Should all rereational drugs be legalised?
It would take the crime out of the equation.
Free up police resources.
Then tax it
Use some of the tax for health costs and education.
No of course not. Some can be dangerous to the health of the user, both in the long term and as the immediate result of taking it. Some can be fatal in overdose. Some can have negative consequences on the people around the user – increased violence, mood swings, lack of sleep, concentration difficulties. Bad consequences for the society. For stuff like speed or ice, all the health and education effort would go into preventing people from taking them ever, if you were using an evidence based reasonable approach, I think it would be best to keep them illegal and increase education against using them.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Should all rereational drugs be legalised?
It would take the crime out of the equation.
Free up police resources.
Then tax it
Use some of the tax for health costs and education.
I came across this quandry in another thread when dealing with the issues of theft and assault by some aborigines caused by alcohol. It’s a ticklish legal situation.
The solution after 1940 was to forbid alcohol only to those who were either underage or had been arrested for alcohol related crime. Or to put it another way, those who wished to indulge in alcohol could appky to the courts on a one by one basis to be allowed to buy it.
To me, that makes sense in the broader context. Ban the sale of recreational drugs to only the underage, and to the addicts and abusers who have had their purchasing rights taken away for health or legal reasons.
Or to put it another way, innocent until proved guilty.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Should all rereational drugs be legalised?
It would take the crime out of the equation.
Free up police resources.
Then tax it
Use some of the tax for health costs and education.
Don’t know about all recreational drugs, but in Portugal they have De-legalised Maharaja and users if caught only receive a fine similar to a parking ticket. They do not go to prison or on trial. The cost of the drug, along with prison internment and community crime committed to feed their habit has reduced dramatically. Seems a very simple and effective ruling to me.
Portugal’s radical drugs policy is working. Why hasn’t the world copied it?
When the drugs came, they hit all at once. It was the 80s, and by the time one in 10 people had slipped into the depths of heroin use – bankers, university students, carpenters, socialites, miners – Portugal was in a state of panic.
Álvaro Pereira was working as a family doctor in Olhão in southern Portugal. “People were injecting themselves in the street, in public squares, in gardens,” he told me…
In truth, there was a lot of ignorance back then. Forty years of authoritarian rule under the regime established by António Salazar in 1933 had suppressed education, weakened institutions and lowered the school-leaving age, in a strategy intended to keep the population docile. The country was closed to the outside world; people missed out on the experimentation and mind-expanding culture of the 1960s. When the regime ended abruptly in a military coup in 1974, Portugal was suddenly opened to new markets and influences. Under the old regime, Coca-Cola was banned and owning a cigarette lighter required a licence. When marijuana and then heroin began flooding in, the country was utterly unprepared…
In 2001, nearly two decades into Pereira’s accidental specialisation in addiction, Portugal became the first country to decriminalise the possession and consumption of all illicit substances. Rather than being arrested, those caught with a personal supply might be given a warning, a small fine, or told to appear before a local commission – a doctor, a lawyer and a social worker – about treatment, harm reduction, and the support services that were available to them.
The opioid crisis soon stabilised, and the ensuing years saw dramatic drops in problematic drug use, HIV and hepatitis infection rates, overdose deaths, drug-related crime and incarceration rates. HIV infection plummeted from an all-time high in 2000 of 104.2 new cases per million to 4.2 cases per million in 2015. The data behind these changes has been studied and cited as evidence by harm-reduction movements around the globe. It’s misleading, however, to credit these positive results entirely to a change in law.
Portugal’s remarkable recovery, and the fact that it has held steady through several changes in government – including conservative leaders who would have preferred to return to the US-style war on drugs – could not have happened without an enormous cultural shift, and a change in how the country viewed drugs, addiction – and itself. In many ways, the law was merely a reflection of transformations that were already happening in clinics, in pharmacies and around kitchen tables across the country. The official policy of decriminalisation made it far easier for a broad range of services (health, psychiatry, employment, housing etc) that had been struggling to pool their resources and expertise, to work together more effectively to serve their communities.
party_pants said:
No of course not. Some can be dangerous to the health of the user, both in the long term and as the immediate result of taking it. Some can be fatal in overdose. Some can have negative consequences on the people around the user – increased violence, mood swings, lack of sleep, concentration difficulties. Bad consequences for the society. For stuff like speed or ice, all the health and education effort would go into preventing people from taking them ever, if you were using an evidence based reasonable approach, I think it would be best to keep them illegal and increase education against using them.
