Top DEA agent won't admit heroin more harmful than marijuana

[poledriver]

Yes you can die from weed. Just because there are no recorded reports does not mean it not possible.

lots of things are 'possible' but we tend to go on the facts in life, and the facts are lots of thousands, if not millions of people have died over the yrs from heroin use, and none have from pot use. Which one is safer? Seems pretty obvious. Which one is more addictive? Same thing, seems pretty obvious. Yeah if all drugs were legal and doses were set from a shop or pharmacy is may be different, but its not, and it doesn't look like changing any time soon, with pot or heroin. More people worldwide would use pot I would guess too and no deaths from it? Doesnt all this tell a story?

 

[RobotRipping]

the harms associated with heroin are almost entirely created by prohibition itself. How many ODs would there be if heroin was always pure and the dosage was always known? Not near as many. Most ODs with opiates are a result of combining other CNS depressants, so throw in some HR info, which would be easily accessible without prohibition and there would be far less deaths. How many crimes would be committed by heroin addicts if it were sold at the price it costs to produce?

i don't know why heroin and other opiates have such a stigma even on forums like bluelight.

 

[poledriver]

its the way it is tho, heroin isnt always pure and the dosage isnt always known, neither is pot. One has alot of deaths, the other doesn't, its not fucking rocket science is it.

 

[Crankinit]

No, but the fact remains that the dangers of heroin are mostly artificial products on prohibition. 'As things are' yes, someone using heroin is more likely to come to harm than someone using marijuana, but it shouldn't be that way.

You guys are also entirely overlooking the negative influence marijuana can have on mental health. While it won't drive you insane with a single joint the way prohibitionist scare tactics would like to have you believe, it does have a detrimental effect on a certain portion of the population.

 

[rangrz]

Also, given there are confirmed reports of cannabis induced Anaphylaxis, which required treatment at the E.R. with epinephrine, and keeping in mind the factually life threatening nature of anaphylaxis (as well as the fact cannabis is really not commonly tested for in allergy tests) it is by no means a stretch to suggest it could very realistically be fatal to some persons, and more likely, HAS been at some point without being documented per se as cannabis related. Again due to the lack screening for it.

Anaphylaxis to ingestion of hempseed (Cannabis sativa)
http://journals.lww.com/waojournal/Fulltext/2007/11000/Exercise_induced_anaphylaxis_related_to_Cannabis.565.aspx
A bit less scholarly but w/e
http://www.aaaai.org/ask-the-expert/reaction-cannabis.aspx

'm sorry but that's stupid. I can give you a money back guarantee that no one will ever die simply from the direct effects of marijuana

I would not be as confidant as you on that, it does appear to be at least a plausible outcome.

 

[slimvictor]

(as a bit of a summary, and with the hope of simplifying and possibly clarifying)

The LD50 of heroin is much, much closer to a standard dose than is the case with cannabis. People commonly die from overdoses of heroin.
Because of prohibition, people cannot be certain of the quality of heroin they get.
If they could get standardized heroin, the rate of overdose would go down dramatically.
It may be possible to die from cannabis, such as for those with a strong cannabis allergy - just as it is "possible" to die from anything. Including toy boats, which could become lodged in the larynx. But seriously, people can be allergic to any organic (or inorganic?) material.
However, death from overdose of cannabis has never been reported in the medical literature (to my knowledge) despite giving animals massive doses in laboratory tests.

 

[Crankinit]

Can we just agree that cannabis should be legal for anyone over the age of 18 and that heroin, at the least, should be distributed at pharmaceutical quality to registered addicts.

 

[shimazu]

you guys are fucking idiots. Trying to compare the harmfulness of weed vs heroin. Its not all about physical harm.

 

[slimvictor]

you guys are fucking idiots. Trying to compare the harmfulness of weed vs heroin. Its not all about physical harm.

No personal attacks.
Also, a word of advice: if you feel so strongly about something, you might want to explain your viewpoint. That would be participating in the discussion.
Insulting people is not kind, nor were you successful in conveying your opinion.

