Can a "some drugs are worse than others; stay away from the bad ones" work?

Great Debates
1

So numerous threads about anti-drug efforts have made it clear that most people think that universally condemning and criminalizing all drugs don’t work.

But the meth thread going on in another forum reminds me that there are some drugs that a lot of folks say ARE as bad as “they” say, like meth.

That makes me think of my nephews, and what the hell I’m going to tell them about this whole thing, and it frankly worries me. If universally condemning and criminalizing all drugs doesn’t work, what will make “okay, X probably won’t kill you, but for God’s sake stay away from Y” work? If it doesn’t, what’s to be done? Is there any argument for making every single currently illegal drug of any sort legal?

2

We already practice that philosophy, which is why many drugs are legal including recreational drugs such as alcohol, caffeine, and nicotine. Most illegal ones are illegal for good reasons - except marijuana, which I fully support legalizing.

3

Judging by the relative placement of alcohol and tobacco, I’m not sure that’s correct.

4

Raising teenagers to handle the truth works, or we are all doomed when they become adults.

5

Sure it does–even a very young kid can understand a concept like “Things you can grow in your garden by yourself are much less dangerous, overall, than things which require a laboratory and shit tons of hazardous chemicals that can blow up to make them.” It’s the same way we teach them that beer is less hazardous than hard A, and to avoid Everclear like the plague.

6

I’m not sure if I’m being whooshed, but that’s an incredibly stupid statement. The danger of something naturally occurring is whatever it is. The danger of something designed and manufactured scientifically is defined as part of the design process and could be anything from totally benign to immediately lethal. But more importantly, the laboratory equivalent of something can nearly always be safer than the natural version. It can never be worse (since then, what’s the point?)

7

We’re talking illegal recreational drugs here, y’know? And I can assure you that in the real world marijuana has no laboratory made “safer” version, meth is way more dangerous than weed and even opium is safer than heroin. And if you’re in a climate that will allow you to grow coca, that’s safer than cocaine and way safer than crack. I’ll go further and explain that the chemicals used in making meth are incredibly dangerous, especially to kids, especially given the haphazard ways that typical meth cookers store them–i.e., in empty plastic milk jugs. Around here a meth lab house is generally considered uninhabitable once it’s been busted and is usually condemned and pulled down–a grow house, on the other hand, isn’t dangerous at all aside from maybe overloaded wiring.

As an explanation to kids, it absolutely does work.

8

And heroin is way more safe than black widow poison. Being manufactured in a laboratory is not evidence of scariness. Being scary is evidence of scariness.

If my kid had an option between getting drunk or taking a hit of a popper (alkyl nitrite), going by the chart, I’d much rather him be taking the popper.

9

Kindly point out where I used the term “scary.” Drugs are neither scary nor unscary, merely safer or less safe, and that’s the terms I used. As for black widow poison, kindly cite the use of it as an illegal recreational drug.

10

The chart in the first link actually looks about right, but I would disagree with their placement of LSD and ecstasy (having used and researched both of them) - or at the very least, say it’s a misleading way to gauge their potential harmfulness.

It’s fair to say that LSD is neither physically very harmful nor does it cause much dependency. But it can have bizarre effects on a person’s perception and mental state that last for an exceedingly long time (12 hours+). There are definitely people who are already unstable enough while sober that they really aren’t suited to taking acid, and doing so could have some seriously adverse effects.

Ecstasy, on the other hand, brings about a very harsh “hangover” effect while the serotonin is depleted from the user’s brain for several days after using. Repeated use is known to cause permanent brain damage. And it can also bring about death from dehydration fairly easily if the user is not keeping themselves well-hydrated. It’s far from being harmless.

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_neurotoxicity1.shtml

11

I seem to remember that there have been some studies showing a link between heavy X use and risk of depression and even suicide for those coming down after an ecstasy bender…

Of course, with studies like these, there is always a chicken and egg problem (maybe those who are already prone to depression are more likely to seek out drugs such as ecstasy) but I know that X can indeed mess up one’s neuro-chemistry pretty significantly, at least in the short term.

12

Yeah there’s a third axis for potential harm to others/society that is neglected by that chart.