I disagree, people assume the usage base of these drugs would increase if they were legalised, this afaict hasn’t been the case in other countries, the opposite in some cases. So the ‘increased harm’ argument doesn’t seem to hold a lot of ground, as in, the people that will use them already use them. Look at Portugal…
Was noting recently that the number of people in prison in Australia has doubled recently. Any idea why?
mollwollfumble said:
Was noting recently that the number of people in prison in Australia has doubled recently. Any idea why?
Double over 10 years.
mollwollfumble said:
Was noting recently that the number of people in prison in Australia has doubled recently. Any idea why?
Low intelligence ?
poikilotherm said:
mollwollfumble said:
Was noting recently that the number of people in prison in Australia has doubled recently. Any idea why?
Double over 10 years.
well, not quite double. ~25000 to ~40000
Tau.Neutrino said:
mollwollfumble said:
Was noting recently that the number of people in prison in Australia has doubled recently. Any idea why?
Low intelligence ?
that plus low empathy ?
mollwollfumble said:
Was noting recently that the number of people in prison in Australia has doubled recently. Any idea why?
Changes to laws probably, things like domestic violence, assaults, home burglaries.
Is it sentenced prisoners or all people in prison, quite a number of people in remand for court appearances that don’t get bail, they might be counted
poikilotherm said:
party_pants said:
No of course not. Some can be dangerous to the health of the user, both in the long term and as the immediate result of taking it. Some can be fatal in overdose. Some can have negative consequences on the people around the user – increased violence, mood swings, lack of sleep, concentration difficulties. Bad consequences for the society. For stuff like speed or ice, all the health and education effort would go into preventing people from taking them ever, if you were using an evidence based reasonable approach, I think it would be best to keep them illegal and increase education against using them.
I disagree, people assume the usage base of these drugs would increase if they were legalised, this afaict hasn’t been the case in other countries, the opposite in some cases. So the ‘increased harm’ argument doesn’t seem to hold a lot of ground, as in, the people that will use them already use them. Look at Portugal…
It seems to be accepting a certain level of harm.
party_pants said:
poikilotherm said:
party_pants said:
No of course not. Some can be dangerous to the health of the user, both in the long term and as the immediate result of taking it. Some can be fatal in overdose. Some can have negative consequences on the people around the user – increased violence, mood swings, lack of sleep, concentration difficulties. Bad consequences for the society. For stuff like speed or ice, all the health and education effort would go into preventing people from taking them ever, if you were using an evidence based reasonable approach, I think it would be best to keep them illegal and increase education against using them.
I disagree, people assume the usage base of these drugs would increase if they were legalised, this afaict hasn’t been the case in other countries, the opposite in some cases. So the ‘increased harm’ argument doesn’t seem to hold a lot of ground, as in, the people that will use them already use them. Look at Portugal…
It seems to be accepting a certain level of harm.
That might be required so you can minimise harm rather than ignore it until they appear in front of the courts
party_pants said:
poikilotherm said:
party_pants said:
No of course not. Some can be dangerous to the health of the user, both in the long term and as the immediate result of taking it. Some can be fatal in overdose. Some can have negative consequences on the people around the user – increased violence, mood swings, lack of sleep, concentration difficulties. Bad consequences for the society. For stuff like speed or ice, all the health and education effort would go into preventing people from taking them ever, if you were using an evidence based reasonable approach, I think it would be best to keep them illegal and increase education against using them.
I disagree, people assume the usage base of these drugs would increase if they were legalised, this afaict hasn’t been the case in other countries, the opposite in some cases. So the ‘increased harm’ argument doesn’t seem to hold a lot of ground, as in, the people that will use them already use them. Look at Portugal…
It seems to be accepting a certain level of harm.
Wouldn’t it be more helpful to those people who have already chosen some level of harm to offer them a better alternative?
Consider the health costs of people on street drugs vs those same people on pharmaceutical drugs .
party_pants said:
poikilotherm said:
party_pants said:
No of course not. Some can be dangerous to the health of the user, both in the long term and as the immediate result of taking it. Some can be fatal in overdose. Some can have negative consequences on the people around the user – increased violence, mood swings, lack of sleep, concentration difficulties. Bad consequences for the society. For stuff like speed or ice, all the health and education effort would go into preventing people from taking them ever, if you were using an evidence based reasonable approach, I think it would be best to keep them illegal and increase education against using them.
I disagree, people assume the usage base of these drugs would increase if they were legalised, this afaict hasn’t been the case in other countries, the opposite in some cases. So the ‘increased harm’ argument doesn’t seem to hold a lot of ground, as in, the people that will use them already use them. Look at Portugal…
It seems to be accepting a certain level of harm.
It’s already there whether accepted or not at the moment. If we’re going to fund things like gastric banding, medical treatment of smokers, medical treatment of alcoholics etc etc – why is one unhealthy facet of life seen as better and worth funding compared to another?
poikilotherm said:
party_pants said:
poikilotherm said:I disagree, people assume the usage base of these drugs would increase if they were legalised, this afaict hasn’t been the case in other countries, the opposite in some cases. So the ‘increased harm’ argument doesn’t seem to hold a lot of ground, as in, the people that will use them already use them. Look at Portugal…
It seems to be accepting a certain level of harm.
It’s already there whether accepted or not at the moment. If we’re going to fund things like gastric banding, medical treatment of smokers, medical treatment of alcoholics etc etc – why is one unhealthy facet of life seen as better and worth funding compared to another?
Agree
I should say legalisation rather than funding in some of those cases.
A drug like MDMA could conceivably be legalised for responsible adults except for those prone to mental illness. It has none of the problematic effects of most other drugs while illegality only encourages organised crime. Crystal meth OTOH is definitely something that is banned.
On harm minimization for smokers, there are certain bacteria that can eat oils, could bacteria spray be used to help combat cigarette and cannabis smoke oil buildup in lungs ?
Interesting and useful research would be to see the correlation between substance misuse (illegal, legal or prescription) and childhood trauma, DV, PTSD, underlying medical conditions, mental health, self medication, etc. I bet it would be extremely high just going by what I’ve read over the years of clients and goes to prove society/government has failed to protect or treat these people at the beginning.
If someone has PTSD and drinks they won’t be in trouble for this unless they commit crimes but if they used heroin they’d be in trouble.
Witty Rejoinder said:
A drug like MDMA could conceivably be legalised for responsible adults except for those prone to mental illness. It has none of the problematic effects of most other drugs while illegality only encourages organised crime. Crystal meth OTOH is definitely something that is banned.
Crystal meth is a bad one.
Witty Rejoinder said:
A drug like MDMA could conceivably be legalised for responsible adults except for those prone to mental illness. It has none of the problematic effects of most other drugs while illegality only encourages organised crime. Crystal meth OTOH is definitely something that is banned.
“In Victoria, there are an average of 4.7 methaphetamine-related ambulance attendances a day (3.4 of those for ice) and about 87% of those cases are transported to hospital. This is less than alcohol (34 attendances per day), benzodiazepines (8.3 attendances per day) and heroin (5.1 attendances per day). And it is similar to cannabis, with 4.4 attendances a day and around 86% transported to hospital.”
However, it is an overstatement to say that ice is far more addictive and far more dangerous than other illicit drugs
http://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-ice-more-dangerous-and-addictive-than-any-other-illegal-drug-46134
poikilotherm said:
However, it is an overstatement to say that ice is far more addictive and far more dangerous than other illicit drugshttp://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-ice-more-dangerous-and-addictive-than-any-other-illegal-drug-46134
It gets more press perhaps and it does make people aggressive.
Cymek said:
Interesting and useful research would be to see the correlation between substance misuse (illegal, legal or prescription) and childhood trauma, DV, PTSD, underlying medical conditions, mental health, self medication, etc. I bet it would be extremely high just going by what I’ve read over the years of clients and goes to prove society/government has failed to protect or treat these people at the beginning.
If someone has PTSD and drinks they won’t be in trouble for this unless they commit crimes but if they used heroin they’d be in trouble.
That would be ideal but considering how difficult it is to manage problem gambling i can’t see it happening without a real change in attitudes. A gambling license would seem to be a no-brainer but that hasn’t happened yet.
Cymek said:
poikilotherm said:
However, it is an overstatement to say that ice is far more addictive and far more dangerous than other illicit drugshttp://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-ice-more-dangerous-and-addictive-than-any-other-illegal-drug-46134
It gets more press perhaps and it does make people aggressive.
Sure.
Existing evidence suggests that methamphetamine use is likely to have a relatively minor impact on the assault rate in NSW in comparison with other factors.
http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/cjb97.pdf
Interestingly people reporting psychological distress were 6 times more likely to report using meth than the general population.
poikilotherm said:
poikilotherm said:
mollwollfumble said:
Was noting recently that the number of people in prison in Australia has doubled recently. Any idea why?
Double over 10 years.
well, not quite double. ~25000 to ~40000
Thanks, that’s what I meant.
poikilotherm said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
A drug like MDMA could conceivably be legalised for responsible adults except for those prone to mental illness. It has none of the problematic effects of most other drugs while illegality only encourages organised crime. Crystal meth OTOH is definitely something that is banned.
“In Victoria, there are an average of 4.7 methaphetamine-related ambulance attendances a day (3.4 of those for ice) and about 87% of those cases are transported to hospital. This is less than alcohol (34 attendances per day), benzodiazepines (8.3 attendances per day) and heroin (5.1 attendances per day). And it is similar to cannabis, with 4.4 attendances a day and around 86% transported to hospital.”
Interesting, I wonder how many of those different users are overusing or abusing ?
Tau.Neutrino said:
poikilotherm said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
A drug like MDMA could conceivably be legalised for responsible adults except for those prone to mental illness. It has none of the problematic effects of most other drugs while illegality only encourages organised crime. Crystal meth OTOH is definitely something that is banned.
“In Victoria, there are an average of 4.7 methaphetamine-related ambulance attendances a day (3.4 of those for ice) and about 87% of those cases are transported to hospital. This is less than alcohol (34 attendances per day), benzodiazepines (8.3 attendances per day) and heroin (5.1 attendances per day). And it is similar to cannabis, with 4.4 attendances a day and around 86% transported to hospital.”
Interesting, I wonder how many of those different users are overusing or abusing ?
If you need a fkn ambulance you’re overusing…
party_pants said:
No of course not. Some can be dangerous to the health of the user, both in the long term and as the immediate result of taking it. Some can be fatal in overdose. Some can have negative consequences on the people around the user – increased violence, mood swings, lack of sleep, concentration difficulties. Bad consequences for the society. For stuff like speed or ice, all the health and education effort would go into preventing people from taking them ever, if you were using an evidence based reasonable approach, I think it would be best to keep them illegal and increase education against using them.
And with the recreational drugs illegal, everything’s really wonderful.
KJW said:
party_pants said:
No of course not. Some can be dangerous to the health of the user, both in the long term and as the immediate result of taking it. Some can be fatal in overdose. Some can have negative consequences on the people around the user – increased violence, mood swings, lack of sleep, concentration difficulties. Bad consequences for the society. For stuff like speed or ice, all the health and education effort would go into preventing people from taking them ever, if you were using an evidence based reasonable approach, I think it would be best to keep them illegal and increase education against using them.
And with the recreational drugs illegal, everything’s really wonderful.
I don’t think that is true
Cymek said:
KJW said:
party_pants said:
No of course not. Some can be dangerous to the health of the user, both in the long term and as the immediate result of taking it. Some can be fatal in overdose. Some can have negative consequences on the people around the user – increased violence, mood swings, lack of sleep, concentration difficulties. Bad consequences for the society. For stuff like speed or ice, all the health and education effort would go into preventing people from taking them ever, if you were using an evidence based reasonable approach, I think it would be best to keep them illegal and increase education against using them.
And with the recreational drugs illegal, everything’s really wonderful.
I don’t think that is true
Perhaps I hide my sense of humour too well.
KJW said:
Cymek said:
KJW said:And with the recreational drugs illegal, everything’s really wonderful.
I don’t think that is true
Perhaps I hide my sense of humour too well.
Shame!
KJW said:
Cymek said:
KJW said:And with the recreational drugs illegal, everything’s really wonderful.
I don’t think that is true
Perhaps I hide my sense of humour too well.
I think so
Oh sorry, I should have asked.
What’s a recreational drug?
mollwollfumble said:
Oh sorry, I should have asked.What’s a recreational drug?
yeah good Q
the two words sort of modify each other, potentially encouraging a certain view
drugs become recreational, and recreational associated with drugs.
think the word origin of recreational is like rejuvenate or something, can’t be sure now.
i’m enjoying some recreational oxygen, from the air I breathe presently, between mouthfuls of recreational noodles.
in a moment i’m going to have a recreational coffee with some recreational toast
I suppose collecting recreational drugs taxes could be a money spinner for the government. They could say the coffers collecting will fund rehab program which are becoming money spinners in some instances as well. Certainly the private hospital funded treatment programs that cost thousands of dollars to access.
There are some programs that are funded through medicare but certainly not all programs are.
How future could be:
Beer tax
Smoking tax
and then the new beaut recreational drug tax
mollwollfumble said:
Oh sorry, I should have asked.What’s a recreational drug?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreational_drug_use
Recreational drug use is the use of a psychoactive drug to induce an altered state of consciousness for pleasure, by modifying the perceptions, feelings, and emotions of the user. When a psychoactive drug enters the user’s body, it induces an intoxicating effect. Generally, recreational drugs are in three categories: depressants (drugs that induce a feeling of relaxation and calm); stimulants (drugs that induce a sense of energy and alertness); and hallucinogens (drugs that induce perceptual distortions such as hallucination). In popular practice, recreational drug use generally is a tolerated social behaviour, rather than perceived as the serious medical condition of self-medication. However, heavy use of some drugs is socially stigmatized.
Recreational drugs include alcohol (as found in beer, wine, and distilled spirits); cannabis and hashish; nicotine (tobacco); caffeine (coffee and tea); and the controlled substances listed as illegal drugs in the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961) and the Convention on Psychotropic Substances (1971) of the United Nations. What controlled substances are considered illegal drugs varies by country, but usually includes methamphetamines, heroin, cocaine, and club drugs. In 2015, it was estimated that about 5% of people aged 15 to 65 had used illegal drugs at least once (158 million to 351 million).
Types
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreational_drug_use#Types
8.1 Depressants 8.2 Stimulants 8.3 Euphoriants 8.4 Hallucinogens 8.5 Inhalantsmore…
monkey skipper said:
I suppose collecting recreational drugs taxes could be a money spinner for the government. They could say the coffers collecting will fund rehab program which are becoming money spinners in some instances as well. Certainly the private hospital funded treatment programs that cost thousands of dollars to access.There are some programs that are funded through medicare but certainly not all programs are.
How future could be:
Beer tax
Smoking tax
and then the new beaut recreational drug tax
Taxing marijuana is happening in some US jurisdictions already.
Witty Rejoinder said:
monkey skipper said:
I suppose collecting recreational drugs taxes could be a money spinner for the government. They could say the coffers collecting will fund rehab program which are becoming money spinners in some instances as well. Certainly the private hospital funded treatment programs that cost thousands of dollars to access.There are some programs that are funded through medicare but certainly not all programs are.