 

[RobotRipping]

you guys are fucking idiots. Trying to compare the harmfulness of weed vs heroin. Its not all about physical harm.

oh because you think the harm to society is a bigger problem? The harm to society is caused by prohibition, sure you don't see stoners stealing car stereos to support their addiction but their constant whining when they run out is bad enough.

seriously though, this thread is about the physical or even mental harm to the individual, not to society, so your point is invalid. If it's not about physical harm then heroin is far less harmful in terms of mental health than cannabis, just going by the many reports of people having anxiety and paranoia issues with cannabis.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

sure you don't see stoners stealing car stereos to support their addiction but their constant whining when they run out is bad enough.

"Constant whining when they run out" would apply to heroin addicts too. 8(

 

[AlphaMethylPhenyl]

I'm not saying heroin is safe for all to use. I'm saying when proper dosing is used such as at diamorphine clinics the damage is virtually nil. Also you bring up impurities and mud puddles. Last time I checked, "mud puddles" and other "substances" are not diamorphine. That's comparing apples to oranges when you factor in common cuts of street heroin and the mostly "uncut" street marijuana. Also "cohesiveness" in society and allowing someone to get laid is not medicinal, sorry. As far as ethyl alcohol is concerned, it's only used as an antiseptic for cleaning OR for treatment of methanol overdose (ingestion of antifreeze). And heroin is more desirable in treating pain. It has lower histamine release and overall less side effects when compared to morphine. When used responsibly, all I'm saying is that heroin (and other opiates/opioids) are safe. Granted there may not be many responsible people, but just walk into any bar and look at all these poor "patients" on their "medicinal alcohol".

Then talk clearly about diamorphine clinics instead of touting heroin's minuscule edge over marijuana in a perfect world which doesn't exist. You act as if the great majority of people who have access to heroin won't get royally fucked over if they regularly use it; do you think it matters to an addict whether they are shooting filth with their heroin when they are sick all over? I digress: do you understand how this bastard of a drug works?

Don't be sorry. Let me spell this out for you: society runs on people. People make babies. The first step to making a baby is developing a relationship. The first step to developing a relationship is lowering ones barriers, or inhibitions, allowing a connection between the core of another. This is where alcohol comes in. By enabling the cogs to be set in motion, (more so given how therapeutic love is across the physical, mental, and spiritual spectrum of health), alcohol could be called the single most important medicine of society as a whole and a large percentage of individual citizens alike.

And yet, less incidence of side effects would make it that much more addictive. Responsibly? You do mean for unbearable pain, right?

Very clever: "medicinal alcohol". Yet I proudly state that the percentage of people who use alcohol moderately for social discourse or in an otherwise productive manner (unlike the anarchistic heroin), which I would call medicinal--think benzodiazepines, but generally more safe--, is exponentially higher than the few that become horrifically dependent on it--which I am not denying happens by any means. With heroin, that disparity is much, much smaller. Alcohol is a medicine friend. Its part of human society because it generally works for us.

The number of people who can use heroin responsibly in the same way as people ingest caffeine, weed, alcohol, or even cocaine and hallucinogens is so small as to be non-existent.

What makes you think that the devil called heroin can be used anyway? Just about any regular user will tell you that THEY are the ones being used.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

The number of people who can use heroin responsibly in the same way as people ingest caffeine, weed, alcohol, or even cocaine and hallucinogens is so small as to be non-existent.

I generally disagree with this notion. Over the course of a year while I was addicted to snorting powder heroin, I had introduced the experience to at least a dozen to two dozen people.

I wouldn't allow them to get it beyond 3 straight days, so as to prevent addiction. There were very few people who actually wanted to use it this frequently. In a group of three guys, only one kept wanting to continue using it, whereas the other two kind of just kept it as a "I got to try it" type of experience. I have witness people abuse the hell out of it at the same time - although some of these people I came across had already been using heroin for a longer time than I had. I remember in particular a few of my friends would only want to do it on a weekend, and it would be a rare treat for me to be able to go and get high with these friends, knowing they are going to get more out of it with no tolerance than I was. Also, it helped cover the cost of my own habit. Considering how mediocre quality cocaine was what these people were used to spending their money on, it was a rather affordable high compared to the alternatives (again, for these people with no tolerance).