13

That’s irrelevant to my point. My point was that you should teach people to learn what is or isn’t dangerous based on factual information, as opposed to subscribing to some sort of cockamamie belief that natural is safe and unnatural is dangerous.

14

IME, the hangover effect of XTC really varies per person. For me, an alcohol hangover is much worse (and alcohol can also cause brain damage and death). But, you’re right that it’s potentially dangerous - the dehydration can kill you if you don’t know about it and drink enough, and the psychological effects (while high) are very strong. Certainly not something to take if you’re not relatively well balanced.

15

This is exactly what we’ve done with my son, and he’s thanked me for it. Even at 12, he rolled his eyes at Reefer Madness type DARE education he got at school, which (he says) basically equates marijuana with crack. Now that he’s 17, he’s very appreciative that he’s gotten medically accurate information at home. ETA: And he’s said that knowing I’m honest with him, he’s not going near the “hard” stuff, because he believes me when I say it’s dangerous. When the harmless drugs are pitched as harmful, he won’t believe anything he’s told.

Me, I tell him that the research I’ve done indicates that marijuana is, medically speaking, more or less harmless (especially if eaten instead of smoked), mushrooms likewise, LSD not so bad. Cocaine, heroin, crack et al are in the “woah…seriously, that stuff can be pretty harmful” category.

I won’t simplify it to “if it grows, it’s good” though, because other botanicals can be extremely hazardous. Datura, Peyote and Ayahuasca, we say, “Well, if you have a shaman trained in their use to walk you through it, they’re probably okay, but it’s a rough ride when you’re doing them, and they can stop your heart, so don’t experiment with your friends!”

16

Kindly point out where I said that, please. Simple reading comprehension applied to my original post, which I will quote for your convenience here–

[QUOTE=SmartAleq]
“Things you can grow in your garden by yourself are much less dangerous, overall, than things which require a laboratory and shit tons of hazardous chemicals that can blow up to make them.”
[/QUOTE]

–renders your entire point completely irrelevant to mine.

Within the scope of the discussion, which is, to remind you, recreational drug use, my statement is valid. Just to make it clear, I am NOT discussing drugs which are manufactured by pharmaceutical companies, because prescription drug abuse is a whole 'nother animal, I am discussing illegal recreational drugs which are available ONLY at the street level, manufactured by extremely dodgy methods and from very hazardous materials. If you want to get into a discussion about pharma drugs, fine, then you have to get into the difference between using a drug AS PRESCRIBED or, say, crunching up oxycontin and shooting or snorting it instead of swallowing it. One is remarkably more dangerous than the other, even though the same drug is the issue.

As for some of the more exotic botanicals WhyNot brings up, either she or I can also give you some examples of common house plants and landscaping plants that will kill a kid dead way faster than most plants used to get high. Dieffenbachia, philodendron, oleander, foxglove, jimson weed and English ivy spring readily to mind. Check your yard, you may have more hazardous plants in your yard than you have hazardous chemicals under your sink.

And of the street drugs which are plant derived, such as crack, cocaine and heroin, ALL of the refined drugs are infinitely more hazardous than their plants of origin. Hence the term “refined.” That’s what prohibition does to drug production, it forces dealers to get as much bang as they can into the smallest possible package, given that sentencing laws usually are pegged to weight.

17

I think calling it “fairly easily” is overstating things. It does happen, but it’s pretty rare.

Me too. Much worse. I’ve never really felt an ecstasy hangover (other than lack of sleep).

18

Nature generally grows shit the “right way” every time.

A drug addicted chemist in the hood, not so much.

Natural is not an AUTOMATIC that its “safe”, but if its at substance like pot that is generally safe and just grown, you can be fairly confident you’ll be getting what you pay for.

A MANUFACTURED substance that should be made by sober folks with quality control measures and degrees and shit in a real lab instead done by drug addicted idiot criminals? Who knows what the’ve put in or done to that shit.

19

Does not take potential psychological harm into account. This is your brain on drugs.

20

Didn’t someone prove that crack was really no worse than cocaine?

When I was in the Boy Scouts there were all sorts of naturally growing things that were pretty dangerous (mushrooms come to mind).