well being and as a result tens of thousands of us are not dropping dead every day of the week.

What are you basing that on? The majority of "intellgient, literate, educated" cocaine users who have posted seem to believe it has no bad health effects at all if you just don't take too much.

How many cocaine users in the UK do you think know what Cocaethylene does , how it is produced or even what it is?

growler wrote:

You seem to assume all through this debate that cocaine users are wholly ignorant of the risks

I didn't till I started reading this thread ...

growler wrote:

but like alcohol ,many, if not the majority of users are aware of their own limits and have respect for it.

Limits? What does that mean? They can feel when the strain on their heart as gotten to the stage where they are going to have a heart attack at 40, so they decide to stop taking cocaine?

growler wrote:

It seems to me that you assume that because someone would break a societal taboo and the law they must be daft, but that ain't necessarily so.

Possibly not, I am sure doctors who know exactly what cocaine does to the human heart and still take it every week.

But so far no one who supports cocaine use on this thread has posted anything near the actual health effects or risks. In fact most people on this discussion who fall into the pro-cocaine camp don't even admit there are health risks, and have refused to accept any of the risks to the heart and liver that I put forward. As soon as anything bad about cocaine is mentioned a wall springs up, people get really defensive, and no one wants to listen to anything.

People seem to think I am looking for a reason to justify not taking cocaine. That isn't the case. I don't care if you guys want to take cocaine. My friends take cocaine. Personally I think it is stupid, they definatly don't understand or apprecate the risks. I have friends who drink and drive because they don't realise they are drunk. I have friends who have unprotected sex because they think they heard that HIV only effects gay men who have anal sex. In my experience my friends are idiots They don't think about risks because they don't want things stopping their good times. But its there lives and their bodies.

My problem is people on this public discussion board trying to justify their cocaine use, or their friends, by saying it is safe. It isn't safe If you understand it isn't safe and still do it, fine, just don't be surprised if you have a heart attack in your 30s. If you don't understand the risks and what to do it anyway, thats fine to, again don't be like "how did this happen" as your liver packs in on a club toilet floor somewhere.

All I want to do is challange to posting of "moderate cocaine use is realtively safe" type posts on this thread, because it is simply not true. It may make people feel better about what they do, but it is not true. And I would hate for someone to be reading this and thinking "umm, cocaine, seems safe enough I'll give it a try" and wind up with a health problem simply down to miss-information.

AARRRGH

In this topic, the word "Cocaine" could probably be replaced with anything.

Some people saying in moderation it's reasonably safe, others saying it might be slightly unsafe sometimes...

It's just gone silly.

The fact of the matter is hardly anyone dies from Cocaine use. Yes, overall, you're better off not taking it. But you are probably putting yourself much more in danger when you drive, or drink, or eat peanuts, or cross the road...

Stop putting a relatively safe drug down just because it's illegal. Surely you have more control over your opinions than that...

edanto

dublindude wrote:

But you are probably putting yourself much more in danger when you drive, or drink, or eat peanuts, or cross the road...

That's just a guess, right? I mean it's just a ridiculous comment that seems to ignore reality. I'll concede, it was early morning when you posted, maybe you'll want to change it now. Haven't you read any of the links from this thread?

Stop putting a relatively safe drug down just because it's illegal. Surely you have more control over your opinions than that...

What are you basing that claim of safety on? Just because you don't know anyone that's died yet? For that claim to stand, you'll have to link to some kind of medical study.

What's your theory? Cocaine is a safe drug and the only reason it's illegal is because the stuffy old government don't want us young people to have any fun? Right....:rolleyes:

AARRRGH

You've totally missed my point. Reread and think!

Everything can be dangerous. There are articles on everything being dangerous.

Cocaine is not illegal because it's dangerous. It's illegal because the government are scared to legalise it.

Zombrex

growler wrote:

You seem to assume all through this debate that cocaine users are wholly ignorant of the risks, but like alcohol ,many, if not the majority of users are aware of their own limits and have respect for it

....

dublindude wrote:

Stop putting a relatively safe drug down just because it's illegal.

Bangs head of wall ... :rolleyes:

Cocaine is not a safe drug, even relatively speaking ... at all .. there is no "safe" level of cocaine that the human body can process that you will find cocaine users take. The moderate definition of cocaine use given by Playboy and others, is not safe level of cocaine use.

Because we have access to other things like sleeping pills, or drain cleaner, or peanuts (to people who are serverly allergic) that abused can kill you, doesn't change that fact.

Ignoring the legal aspect of the drug, cocaine is a harmful substance for the body to ingest, at any level At low levels it puts serious strain on the heart and liver and causes permanent damage (which u might not effect you till later if life, so thats ok I guess :rolleyes:), at high levels or mixed with alcohol it can kill you.

It is not safe. It might not kill you straight out, but that is hardly a definition of a "safe" drug. If people want to take it anyway, thats fine with me.

The debate over if it should be legal or not is a different matter. Cigeretts are not safe at all either but people legally take them. But can people please stop spreading false information about the safety of cocaine use

Zombrex

dublindude wrote:

Cocaine is not illegal because it's dangerous. It's illegal because the government are scared to legalise it.

The question isn't why is cocaine illegal, its why isn't alcohol and cigarets illegal.

Cocaine is illegal because it is harmful. But there does exist a hypocracy that governments and society tolerate the legal production and sale of alcohol and cigarets, but not other harmful drugs, because they are far more popular, and there would be up roar if any attempts were made to ban them. That is slowly changing, as the health risks of cigarets become more apparent. I wouldn't be surprise that in the next 50 years some countries ban cigaret sales all together. But again, it is to do with popularity more than health benefits. Alcohol is arguable equaly as damaging to society as cigarets, but any attempt to regulate alcohol sales or pub opening hours, despite increases in alcohol related violence and health problems, are meet with huge resistance. No government in the western world would even contemplate the idea of making it illegal all together (especially after the failed attempts in America).

growler

Wicknight, do you think that if cocaine was to re-legalised and its potentially damaging effects explained that people would continue to use it ?

I agree with you that taking cocaine involves a degree of health risk, I don't think that the risks are explained in a mature way to a mature audience / market. Much of the research cited by you and others deals with abuse rather than (the ill defined ) moderate use.

Since we are exposed to a multitude of health risks, from peanuts to caffeine, on a daily basis and carry on regardless an objective view on the exact nature of the risks, or even better a truly objective study that showed what level of usage could be considered "safe" would be useful. You may say that no level of use is truly safe, I haven't seen any medical studies that might show what comparatively safe levels might or might not be. We know that ideally we should not take caffeine, use mobile phones, breathe polluted air, swim in the Irish sea, smoke, eat foods with additives, eat tuna or swordfish, eat fatty foods, eat too many chillies etc. but there is no benchmark for any of us to judge what , in varying quantities, is more likely to have long term effects on our bodies.

As I said before, because of politics and the war of drugs, no respected source would risk it's reputation in publishing a study that would endorse moderate use of cocaine. The downside of this is that people are forced to use anecdotal evidence on which to base their personal choice. With 36% of the UK population having taken cocaine, if the risks were truly deadly (as opposed to potentially deadly /harmful) then we would be seeing a lot more dead pop stars / models / advertising execs / lawyers / media types than we do. The medium / long term effects are probably not fully documented as of yet even though cocaine has been around for a long time. If quitting smoking can allow your body to self repair within X years is the same true of cocaine , I don't know and I can't find anything that would confirm or deny a timescale on what a humans ability to repair the immediate physical damage caused might be.

SpAcEd OuT

Wicknight wrote:

Thats rather warped logic.

If it doesn't kill you flat out with a massive heart attack, it must not be a serious health risk? Not following that one.

How many people actually die as a result from coke in the long term? very few compared to the amount that use it thats my point.

Wicknight wrote:

I find this idea that if you take cocaine and don't actually physically die right then and there, then "moderate" usage of cocaine (once a week) must be safe? It is a rather puzzling position.

If you use cocaine once a week your not constantly putting your heart under strain.

Wicknight wrote:

Who would be dumb enought to take sleeping pills with alochol??? You would have to be nuts, you are more than likely going to slip into a coma. If someone was actually doing this I would have 999 on my phone read to go.

I am really not following the argument that because large amounts of sleeping pills with alochol will probably kill you and is more dangerous than cocaine with alocohol, therefore cocaine with alochol isn't that bad cause you can buy sleeping pills and cocaine is illegal. You are not supposed to use sleeping pills with alochol unless you want to kill yourself.