As time went on, a lot of my friends who weren't addicted to the drug (the majority of my friends at this point in my life) didn't really seem to want to do it a whole lot anymore.

While there were people who I shared the experience with, that will likely have the potential to become addicted to heroin later in life, it was not the majority of the people who I shared the experience with, but a minority.

 

[AlphaMethylPhenyl]

I generally disagree with this notion. Over the course of a year while I was addicted to snorting powder heroin, I had introduced the experience to at least a dozen to two dozen people.

I wouldn't allow them to get it beyond 3 straight days, so as to prevent addiction. There were very few people who actually wanted to use it this frequently. In a group of three guys, only one kept wanting to continue using it, whereas the other two kind of just kept it as a "I got to try it" type of experience. I have witness people abuse the hell out of it at the same time - although some of these people I came across had already been using heroin for a longer time than I had. I remember in particular a few of my friends would only want to do it on a weekend, and it would be a rare treat for me to be able to go and get high with these friends, knowing they are going to get more out of it with no tolerance than I was. Also, it helped cover the cost of my own habit. Considering how mediocre quality cocaine was what these people were used to spending their money on, it was a rather affordable high compared to the alternatives (again, for these people with no tolerance).

As time went on, a lot of my friends who weren't addicted to the drug (the majority of my friends at this point in my life) didn't really seem to want to do it a whole lot anymore.

While there were people who I shared the experience with, that will likely have the potential to become addicted to heroin later in life, it was not the majority of the people who I shared the experience with, but a minority.

Ok, but i was more alluding to the relative frequency that these substances are used in a person's life, meaning that if heroin is used as frequently as these substances are typically used, most will become addicted.

 

[rangrz]

(as a bit of a summary, and with the hope of simplifying and possibly clarifying)

The LD50 of heroin is much, much closer to a standard dose than is the case with cannabis. People commonly die from overdoses of heroin.
Because of prohibition, people cannot be certain of the quality of heroin they get.
If they could get standardized heroin, the rate of overdose would go down dramatically.
It may be possible to die from cannabis, such as for those with a strong cannabis allergy - just as it is "possible" to die from anything. Including toy boats, which could become lodged in the larynx. But seriously, people can be allergic to any organic (or inorganic?) material.
However, death from overdose of cannabis has never been reported in the medical literature (to my knowledge) despite giving animals massive doses in laboratory tests.

I agree with you on all points. The main objective of my post was simply to try and overturn the axiom of "you can not POSSIBLY die from smoking cannabis" into one that would show cannabis as being incredibly safe, but still having a small, but never the less real possibly that it may be fatal to someone from simply smoking a joint.

 

[ferinox]

Ok, but i was more alluding to the relative frequency that these substances are used in a person's life, meaning that if heroin is used as frequently as these substances are typically used, most will become addicted.

15% of the population is considered to be problem drinkers based on a cursory search. Drunk driving deaths are an atrocity that not only effect the person ingesting ethanol but innocent people. As you said it is harder to get addicted to alcohol than other psychoactives but if you do, watch out. Alcohol withdrawal is hard to match in relative severity. I was watching a youtube video on somebody who drank about 12 standard drinks a day. They quit cold turkey and had a severe seizure which fried their optical nerve. Of course, you can also die from it too. I worked at a grocery store in the past and I saw a large portion of the population I interacted with drink several forties a day. Let's not forget the carcinogenic, co-carcinogenic effect with common co-current use of tobacco, cirrhosis, brain damage and heart damage from chronic use along with the acute effects which can cause people to become careless, violent, and/or just plain dickish or even o/d. Alcohol is not a magical benign substance. A large chunk of the people who use it do it so they can become extremely intoxicated.

Without a doubt, heroin is more addictive than the majority of the substances you listed but I've known many people that ingest opiates only once or twice a month. With high frequency of use it can addict quick but somebody could also easily slip into an alcohol addiction. Maybe start out with a six pack a day and work up from there in susceptible people. As stated prior to this post, the chronic physical effects of a pure opiate are next to nothing. Most importantly, it doesn't harm the brain. The illicit nature of heroin is the primary cause of O/Ds and other complications arising from it's use. Some people with inherent endorphin deficiencies could benefit highly from opiod maintenance. I know the last year has been the easiest in my life for that reason. Benzodiazapines are legal for the treatment of anxiety and can produce extreme tolerance and dependence but they don't have quite the same pervasive stigma that opiates do. I will agree that heroin is far more dangerous the marijuana however, that should be common sense.

