• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari

Drug Harm Alcohol vs Heroin

In a flagrant handout to the pharmaceutical multinationals, the government demands the only diamorphine dispensed for injection in the UK comes in the form of 'freeze-dried' ampoules. These are billed at around £10 for the 100mg size. 100mg of diamorphine powder, however, costs one tenth of this. At average street purity, this means a £100 a day black market habit would cost under a fiver legally. When it was, the phrase 'thieving junkies' was unknown in the UK. Food for thought.
 
Last edited:
I have never took heroin, probably never will but it should be available to anyone that wants to try it, in pure form (along with all drugs) If people can't control the urge then that is their own problem. Alcohol and tobacco are both legal and I don't touch them so that argument is total bullshit that people will use something just because it is legal.

I don't even know any dealers of 'hard' drugs but I could still get smack if I wanted (or something sold as that) so it is already available to anyone with half a brain that knows where to look, might as well be given out on prescription to save the poor cunts that go out buying it off the street, and at the same time putting a big dent in the black market supply and demand.

Absolute stupid debate, can't believe I wasted my time typing this. It is idiots like eireann that fuel the prohibitionists fire. If you don't like drugs, fuck off from this site and stop talking about it.

This country is pure fucking shit tho, none of this will ever happen in our lifetimes so it is a complete waste of time talking about it.
 
People need to stop blaming inanimate powders & potions for their problems (including yourself) and face up to their behaviour like an adult.

I see where you're coming from, and the sentiment's admirable. Yet the use of language like 'blaming' and 'facing up to behaviour like an adult' makes it come across as more judgmental and moralistic than you perhaps intended.

Cornishman said:
The only person to blame is the addict.

Again, I think addiction's a little more complex than that; there can be many contributing factors in the development of an addiction that may be totally outside the addict's control. I'm sure you're aware of that fact, I just don't think it leaps off the page, so to speak.
 
Last edited:
How many people have just one drink? Most drinkers I know are to some extent dependent.

I'm not necessarily pro-prohibition, but I can't agree with this. I know dozens of people who will take a drink 'just to be social, like', but wouldn't dream of drinking to get drunk, which doesn't compare to the way people use heroin.

I know this probably says a lot about how alcohol is an intrinsic part of mainstream culture and heroin is illegal, but, all things equal, the effects of the heroin are a lot more conducive to being insular and antisocial. I'm not saying that's always the case, but I doubt heroin would ever get the reputation of being a social lubricant if it was legal and accepted.
 
I'm not necessarily pro-prohibition, but I can't agree with this. I know dozens of people who will take a drink 'just to be social, like', but wouldn't dream of drinking to get drunk, which doesn't compare to the way people use heroin.

I don't think you need to drink to get drunk to depend on it. But sure, I know those people too. I just don't know dozens of them.

I know this probably says a lot about how alcohol is an intrinsic part of mainstream culture and heroin is illegal, but, all things equal, the effects of the heroin are a lot more conducive to being insular and antisocial. I'm not saying that's always the case, but I doubt heroin would ever get the reputation of being a social lubricant if it was legal and accepted.

Based on my experience with other opiates, sure, the nod is not a social state to be in.
 
Word Sam.

Reading back I certainly come across as moralistic. (I don't mean to though).

I just don't have the most acute articulation skills.

The blame part came from Eireann saying "i have known people who died from it,and who went to jail and lost everything because of heroin".

I struggle to see how that's even possible. Even though I could of encountered some catastrophic life changing circumstances because I'd chosen to get high.
It was ultimately my choice and only on reflection can I comprehend that.

Had something bad happened I may well be blaming the drugs, who knows.

Addiction is complex, but ultimately it comes down to one choice.
The choice of the user to pick up the drug.

As an addict myself I'm locked into the same battle every day.
 
Addiction is complex, but ultimately it comes down to one choice.
The choice of the user to pick up the drug.

I don't really want to challenge this because it might be a useful thing for an addict to believe.

But surely the only reason it comes down to the user's choice is because you have chosen to focus on that choice.

You might as well say, ultimately it comes down the genetics of the user. If there was no biological capability for addiction to be formed, they would not be an addict.

So I suppose what I'm getting at is that any choice is informed by experience and knowledge, and we're not in full control of those things.
 
It's their fault for having a mouth and being able to eat drugs with it. ;)

I hear ya.
But as a conscious being I don't have to get my next fix of horse tranquilizer. I choose to do it because I enjoy getting high.

So you're settled on the free will thing?

I'm still struggling with it ;)
 
I don't think there is one answer ? addiction is a multi faceted condition, it's roots are complex and varied and each individual is going to have a completely different combination of factors in play at any one time.

If you had told me 10 years ago that I would develop a problem with drink I would have laughed in your face even though I've always known I've had a propensity to abuse substances.
 
Acceptance is the first step. :)



Are you speaking in the Buddhist tradition?

EDIT

In any case I do think it makes sense, as an individual, to at least pretend / behave as if I have free will. It's propaganda directed at the self, but good propaganda. But when we're discussing things at the social scale, what we do about things as the human race, I don't think it makes sense at all!

So as an addict I would have to assume I have free will, that it is (in part) my choice to take the drug. How else can I choose not to take it?

But speaking about addicts generally, if we are talking about public policy, I think we have to say that an individual's choices are steered by social factors. Because society is not present when an individual makes the choice to take the drug, there is no point society focussing on the choice.
 