I mentioned the sleeping pills because in response to another poster you compared the dangers of his friends drinking with cocaine with his friends drinking with sleeping pills I merely stated that there is no comparasion as sleeping pills will almost defiently kill you combined with alcohol whereas coke except in rare circumstances wont if used moderately

Wicknight wrote:

Like I asked Playboy, would you eat bread from Tescos if it could kill you?

Well I get in a car every week that has more chance of killing you than cocaine im not going to stop driving because theres a small chance I might die I'll just make sure I'll drive responsibly sames goes for cocaine usage if the user uses responsibly then the problems encountered will be minimal

Miguel_Sanchez

This really is the thread that just wouldn't die.

Die, I say, die boring and repetitive thread.

audge

Jeff_Lebowski wrote:

This really is the thread that just wouldn't die.

Die, I say, die boring and repetitive thread.

Even I am sick of it now, and I am the OP!:D

Zombrex

growler wrote:

Wicknight, do you think that if cocaine was to re-legalised and its potentially damaging effects explained that people would continue to use it ?

Yes I think a lot more people would use it, especially in the US, Ireland and England, societies not reknowned for their sensible sell control with relationship to alcohol and cigarets

growler wrote:

I agree with you that taking cocaine involves a degree of health risk, I don't think that the risks are explained in a mature way to a mature audience / market.

I agree that the "Jack and Jill" style education campaigns by the government are pointless and probably do more harm than good because they are just laughed at by people.

Education about something drugs, drink or STDs is very difficult, especially in young people, because they only see the "good" aspects of these things in their culture. If you tell a 18 year old E can kill them, they ignore you because all there mates on off their heads on it each Saturday night and they don't die. Likewise with STDs, if you explain the risks of unprotected sex young people will ignore it because their mates are (claim to be) shagging each way from sunday and not catching anything. None of them have HIV, and they never hear of them catching herpies or something. Of course this isn't the reality, it is just their preception of reality, but in life people will choose the reality to believe in that best suits what they want to do.

People don't want to hear cocaine is a health risk, cause they want to take it. And the tactic of trying scare them doesn't work either (just like it doesn't for STDs, or drink) because what you are saying doesn't match their wishful thinking reality. Of course occasionaly it does, and it brings people crashing down to earth, be it they get someone or themselves pregnent, or they catch syphilis, or their mate is rushed to hospital with a heart problem due to drink. And then you hear the "I never thought it would happen to me..." style revelations.

growler wrote:

Much of the research cited by you and others deals with abuse rather than (the ill defined ) moderate use.

The problem with that is everyones usage is moderate. Just like the people who go out and have 6 or 7 pints on a Friday believe their usage is "moderate," (when in fact it isn't, it just isn't as much as people getting rat faced) I am sure you would be hard pressed to find a cocaine user who believe their usage is more than moderate usage.

Moderation is decided not on the safety level, but on the idea that you are taking less than someone who is an addict. It becomes an issue of the degree of harm it does you.

It has been shown that moderate "weekend" cocaine over periods of 6 months, can lead to major changes in brain chemistry, inducing cravings and ultimately addiction.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol16N3/Even.html

growler wrote:

The medium / long term effects are probably not fully documented as of yet even though cocaine has been around for a long time.

The introduction to this article lists some of them -

http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic2666.htm

growler wrote:

If quitting smoking can allow your body to self repair within X years is the same true of cocaine

I don't know, the damage done by cigarets is quit different than the damage done by cocaine.

growler wrote:

I don't know and I can't find anything that would confirm or deny a timescale on what a humans ability to repair the immediate physical damage caused might be.

I would imagine it would depend on the person. You hear about people who quit smoking early on developing lung cancer, and people who never quit living till 90 and dying of natural causes.

I think it would be very naive to use cocaine on the basis that you will quit before it causes serious damage to your heart or liver.

Zombrex

Jeff_Lebowski wrote:

This really is the thread that just wouldn't die.

Die, I say, die boring and repetitive thread.

Is someone making you read it?

amp

Further off-topic comments about this thread will be deleted.

edanto

dublindude wrote:

You've totally missed my point. Reread and think!