When it comes down to it, a harm reduction policy is the only sensible thing to do. As it is now that's just a distant dream.

I agree with you on all points. The main objective of my post was simply to try and overturn the axiom of "you can not POSSIBLY die from smoking cannabis" into one that would show cannabis as being incredibly safe, but still having a small, but never the less real possibly that it may be fatal to someone from simply smoking a joint.

I agree it's pretty ridiculous how often this is repeated as inviolable. You can't tell me that the strong heart rate increases I've experienced on weed would never ever harm somebody with a weak heart. It may be an insignificant rarity but it's still there.

 

[AlphaMethylPhenyl]

15% of the population is considered to be problem drinkers based on a cursory search. Drunk driving deaths are an atrocity that not only effect the person ingesting ethanol but innocent people. As you said it is harder to get addicted to alcohol than other psychoactives but if you do, watch out. Alcohol withdrawal is hard to match in relative severity. I was watching a youtube video on somebody who drank about 12 standard drinks a day. They quit cold turkey and had a severe seizure which fried their optical nerve. Of course, you can also die from it too. I worked at a grocery store in the past and I saw a large portion of the population I interacted with drink several forties a day. Let's not forget the carcinogenic, co-carcinogenic effect with common co-current use of tobacco, cirrhosis, brain damage and heart damage from chronic use along with the acute effects which can cause people to become careless, violent, and/or just plain dickish or even o/d. Alcohol is not a magical benign substance. A large chunk of the people who use it do it so they can become extremely intoxicated.

Without a doubt, heroin is more addictive than the majority of the substances you listed but I've known many people that ingest opiates only once or twice a month. With high frequency of use it can addict quick but somebody could also easily slip into an alcohol addiction. Maybe start out with a six pack a day and work up from there in susceptible people. As stated prior to this post, the chronic physical effects of a pure opiate are next to nothing. Most importantly, it doesn't harm the brain. The illicit nature of heroin is the primary cause of O/Ds and other complications arising from it's use. Some people with inherent endorphin deficiencies could benefit highly from opiod maintenance. I know the last year has been the easiest in my life for that reason. Benzodiazapines are legal for the treatment of anxiety and can produce extreme tolerance and dependence but they don't have quite the same pervasive stigma that opiates do. I will agree that heroin is far more dangerous the marijuana however, that should be common sense.

When it comes down to it, a harm reduction policy is the only sensible thing to do. As it is now that's just a distant dream.




I agree it's pretty ridiculous how often this is repeated as inviolable. You can't tell me that the strong heart rate increases I've experienced on weed would never ever harm somebody with a weak heart. It may be an insignificant rarity but it's still there.

problem drinker
Substance abuse A person who meets 2 of the 3 criteria in the last 12 months, for alcoholics. See Alcohol, Binge drinking. Cf Social drinker.
Problem drinker
5+ alcoholic drinks on any one occasion at least once/month–'heavy drinking'
One or more alcohol-related social consequences–eg, drunk-driving, public drunkenness arrests, alcohol-related criminal arrests, traffic or other accidents when drinking, confrontations about alcohol-related health problems by a medical practitioner, alcohol-related family or on-the-job problems
One or more symptoms of alcohol dependence–eg, having an alcoholic drink upon awakening–an 'eye-opener', shaking hands, awakening not remembering the events that occurred while drinking JAMA 1992; 268:1872oc
McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine.

Actually, alcohol use even in officially recognized problem drinkers can be magically benign, or blatantly benevolent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Possible_long-term_effects_of_ethanol.svg. There is nothing wrong with becoming intoxicated on alcohol once in a while (which I'm sure just about every single human agrees upon), so I'm not sure where you're coming from with that. Regardless, I certainly never said it doesn't pose risks. The difference between someone using opiates once a month and someone using weed or any other drug I listed once a month is that the opiate user, almost surely, will eventually stop, or use more frequently.