Last edited:
I just don't have the most acute articulation skills.

The blame part came from Eireann saying "i have known people who died from it,and who went to jail and lost everything because of heroin".

I think the former explains it rather than the latter, as I consider you to be among the more articulate posters here.

I kind of knew that eirann's post had a big influence on the tone of yours, as is often the way. It's sometimes not as obvious to the lurkers and skim-readers though.

Cornishman said:
Addiction is complex, but ultimately it comes down to one choice.
The choice of the user to pick up the drug.

Indeed - that's the realisation that any addict who believes their addiction is imapiring their quality of life needs to arrive at.

Getting there, however (as I don't need to tell you) is usually one fucking treacherous, arduous and painful journey, and it's all-too-possible to find yourself back at square one in a flash without really understanding how. That's why I struggle with the excessive reductionism and over-simplification of the aforementioned 'free will' approach.
 
While it is certainly possible that legalisation could see more people take drugs, a drug user's life would be much safer and healthier than at present. There is no room for speculation here, for we know that a great many users lived highly productive lives before drugs were banned. Until the First World War, when they were introduced under the banner of national security, there were few controls on drugs in the UK or America. Cocaine, morphine and heroin could be bought at the local chemist. Many were users, including William Gladstone, who liked to take a drop of laudanum (an alcoholic tincture of opium) in his coffee before making speeches. Some users had problems, but none had to contend with the inflated prices, health risks and threat of jail faced by users today.
 
Last edited:
I'm 100% in favour of prescribing heroin to addicts, but as for legalising it for everyone, I'm not certain if that would be a good idea. I know that alcohol is more harmful to the body than pure heroin, but you have to consider that alcohol has a social purpose (for everyone except alcoholics) unlike opiates, which are nearly always used to self-medicate. If heroin was made legal, should prescription medication in general be available to the public? Also, heroin is a far more physically addictive than alcohol and over time, the addict will require the drug to function normally. Should we, as an already over-medicated society, be encouraging addiction of any form?

I consider myself to hold liberal views, and as a heroin user I would only love to be able to go down to my local supermarket and pick up a gram for a fiver. But as it is notoriously difficult to merely dabble in heroin, I don't believe we should be advocating heroin addiction, something I would call a disease. You always have the choice and free will to use the drug, but your freedom is obviously severely impaired when your brain chemistry has adapted to accommodate your heroin use.
 
opiates, which are nearly always used to self-medicate.

This implies that people who use opiates do get a benefit from them. I personally become sociable on kratom, and also on o-desmethyltramadol at lower doses. I have (undiagnosed but obvious) social anxiety. I never considered it as treatable until I noticed drugs had an effect on it! I just thought it was my "failing".

If the people that seek out and use opiates are self-medicating and getting some benefit, why do we assume that making them, for example, an over-the-counter medicine, would mean more people (who didn't need them) seek out and use them?
 
If the people that seek out and use opiates are self-medicating and getting some benefit, why do we assume that making them, for example, an over-the-counter medicine, would mean more people (who didn't need them) seek out and use them?

I see where you're coming from, but I don't think the average person has the knowledge to be able to self-medicate correctly. For example, if I have a headache and need to use a painkiller, I could use heroin and it would work very effectively. But a less addictive painkiller like paracetamol could also do the same job. This sounds very obvious, but can the general public really be trusted to take caution with such highly addictive substances? In Ireland GPs are terrible for prescribing medication to people that don't need it, and that definitely needs to be addressed, but I don't think it's in the interests of the individual or society that people should be allowed to decide what medication they do and don't need.

Also, pricing would be an issue. Setting heroin prices at the current street value would be no help to the addict who may be forced to turn to illicit means of funding their habits. At the same time, prices shouldn't be set too low to discourage people from working. At the moment, it is the most vulnerable socioeconomic group in society that is most likely to suffer from the illegal heroin trade. If social welfare payments were adequate to fund a daily heroin habit, why would anyone bother working? I'd rather sit on my arse all day smoking heroin. I'm not happy with the current laws and I think the War on Drugs is an absolute joke - but how could society function if a huge proportion of the population was on heroin? In that respect, legalising the drug would not help the underprivileged very much at all.
 
I see where you're coming from, but I don't think the average person has the knowledge to be able to self-medicate correctly. For example, if I have a headache and need to use a painkiller, I could use heroin and it would work very effectively. But a less addictive painkiller like paracetamol could also do the same job. This sounds very obvious, but can the general public really be trusted to take caution with such highly addictive substances? In Ireland GPs are terrible for prescribing medication to people that don't need it, and that definitely needs to be addressed, but I don't think it's in the interests of the individual or society that people should be allowed to decide what medication they do and don't need.

Yeah, but most people know that heroin is highly addictive don't they? In fact, not only do they think it's highly addictive, they think it's a terrible terrible drug which ruins lives and kills people! Most people wouldn't take up the option of a go on the Heroin.

I suppose some people are ill informed, or think the risks don't apply to them. I read a post on another forum which suggested that heroin could be available at a special outlet, not a pharmacist or a shop but a place where people seeking it would be vetted for their reasons and provided with information about the risks and possible benefits. In effect they'd receive a form of counselling before getting their hands on the stuff. Seemed reasonable to me.

I mean, to persist in taking a highly addictive drug when you've been informed of the risks is suggestive of a psychological problem in and of itself, isn't it? Perhaps not one that should be treated with Heroin (although maybe), but one that should be picked up on and treated.
 
Top