Everything can be dangerous. There are articles on everything being dangerous.

I got that point, I was just saying that your way of justifying it by saying that "you are probably putting yourself much more in danger when you drive, or drink, or eat peanuts, or cross the road" is way off the mark.

I think that because, bar drinking, none of the above activites are likely to induce the following side-effects, associated with cocaine;

drugsinfo.ie wrote:

"The short-term after-effects of use include fatigue and depression. The ‘crash’ or ‘low’ that follows the ‘high’ can be severe, and can lead to depression and suicidal thoughts. Hyperactivity, insomnia and weight loss can also result from frequent use.

Chronic use or heavy binges can lead to paranoia, hallucinations, anxiety attacks and agitation. Aggressive and violent behaviour are another common result of increased use."link

That is repeating some of the information already in this thread, but I'm doing that to re-iterate the point that death is not the only undesirable side effect. And when it comes to measuring those side effects, it would be prohibitely expensive to carry out such detailed research as to untangle all the other confounding factors and calculate to what extent cocaine increases your risk of suffering them. Safe to say there's a positive correlation between the two.

Sure driving can hurt or kill you, but we need to do it to get around and thus it becomes an acceptable risk. Taking cocaine, in my view, isn't such an acceptable risk. I don't need it for confidence, or enhanced sensitivity to sights and sounds and all the other benefits of using it.

I don't want to fuxk up my brain chemistry in my twenties and suffer the effects of that in my middle life. Do you know any people that used cocaine 30 years ago? I don't, but my intuition would be that there's an unacceptable risk that regularly shortcircuting your emotional circuts with potent neuroactive compounds will have a bitter cost in years to come. So, down with that sort of thing.

Tha Gopher

Sarah** wrote:

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.

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

But virtually nobody does coke without drinking. Most heavy coke users I know are people who spend roughly the same amount on drink on a night out as they would have anyway, plus an extra 50-150 on coke.

As for me, I do it, but only when offered/even pressured (half the times have been a case of a mate begging me to go half on a bag because he cant afford enough on his own). Its quite good, but certainly overrated, and its hit or miss as to whether what you buy will be great quality. Personally though I could take it or leave it, ecstasy is in my view a better buzz

Which leads me on to another point. In the 90s, the drug experience order of a young Irish person typically started with alcohol, followed by hash, than pills, then eventually coke. Now coke is widespread so much pills have left the picture majorly. I have two mates (18 and 19) who will gladly do coke but are terrified that if they drop a pill theyll die instantly. Personally, as far as the nervousness factor would go, I feel safer dropping one yoke than putting 20 lines up my nose in 10 minutes but whatever. The point is that, bizarrely, a great many Irish are prepared to put dozens of lines up their nose but somehow regard ecstasy as seriously dangerous.

IMO the figures suggesting something like 5% of 15-40 year olds have used coke as a gross underestimation. In Dublin Id say it could easily tip into a majority in certain areas among the under 30s.

mike65

dublindude wrote:

Drug dealers are business men, not insane psycho murderers.

Some people on this thread have the moral wit of a house brick.

Mike.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Taking cocaine, in my view, isn't such an acceptable risk. I don't need it for confidence, or enhanced sensitivity to sights and sounds and all the other benefits of using it.

Great. I don't like cocaine either, and I'm probably not going to take it again. But I'm not going to make that choice for everybody else, just because I don't like it and don't want to do it doesn't mean nobody should be allowed. If they've informed themselves of the risks, and they still want to go ahead with it.. also, great. There are alot of things that a lot of people do that I don't agree with, I've learned to live with that.

WhiteWashMan

i think dubguy (i think it was him) at boards beer is enough reason not to do coke.

at least, someone said it was him and he was doing coke cocaine.

anyway, having repeatative conversations at 300mph are not my idea of a good time.


dubguy, if you werent doing coke, then my apologise. although it makes me wonder what you were doing...

SpAcEd OuT

intresting show on this on Sky One now if anyones intrested.

Pepe LeFrits

WhiteWashMan wrote:

i have no idea either why people keep going on about the evils of drink and comparing it with class A narcotics.

drink is legal. narcotics are not.

whats the point in comparing them. is it supposed to make everyone think that drugs should be decriminalized?

Other way around, it's high time Alcohol was made illegal!