As I claimed earlier, opiate intoxication can readily depress breathing so much as to create BRAIN DAMAGE. Even if opiates were legal and standardized, they would be much easier to overdose on than the other drugs I listed. Here's a thought: the euphoria of opiates indefinitely increases as the dose increases; with the other drugs I listed, negative effects are almost sure to present themselves before there is any hope (used advisably) of death, whether the rapid heartbeat of cocaine or vomiting brought on by ethanol poisoning. With opiates, the perfect high most seek is near the overdose mark, and their body furthermore doesn't warn them nearly so urgently that what they are doing is dangerous (though its not like many opiate users dose in increments anyways, furthering its danger).

This thins about inherent endorphin deficiency is unproved at best; I'm sorry. I believe it can be created with long-term use of strong opiates/opioids, but show me a study saying that one can be inherently deficient of endorphin or associated nuero-peptides.

Damn straight your life has been easy! Opium derivatives are some powerfully intoxicating chemicals. However, that the system doesn't suggest them as a legitimate use for your mental strife means you will be living an overall less awesome life if you don't accept that you shouldn't use them.

Benzodiazepines are another topic. But its interesting that you bring them up. Opium derivatives and benzodiazepines produce withdrawals of comparable intensity, have similar addiction potentials, and produce high tolerance and dependence. More so, benzos seem to more reliably produce erratic behavior and physical damage to the brain. It doesn't matter, though. You are still better off using benzodiazepines, because they are accepted by government. You know, beyond all the realpolitik, one has to wonder if there is a genuinely good reason that government keeps benzodiazepines accessible for mental disorders and an equally good one for making sure that opiates/opiods are only useed for physical ones.

 

[maxalfie]

How frightening is that, when a top DEA agent has no idea what she is on about.
No drug laws can be seriously discussed with idiots like this sat at the table.
I guess we just have to accept that drugs will never be taken out of the hands of criminal gangs & be able to be bought safely by a well informed public while folk like this help make decisions.

 

[ferinox]

problem drinker
Substance abuse A person who meets 2 of the 3 criteria in the last 12 months, for alcoholics. See Alcohol, Binge drinking. Cf Social drinker.
Problem drinker
5+ alcoholic drinks on any one occasion at least once/month–'heavy drinking'
One or more alcohol-related social consequences–eg, drunk-driving, public drunkenness arrests, alcohol-related criminal arrests, traffic or other accidents when drinking, confrontations about alcohol-related health problems by a medical practitioner, alcohol-related family or on-the-job problems
One or more symptoms of alcohol dependence–eg, having an alcoholic drink upon awakening–an 'eye-opener', shaking hands, awakening not remembering the events that occurred while drinking JAMA 1992; 268:1872oc
McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine.

Actually, alcohol use even in officially recognized problem drinkers can be magically benign, or blatantly benevolent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Possible_long-term_effects_of_ethanol.svg. There is nothing wrong with becoming intoxicated on alcohol once in a while (which I'm sure just about every single human agrees upon), so I'm not sure where you're coming from with that. Regardless, I certainly never said it doesn't pose risks. The difference between someone using opiates once a month and someone using weed or any other drug I listed once a month is that the opiate user, almost surely, will eventually stop, or use more frequently.

As I claimed earlier, opiate intoxication can readily depress breathing so much as to create BRAIN DAMAGE. Even if opiates were legal and standardized, they would be much easier to overdose on than the other drugs I listed. Here's a thought: the euphoria of opiates indefinitely increases as the dose increases; with the other drugs I listed, negative effects are almost sure to present themselves before there is any hope (used advisably) of death, whether the rapid heartbeat of cocaine or vomiting brought on by ethanol poisoning. With opiates, the perfect high most seek is near the overdose mark, and their body furthermore doesn't warn them nearly so urgently that what they are doing is dangerous (though its not like many opiate users dose in increments anyways, furthering its danger).

This thins about inherent endorphin deficiency is unproved at best; I'm sorry. I believe it can be created with long-term use of strong opiates/opioids, but show me a study saying that one can be inherently deficient of endorphin or associated nuero-peptides.

Damn straight your life has been easy! Opium derivatives are some powerfully intoxicating chemicals. However, that the system doesn't suggest them as a legitimate use for your mental strife means you will be living an overall less awesome life if you don't accept that you shouldn't use them.

Benzodiazepines are another topic. But its interesting that you bring them up. Opium derivatives and benzodiazepines produce withdrawals of comparable intensity, have similar addiction potentials, and produce high tolerance and dependence. More so, benzos seem to more reliably produce erratic behavior and physical damage to the brain. It doesn't matter, though. You are still better off using benzodiazepines, because they are accepted by government. You know, beyond all the realpolitik, one has to wonder if there is a genuinely good reason that government keeps benzodiazepines accessible for mental disorders and an equally good one for making sure that opiates/opiods are only useed for physical ones.

As i said it was a cursory glance at what society considers to be problems drinkers. I didn't know the definition nor did i really want to look it up for a hastily typed post. As far as the intoxication thing goes, there's not much wrong about getting intoxicated once in a while but there is a dark side to lowered inhibitions in some people. I don't know why you're defending alcohol with such vigor. I'm sure most of us have had close ones that have been afflicted with some sort of alcohol related disease. You glazed over many parts of post including drunk driving deaths. I never said an O/D couldn't cause brain damage but I did imply that the risks could be minimized by legalization. You can't deny standardized dosing and guidelines that would arise from legalization would lower the associated harms from heroin. Think harm reduction I wasn't trying to make opiates seem angelic. I even said heroin was more addictive than the majority of the drugs on your list.

I've been on a .5 mg dose of suboxone legally for a year now. It's a low dose that has completely enhanced my life. I wouldn't want to ruin a good thing by increasing my dose to chase a high. there's a ton of studies on monamine turnover in depression bc of the monamine deficiency hypothesis so I don't see why endorphin deficiency is such an unthinkable notion. I'm not represented by the pseudo-scientific garbage that abounds on the internet. I do tend to believe some people don't produce enough endorphins. We all produce different levels of neurotransmitters and endorphins are heavily tied to mood, it's not that far of a stretch. Everybody is concerned with alternate chemical explanations bc god forbid they might need to give people evil opiates. I self medicated with opiates before suboxone as well with very moderate doses.

Alcohol, benzodiazapines, and barbituates produce the worst wd out of any commonly used substances. Death from opiate wd is much rarer and generally occurs in people frailer than the general population. Psychosis, panic, terror, convulsions, severe diffuse tremors, and death among a lengthy list of others. Physical pain is always better than losing your mind. I downplayed the physical symptoms but they can be quite robust as well. There's a very good reason people who have been through both gabergic wd and opiate wd would choose opiate wd. Not to mention, the kindling phenomena that is pronounced with gabaergics.

From my viewpoint, If someone is going to ingest a substance, it's their job to make damn sure they know the risks. Opiates can be used very safely and that should be our prerogative. Just bc people choose to abuse something and chase the pinnacle of effects the drug can provide while risking their life, doesn't mean I shouldn't have the right to use it. I never needed to nod or have pleasure coursing through my body to get the desired antidepressant effects off opiates. Rock climbing is also dangerous but nobody's protesting that. Alcohol can also be dangerous but the majority of people are capable of making informed decisions about an aspect of their life just as people wouldn't be running in droves to the heroin depot if it was legalized.

Edit- I would like to clarify that I'm only accentuating the dangers of alcohol to make a point. All substances including cannabis and french fries for that matter have risks/rewards/benefits associated with them. It should be up to the individual to decide that though. Opiates have granted me the capacity and motivation to enjoy life which was extremely elusive to me prior to them. My risk of death is no higher than any other person on the street bc I use them with the respect and care that they should used with.
I have used benzos in the past and they took away my anxiety at the expense of causing depression and my family was actually worried enough about me and my behavior during the course of that 2 month prescription that I discontinued them. The thing I do know for sure is that opiate addition and the extremely ugly side of it isn't going to go away, the only sensible thing to do is to reduce the harms that can come from them. Knowing dosage, providing sanitary injection equipment, and education would go a long way to reduce the harms associated with them. I won't ever understand the mindset of someone who chases bliss at the risk of paying the ultimate price but i do have compassion for them and I hope someday in my life I see full legalization and harm reduction strategies employed.

