651
submitted 11 months ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/world@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Grimy@lemmy.world 46 points 11 months ago

I've had friends that were cocaine addicts and some that really hit the bottom. This seems insane to me, this isn't a fun and easy drug like weed imo. I've always lumped coke with meth and heroin.

[-] TheBlackLounge@lemmy.world 42 points 11 months ago

Its harm potential is somewhere in between. To put it in perspective, alcohol is worse than heroin. And like alcohol addicts, your friends should be able to get a clean and safe source to reduce damage, and the help they need without any fear of persecution.

You can't criminalize problems away. It evidently didn't help your friends.

[-] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 9 points 11 months ago
[-] YarHarSuperstar@lemmy.world 19 points 11 months ago

What is the source of that image? I'm questioning its validity. They have cannabis as more dependency forming and physically harmful than GHB. Unless it means something it doesn't say, like they've weighted the results by how many users there are of each drug or something.

[-] scottywh@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

LSD shouldn't even be pictured... I question the validity, as well.

[-] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It’s completely bullshit.

I love GHB but it needs to be way higher on dependence. It’s extremely easy to be addicted to. Benzos as well. Benzos are just under heroin in levels of dependency.

Edit: full agree with you, LSD isn’t even on this chart if the chart was real.

[-] djdadi@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

I'd argue benzos should be higher than heroin for dependence. You can't cold turkey a bad benzo addiction, but you can with heroin.

[-] Obi@sopuli.xyz 1 points 10 months ago

Yeah I'm guessing the source data for this chart is "random boomer's feelings".

[-] Cracks_InTheWalls@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

You should totally question the validity, but I'd pause before dismissing it entirely. It's supposedly based on an opinion survey of psychiatrists and a group of 'independent experts' (footnote incoming) published in the Lancet in 2007. Edit: I said things that weren't true about the Wikimedia image that I have removed - it's based on the table near the bottom of the article.

DOI is 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60464-4

You should ask our friend ANNA if she'S heard people talk about this during her time in the ARCHIVEs.

It's not a completely objective harm/dependence measure, for sure, but the opinions of experts aren't meaningless - it's worth reading the article and judging the authors' claims rather than this image. Though I will say the number of participants seems really low.

On LSD,

  1. the opinion thing should be underlined and considered heavily (particularly in the UK, where rave culture is/was more top of mind than other places and LSD is/was in the mix, albeit I don't think to the same degree as MDMA and other compounds), but also

  2. as crazy as it may sound, dependency can develop in some users. I'd argue it looks VERY different than dependence to other substances (frequency is obviously much lower, given rapid tolerance, and some people may not call once a week or every two weeks dependency*), but it still exists. Given that this is basically an expert opinion poll it's actually placed more or less where I'd expect to see it.

*Though in online discussion groups for folks interested in such compounds, those folks often do call that level of frequency a sign of dependency. Should note I'm talking specifically about macrodoses, not microdosing.

(Footnote) from page 1049: "These experts had experience in one of the many areas of addiction, ranging from chemistry, pharmacology, and forensic science, through psychiatry and other medical specialties, including epidemiology, as well as the legal and police services."

[-] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago

Interesting - linking again, which pulled it from an expert survey in the UK.

[-] deltasan@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I think they were asking for the source because the link you shared is just Wikipedia to a file. I was wondering about the original source of data too.

Edit: full link came out weird like yours. No wonder we were confused.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_(mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg

[-] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago

They end in .svg but load as a page - both yours and mine.

That wasn’t the case for you? Which browser/app?

[-] deltasan@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago
[-] qaz@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

The data in the paper is obtained solely from questionnaire results obtained from two groups of people: the first comprised people from the UK national group of consultant psychiatrists who were on the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ register as specialists in addiction, while the second comprised of people with experience in one of the many areas of addiction, ranging from chemistry, pharmacology, and forensic science, through psychiatry and other medical specialties, including epidemiology, as well as the legal and police services; the experts are not named and were chosen by the authors.

[-] djdadi@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Thanks for the graphic, but many of those are laughably wrong. I guess it depends on their specific definitions. But for example solvents do irreversible damage with every use; meanwhile heroin is a drug available with a prescription (usually just in hospital use) and doesn't do almost any long term damage on its own.