How future could be:
Beer tax
Smoking tax
and then the new beaut recreational drug tax
Taxing marijuana is happening in some US jurisdictions already.
not surprising.
treating ice addictions seems complex though and that type of funding and scope of need is something people are trying to grasp.there is a drug trial underway now (i believe) or quite soon where stimulant adhd meds are being prescribed for recovering addicts to combat relapse through hopefully reducing cravings similar to the methadone program for heroin addictions.
mollwollfumble said:
Oh sorry, I should have asked.What’s a recreational drug?
It is too broad a category to be meaningful, so don’t waste your time. The issue is best tackled for each class of drug on it’s own. Cannabis is a separate discussion to heroin, which are both separate to ice, which in turn is completely separate to ecstasy, and so on.
Otherwise you will just get nowhere. You make one point relevant to one category and then somone will raise the counter argument but this does not apply to something else.
I am perfectly happy to legalise, even tax cannabis and ectasy, but want to continue with the blanket ban on ice.
people take drugs because they are unhappy
wookiemeister said:
people take drugs because they are unhappy
Some people.
monkey skipper said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
monkey skipper said:
I suppose collecting recreational drugs taxes could be a money spinner for the government. They could say the coffers collecting will fund rehab program which are becoming money spinners in some instances as well. Certainly the private hospital funded treatment programs that cost thousands of dollars to access.There are some programs that are funded through medicare but certainly not all programs are.
How future could be:
Beer tax
Smoking tax
and then the new beaut recreational drug tax
Taxing marijuana is happening in some US jurisdictions already.
not surprising.
treating ice addictions seems complex though and that type of funding and scope of need is something people are trying to grasp.there is a drug trial underway now (i believe) or quite soon where stimulant adhd meds are being prescribed for recovering addicts to combat relapse through hopefully reducing cravings similar to the methadone program for heroin addictions.
this approach of using adhd stimulants meds makes sense to me as the drug ice overtime destroys the dopamine and serotonin connectors/receptors in the brain (hopefully correct wording) this leads often to a greater risk of depressive illnesses even after recovery of ice addiction has been achieved.
I think the messing with the transmitters of brain could be addressed with adhd stimulants because of the capacity the medication has for switching the brain on and in particular enhancing the capacity to focus and attend to tasks.wookiemeister said:
people take drugs because they are unhappy
i think people can be curious and experiment as well. i think people re-visit drug taking because they get some perceived reward initially at least.
if you had a dreadful experience everytime you used there wouldn’t be much inducement to return to the drug next time and for some people drug experimentation is just like that ….meaning drugs don’t enhance their life experiences and that demographic reject re-visiting drug taking.
Where as some others get that buzz and keep coming back for more until they are not in control anymore the drug is.
so wookie there is some merit in what you say imo
monkey skipper said:
wookiemeister said:
people take drugs because they are unhappy
i think people can be curious and experiment as well. i think people re-visit drug taking because they get some perceived reward initially at least.
if you had a dreadful experience everytime you used there wouldn’t be much inducement to return to the drug next time and for some people drug experimentation is just like that ….meaning drugs don’t enhance their life experiences and that demographic reject re-visiting drug taking.
Where as some others get that buzz and keep coming back for more until they are not in control anymore the drug is.
so wookie there is some merit in what you say imo
Yes people take drugs for different reasons, unhappiness is one of them, abuse at home, work, stress, rejection and so on.
People also take drugs to lessen the emotions of sexual encounters like alcohol.
> destroys the dopamine and serotonin connectors/receptors in the brain
maybe depletes receptors from surplus of drug, then you have to grow them back, like natural opioid receptors?
transition said:
> destroys the dopamine and serotonin connectors/receptors in the brainmaybe depletes receptors from surplus of drug, then you have to grow them back, like natural opioid receptors?
maybe that should be opioid-like
Tau.Neutrino said:
mollwollfumble said:
Oh sorry, I should have asked.What’s a recreational drug?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreational_drug_use
Recreational drug use is the use of a psychoactive drug to induce an altered state of consciousness for pleasure, by modifying the perceptions, feelings, and emotions of the user. When a psychoactive drug enters the user’s body, it induces an intoxicating effect. Generally, recreational drugs are in three categories: depressants (drugs that induce a feeling of relaxation and calm); stimulants (drugs that induce a sense of energy and alertness); and hallucinogens (drugs that induce perceptual distortions such as hallucination). In popular practice, recreational drug use generally is a tolerated social behaviour, rather than perceived as the serious medical condition of self-medication. However, heavy use of some drugs is socially stigmatized.
Recreational drugs include alcohol (as found in beer, wine, and distilled spirits); cannabis and hashish; nicotine (tobacco); caffeine (coffee and tea); and the controlled substances listed as illegal drugs in the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961) and the Convention on Psychotropic Substances (1971) of the United Nations. What controlled substances are considered illegal drugs varies by country, but usually includes methamphetamines, heroin, cocaine, and club drugs. In 2015, it was estimated that about 5% of people aged 15 to 65 had used illegal drugs at least once (158 million to 351 million).
Types
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreational_drug_use#Types
8.1 Depressants 8.2 Stimulants 8.3 Euphoriants 8.4 Hallucinogens 8.5 Inhalantsmore…
Thanks for that link. This graph from it is very very interesting.
In terms of addiction: heroin, cocaine, alcohol and tobacco are the big four.
In terms of physical harm: heroin, codaine, barbiturates and ketamine are the big four.
mollwollfumble said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
mollwollfumble said:
Oh sorry, I should have asked.What’s a recreational drug?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreational_drug_use
Recreational drug use is the use of a psychoactive drug to induce an altered state of consciousness for pleasure, by modifying the perceptions, feelings, and emotions of the user. When a psychoactive drug enters the user’s body, it induces an intoxicating effect. Generally, recreational drugs are in three categories: depressants (drugs that induce a feeling of relaxation and calm); stimulants (drugs that induce a sense of energy and alertness); and hallucinogens (drugs that induce perceptual distortions such as hallucination). In popular practice, recreational drug use generally is a tolerated social behaviour, rather than perceived as the serious medical condition of self-medication. However, heavy use of some drugs is socially stigmatized.
Recreational drugs include alcohol (as found in beer, wine, and distilled spirits); cannabis and hashish; nicotine (tobacco); caffeine (coffee and tea); and the controlled substances listed as illegal drugs in the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961) and the Convention on Psychotropic Substances (1971) of the United Nations. What controlled substances are considered illegal drugs varies by country, but usually includes methamphetamines, heroin, cocaine, and club drugs. In 2015, it was estimated that about 5% of people aged 15 to 65 had used illegal drugs at least once (158 million to 351 million).
Types
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreational_drug_use#Types
8.1 Depressants 8.2 Stimulants 8.3 Euphoriants 8.4 Hallucinogens 8.5 Inhalantsmore…
Thanks for that link. This graph from it is very very interesting.
In terms of addiction: heroin, cocaine, alcohol and tobacco are the big four.
In terms of physical harm: heroin, codaine, barbiturates and ketamine are the big four.
How did they estimate the levels of harm?
I’m pretty sceptical about many of those numbers.
monkey skipper said:
the drug ice overtime destroys the dopamine and serotonin connectors/receptors in the brain
Why is methamphetamine neurotoxic whereas amphetamines in general are not?
KJW said:
monkey skipper said:the drug ice overtime destroys the dopamine and serotonin connectors/receptors in the brainWhy is methamphetamine neurotoxic whereas amphetamines in general are not?
Hearsay unless you can find some evidence.
See
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22289608/
poikilotherm said:
KJW said:
monkey skipper said:the drug ice overtime destroys the dopamine and serotonin connectors/receptors in the brainWhy is methamphetamine neurotoxic whereas amphetamines in general are not?
Hearsay unless you can find some evidence.
See
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22289608/
That meth is worse than amph.