Could Non-Addictive Recreational Drugs Be Developed?

Factual Questions
41

I tend to catch flak for this sometimes, but I think the problem is in the users and the law, not the drugs. I’ve indulged in both coke and heroin and found them both non-addictive and safe (for me). Never had a comedown, never had a withdrawal, and quitting was such a non-process and un-BFD that it feels like cheating to even call it quitting: one day I had heroin and I smoked it, the next day I didn’t and I didn’t. Addiction is a complex process, and although the disease model makes it sound as objective as infection, it really is not, considering all of the psychology involved. I, for one, have never considered myself qualified to determine whether or not any particular other person is an addict, unless they’re blatantly on the way to hitting bottom (hiding it from their friends who like it so they won’t hog it; selling things they need to pawn shops regularly for drug money; etc).

Anyway, it’s been my experience that a person’s susceptibility to addiction depends on a complex mix of factors including their personality, their circumstances, the mindset they bring to the experience, the way they view the influence of friends and family in their lives, and the level to which they’re conscious and accepting of the dangers inherent in their actions. I know this sounds like I’m blaming the addicts, but I’m not (although I did once hold the position that it was entirely the addict’s fault): having come as close to hitting bottom as I think I ever will*, I totally understand how someone going through rough times can make decisions that s/he may regret later.

The solution to our nation’s drug problem is as subjective and as difficult an issue as the question you raised, ralph, but based on my experience and on recent biochemical history, I must conclude that trying to sanitize drugs is not the answer. For one thing, even if you could remove the addictiveness from cocaine and heroin (which is a problem of definition anyway, because it’s not strictly a biochemical phenomenon, especially in cocaine, whose addictive potential is strictly psychological), you would undoubtedly wind up with a different drug. Now on to recent biochemistry: most attempts to make drugs with recreational potential safer have backfired badly. Ketamine shines as the notable exception: though still addictive, it’s far better than PCP in terms of both safety and abuse potential. But whoever decided to add two acetyl groups to morphine and came up with heroin certainly didn’t wind up with a safer version of the original chemical. Then when over-the-counter heroin cough drops were being abused, the switch to OTC codeine cough drops made little difference except for reducing the product’s effectiveness. When cough medicine makers devised cough syrup as an intentionally disgusting alternative, in the hope that people wouldn’t get high on it because they wouldn’t be able to stand more than the recommended dose, that turned out to be useless and counterproductive as well. When brilliant chemists devised dextromethorphan as a “non-narcotic”** replacement for codeine in OTC cough medicine, the discovery was a huge step forward for psychonauts and an even bigger step backward for the consumer and the industry.

And then you can take the example of methadone, an opiate used by so-called “methadone clinics” to wean addicts off of heroin. Devised as a less addictive alternative, it turned out to be simply less pleasurable, but just as physically addictive if not more so, with a withdrawal that’s as bad as the one from heroin, if not worse.

Short answer to the question in the title: Maybe, maybe not–probably not, and likely not worth it.

  • Not drug-related, although I did some drug-related things after hitting that low that I now regret. Knock on wood, BTW.

** All “non-narcotic” means is that it doesn’t come from the opium poppy and it’s not illegal. Any time you see “non-narcotic” on a drug label, that’s a big clue that the stuff inside can mess you up, in a good way (DXM), a bad way (Ambien), or both.

42

[Suzanne Sugarbaker]What? You mean like Flipper?[/Suzanne Sugarbaker}

43

To Quote Andrew Undershaft (in GB Shaw’s play, “MAJOR BARBARA”): “alcohol makes life bearable for those who would otherwise find it unbearable”
I feel the same way. Get rid of the illegal aspect, and we could close half the prisons, and put a lot of judges and lawyers out of work!

44

“Cite, please? Especially for “user is at high risk for suicide after taking MDMA”, but even for “serious” depression.”

I thought I had with the link to NIDA. However, if you are looking for more information read Buzzed

If that isn’t enough, I’ll look around and see what I can find. I drawing that information from literature I read a few years ago. The one that pops into mind easily is the above mentioned book.

45

fetus, when was the latest attempt to engineer a drug for recreational purposes? Modifying a drug used recreationally to make it less prone to such use is different. There you’re trying to retain other uses and suppress one. I’m not aware of any legal public attempt in recent history (last 25-30 years) to engineer a safer recreational drug, and psychopharmacology has made decent strides within that period. See my link above to a new opioid treatment.

BTW, ‘narcotic’ strictly means a drug inducing sleep and/or drowsiness. The opium poppy has nothing to do with it, aside from being the source for the most famous narcotics. In cultural connotations, it means an illegal drug.

46

Redfrost, your link says nothing about suicide and it cites a 1998 Parrott study in support of the manifestation of clinical depression. That study has limitations which the 2006 study I cited, controlled for.

Ironically, the author of the 1998 study also presented an overview of Ecstasy pill purity (one of the limitations) in 2004: The ecstasy purity problem was predominantly a phenomenon of the mid to late 1990s, when many tablets contained substances other than MDMA. Before and since then, the proportion of ecstasy tablets containing MDMA has been very high.

47

You’re both right. Though ‘narcotic’ isn’t generally understood to specify ‘opiate-based’, strangely enough ‘non-narcotic’ generally does mean ‘non-opiate-based’. In law-enforcement jargon ‘narcotic’ is ‘anything illegal that gets you high.’

48

Right, in the same way that alcohol doesn’t cause people to break the law and get thrown in jail.

I do agree with the sentiment… redirect the force of legal penalties around stupid things that irresponsible people do when they get high. Don’t try to make our legal system perform as a nanny to the irresponsible, or to enforce a moral code preferred by some. Just protect my person and property from the depredation, deception, and neglect of other jerks.

That being said, don’t pretend for a minute that you wouldn’t still have irresponsible drug users neglecting their families, losing jobs due to erratic performance, or burglarizing cars for spare change for the next score. Alcohol is perfectly legal and it remains arguably the world’s most destructive drug there is.

49

Which I think is the problem in and of itself. People who use alcohol because they enjoy the effects–fine. But then you have people who use alcohol to feel good, instead of solving the problems in their lives that make them feel down, and that’s where the trouble starts. And the effects on the people around those people, as well as the abusers themselves, are profound.

50

II Gyan II In this study from 2005 there is a suggestion (although not absolute proof) that regular use of MDMA may reduce serotonin fibers. A reduction in serotonin, which is responsible for, among other things, mood regulation suggests that the user will experience depression. Depression frequently leads to suicidal ideation, which in turn can lead to suicide. I never stated that it was a forgone conclusion that the user would commit suicide, only that he/she is at risk. Although the studies I have read do not state explicitly that the user is at risk, I was extrapolating from the evidence in reduction/damage to serotonin fibers.

51

Just chimed in again to add this link and this link

52

Redfrost, the problem with that reasoning is that you are making conclusions via inference, but that conclusion is at odds with the current evidence, i.e. there’s only a modest increase in chronic depressive symptoms among users:

And the study I quoted earlier monitored users before, during, & after MDMA use while controlling for factors not controlled by similar earlier studies and again showed modest immediate aftereffects.

So the neurochemical theories may lead one to expect your conclusions, but the current evidence says otherwise.