Cocaine is also cardiotoxic at any level

[-] ngdev@lemmy.world 26 points 11 months ago

My friend's brother just died of heroin overdose a few weeks ago and I just couldn't help but feel for him. How many dark alleys did he have to go to to get his high? How many sketchy people were involved? Did he have access to clean needles? He overdosed alone, and likely felt subhuman due to being relegated to the fringes of society just to get his high.

Legalization would not have kept him from getting high, but it certainly would have enabled him access to clean drugs from a safe place, clean needles, and possibly made him viewed as someone who enjoyed getting high and not a piece of shit addict. He had a problem and it being illegal only made it worse for him.

Legalize it all. He was an adult, it's his body. He can do what he wants with it, it's nobody's place to tell anyone what you can or cannot consume. He loved getting high on heroin and I don't see a problem with that.

[-] sukhmel@programming.dev 10 points 11 months ago

He was an adult, it's his body

This seems to be widely questioned view as of lately 😞

[-] Timecircleline@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I'm very sorry for your friend's loss, and appreciate your empathy and desire to see less stigmatization for people who choose to use drugs.

[-] themelm@sh.itjust.works 23 points 11 months ago

Yeah there is no safe amount of cocaine to do. There is also no safe amount of alcohol to do. At least if shit is legalised people can decide to use cocaine or not with informed consent and can be sure they are actually getting pure cocaine.

I had a friends cousin die from using cocaine but it was because they had bought it off a street dealer and it was tainted with fentanyl. They just wanted to have a little extra fun on a night out on vacation. They'd be alive and well if cocaine was legal.

Prohibition doesn't work. It just adds suffering and stigma to addiction. One of the biggest factors to addiction is isolation something that criminalizing health issues greatly contributes to.

[-] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 13 points 10 months ago

Yes but they aren't legalizing it because it's fun and safe they are legalizing it because jailing people over drugs does not help them and there is no point in filling your jails with such a high percentage of your population.

[-] chicken@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

then why not decriminalize instead of legalize?

[-] Coreidan@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

What difference does it make when the outcome is the same?

[-] Cracks_InTheWalls@sh.itjust.works 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I'd say legalization is actually better in this case, as you can provide licenses to pharmaceutical manufacturers subject to QA regulations, lab accreditations, etc. Decriminalization just means that guy with 1:1 cocaine:fentanyl is probably getting a ticket rather than arrested.

[Was going to put a 'doesn't help when the guy overdoses' comment here, but thinking about it now people do overdose (and die) on just cocaine too. One of the factors that make this a different conversation than cannabis. Don't know the thresholds for overdose re: just coke, though]

[-] djdadi@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

And yet another factor is that cocaine is cardiotoxic. You're literally killing your heart with every use.

[-] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Regulation and the obliteration of the illegal drug trade which directly harms millions in the pursuit of profit.

It should however, (and I cannot stress this enough) be privatized. This would be a fucking nightmare and simply move the profit motive causing the harm to another source

[-] SpruceBringsteen@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

I wish it was legal in unrefined quantities. I don't want a crazy addition, but maybe I'd like a tea with some extra kick now and then.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I don't think that would be a good idea. We want it to be refined so it's high purity and safe (or as safe as it can be).

If anything I would suggest the opposite -- make it legal when refined, and have a government agency certify they meet a certain quality. You'd want to encourage people to take the refined version, which has known composition and materials. The unrefined street product would be illegal, but the only "punishment" would be confiscation. No jail time, except perhaps for manufacturers who are knowingly getting people sick with their product.

[-] SpruceBringsteen@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

See its traditional use in leaf form. It's way less potent and it's a lot easier to tell if something is wrong with a leaf than if someone cut something into a powder post inspection.

Potency with coke is a real problem. It's TOO good. And we get it refined in large part because of our silly policing policies around it. It's silly to be policing a leaf the way we do when there's coffee beans lining our shelves.

[-] Witchfire@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I agree with you. I know a lot of people who are cocaine addicts and their addiction makes them all incredibly unreliable. They stay up partying until 7am then crash for 12 hours the day of a big event. I've also known people who died due to tainted cocaine. It's not a safe drug by any means. I'm all for decriminalization and treating it like a health issue, but it should not be taken lightly.

[-] deranger@sh.itjust.works 13 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I know people who do a bunch of dumb things that are bad for their lives - and only their lives - but they don’t become a criminal in the process.

[-] Witchfire@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

They aren't criminal by any means, it just makes them really shitty people to be around :/

this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
651 points (97.4% liked)

World News

39023 readers
2325 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS