Heroin: a unique, harmless substance...

[elvis_wears_nikes]

You are unlikely to come across an unlimited supply of pharmacologically pure and unadulterated heroin (diacetylmorphine) outside of a clinical or medical setting. There also needs to be a distinction made between dependancy and addiction in relation to harm with regards to heroin. The opening argument states that heroin “does not harm the body or mind at all”. Physiologically perhaps diamorphine may not be toxic but it certainly leads to dependency. As for the mind, it is evident that heroin can also lead to addiction.

Even if the drug is non-toxic it is the damage that addiction causes from dependency associated with heroin use that also needs to be considered physically, psychologically and socially (i.e crime, self-neglect, breakdown of relationships, deterioration in physical and mental health, and so on) and this also needs to be included in this context. It is the wider consequences of addiction that is associated with a high level of “harm” and that cannot simply be ignored with regards to heroin - even in its “purest” form.

 

[JessFR]

I agree that we shouldn't present misinformation to people to try to scare them away from heroin, but at the same time presenting true information can be misleading in depending on how it is presented. For example, when I read about heroin and read that it was physiologically relatively benign, I thought "Great. I won't overdose and I won't use it often enough to get physically dependent." Well I ended up doing both. But not only that, it wasn't even as physiologically benign as I had been lead to believe. As I said earlier, I developed breathing problems from it due to the respiratory depression and found it damaging to my brain. It also affected my hormones.

Which is why ALL the information must be provided fairly and accurately. Like I said, neither the good nor the bad should be under or over sold. Deliberately doing so is dishonest.

I think there is a lot of subjective use of the terms "psychologically" "physiologically" "harm" and "benign" in this discussion.

That's what I call a terminology argument. And I refuse to argue terminology arguments because they are unwinnable. A words definition is relative.

And I agree, for any meaningful discussion to take place, if the question is as simple as "is heroin harmless/harmful" there needs to be agreement on both sides as to what those words actually mean.

Though personally I'd rather not have such an argument at all, since the answer will oversimplify the situation no matter what the answer would be.

The reality is what it is, in some ways it's harmless and others profoundly harmful, depending on what way in which you're talking about potential harms. I'd rather just leave it saying that relatively speaking, physiologically no it isn't very harmful. Relative to drugs in general anyhow. But in the broader sense, in terms of how much harm it is liable to cause to you as a result of continued use. It is often extremely harmful.

Personally, if I HAD to give an answer to such a simplistic question. I would say that in the meaningful sense of the word, the practical sense and how I would define harmful. Then yes, I would say heroin IS harmful. Overall, if you like using heroin, and continue to do so in the long term. I think it causes profound harm to most people. To me that's what matters and that makes it harmful.

But like I said, it's oversimplified that way and I'd prefer to just let it be with the reality of what risks you run using heroin. There no point in just labeling it harmful or harmless. That's not to anyone's benefit.

 

[Mafioso]

Semantics are important, although this is probably not the place for them. The meanings of words are not subjective or language would have no meaning at all and no one would be able to understand what another means. Firm definitions of words are important and straying from the standard or correct definition to suite one's own needs will create a lot of confusion.

Harmful being defined as "of a kind likely to be damaging" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/harmful)

In the same regard that people are arguing that heroin is harmless(unadulterated, used in extreme moderation) the same can be said about cocaine, meth, benzos, alcohol, and so on. Heroin is by no means a unique substance in a pharmacological sense, there are dozens of opioids that has very similar effects. Certainly harmless is a stretch as well by the standard definition of harmful/harmless.

I'm not really sure what your argument is in reference to the original topic.. clearly heroin is not a unique substance any more than any other chemical is "unique". Harmless is only subjective due to the wide range of the possibility of use, but most all drugs can be considered harmless in that regard.

 

[JessFR]

Of course they are subjective. Words change meaning all the time. That's why there are so many different languages. Even English has changed a lot over just the last few hundred years. Lots of words mean different things now than they did then.

Some countries have an official standardized authority for the language, the US does not.
Often a particular dictionary is used as a standard reference for legal purposes, but otherwise language is a living evolving thing. It can't be stopped.

I don't care what Webster says. Who says they get to decide what the word means? All that matters is that everyone in the discussion agree on the meaning, whatever that meaning may be. If everyone wants to use one particular dictionary for debate purposes, that's fine. But nobody owns the language. And dictionaries determine the definitions based on the consensus of the people, not the other way around. If people start using a word a new way, and it stays that way long enough, the dictionary is updated.
Which is exactly why I don't engage in terminology arguments.

Again, all that matters for discussion purposes is that everyone agree on the meaning of the word, otherwise the debate gets hijacked by discussing that instead. Semantics are important, otherwise you end up with all the confusion we see on this thread.

Beyond that I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

But, going on the websters definition, likely to cause harm, again, I would say heroin is not harmless. As I said already. I still think all of this is going about it the wrong way though.

Confining the discussion to just answering a simple yes or no, is it harmful, is way too simplistic to be of any use.

 

[Keif' Richards]

So, this has devolved into an argument over the definition of "words".

Jess, do you understand how, perhaps dropping in every few posts and laying out the reasons why all other posters are wrong, don't have the right idea or essentially, have pure evil in their hearts can alienate you from the rest of the community? It's fine that you disagree with me, it's not my first day at this gig, but I think you could end up losing credibility with your peers by telling them flat out that they are "wrong", "misguided" or have a poor understanding of English vocabulary, as opposed to maybe, stating your argument and the reasoning behind it.

One thing I do have a problem with though:

Who are you accusing of "deliberately" misstating things? Just because accusing someone of "deliberate misstatement" is, speaking of defining our language, tantamount to calling them a liar. I just hope you're not calling me a liar, because I have done no such thing to anyone. By making this statement, you're pretty much going to have to tell us who you are calling a liar and why or you can retract the statement.

You cannot call everyone with a differing opinion to your own a liar. I'm a Jew and I can't call Hitler a liar and that guy had some pretty crazy fucking ideas. We're here for discourse. Your notion that every thread will have the Truth and nothing but it is utterly mistaken. We are a forum.

I will reiterate a paraphrased version of my earlier statement:

Opioids (including Heroin) are generally non-toxic to the body. There are exceptions including drugs like Pethidine (Demerol) which produce toxic metabolites with chronic usage, but they are not the norm. In general, the most dangerous physiological response outside of overdose is going to be related to constipation.

The fact that Opioids are not acutely harmful in the same manner as Alcohol or Cocaine would be doesn't mean that there aren't consequences to their use. Just like with anything else in life; Food, Sex, hell, even exercise (things that are non inherently bad) can provoke addiction and subsequent social consequences.

Jess: Even decades' long Opiate addicts are apparently unable to discern the difference between powerful Opiates like Heroin and Morphine. There's more than one study that has come to this conclusion. The main problem I have with this statement, is that refusing to accept that Heroin is just another Opioid and not the Super-Charged Death Machine that the newsmedia has always painted it as is part of what continues to marginalize our community.

 

[Keif' Richards]

We're getting ready to close this guys, so please get in your final thoughts and arguments.

 

[Kittycat5]

Heroin is both awesome and harmful. There. Close.

 

[Keif' Richards]

Heroin is both awesome and harmful. There. Close.

I'm good with it. I just don't want to be that guy who calls someone wrong and then doesn't allow them an opportunity to respond, but I think this has been beaten to death.

Closed.