 

[AlphaMethylPhenyl]

As i said it was a cursory glance at what society considers to be problems drinkers. I didn't know the definition nor did i really want to look it up for a hastily typed post. As far as the intoxication thing goes, there's not much wrong about getting intoxicated once in a while but there is a dark side to lowered inhibitions in some people. I don't know why you're defending alcohol with such vigor. I'm sure most of us have had close ones that have been afflicted with some sort of alcohol related disease. You glazed over many parts of post including drunk driving deaths. I never said an O/D couldn't cause brain damage but I did imply that the risks could be minimized by legalization. You can't deny standardized dosing and guidelines that would arise from legalization would lower the associated harms from heroin. Think harm reduction I wasn't trying to make opiates seem angelic. I even said heroin was more addictive than the majority of the drugs on your list.

I've been on a .5 mg dose of suboxone legally for a year now. It's a low dose that has completely enhanced my life. I wouldn't want to ruin a good thing by increasing my dose to chase a high. there's a ton of studies on monamine turnover in depression bc of the monamine deficiency hypothesis so I don't see why endorphin deficiency is such an unthinkable notion. I'm not represented by the pseudo-scientific garbage that abounds on the internet. I do tend to believe some people don't produce enough endorphins. We all produce different levels of neurotransmitters and endorphins are heavily tied to mood, it's not that far of a stretch. Everybody is concerned with alternate chemical explanations bc god forbid they might need to give people evil opiates. I self medicated with opiates before suboxone as well with very moderate doses.

Alcohol, benzodiazapines, and barbituates produce the worst wd out of any commonly used substances. Death from opiate wd is much rarer and generally occurs in people frailer than the general population. Psychosis, panic, terror, convulsions, severe diffuse tremors, and death among a lengthy list of others. Physical pain is always better than losing your mind. I downplayed the physical symptoms but they can be quite robust as well. There's a very good reason people who have been through both gabergic wd and opiate wd would choose opiate wd. Not to mention, the kindling phenomena that is pronounced with gabaergics.

From my viewpoint, If someone is going to ingest a substance, it's their job to make damn sure they know the risks. Opiates can be used very safely and that should be our prerogative. Just bc people choose to abuse something and chase the pinnacle of effects the drug can provide while risking their life, doesn't mean I shouldn't have the right to use it. I never needed to nod or have pleasure coursing through my body to get the desired antidepressant effects off opiates. Rock climbing is also dangerous but nobody's protesting that. Alcohol can also be dangerous but the majority of people are capable of making informed decisions about an aspect of their life just as people wouldn't be running in droves to the heroin depot if it was legalized.

Edit- I would like to clarify that I'm only accentuating the dangers of alcohol to make a point. All substances including cannabis and french fries for that matter have risks/rewards/benefits associated with them. It should be up to the individual to decide that though. Opiates have granted me the capacity and motivation to enjoy life which was extremely elusive to me prior to them. My risk of death is no higher than any other person on the street bc I use them with the respect and care that they should used with.
I have used benzos in the past and they took away my anxiety at the expense of causing depression and my family was actually worried enough about me and my behavior during the course of that 2 month prescription that I discontinued them. The thing I do know for sure is that opiate addition and the extremely ugly side of it isn't going to go away, the only sensible thing to do is to reduce the harms that can come from them. Knowing dosage, providing sanitary injection equipment, and education would go a long way to reduce the harms associated with them. I won't ever understand the mindset of someone who chases bliss at the risk of paying the ultimate price but i do have compassion for them and I hope someday in my life I see full legalization and harm reduction strategies employed.

Because alcohol, for the most part, works! And frankly, against heroin, most drugs should be vigorously be defended; its not the lollipop you make it out to be.

Yes, most have met or know of someone fairly close to them who has been captured by booze; how big a number do you think heroin would take if its use were more widespread? No I didn't glaze over your post; I clearly stated that alcohol has serious risks if misused.

Here is where you glazed over my post: opiates can depress breathing so much as to deprive the brain of oxygen and create damage; this is not in official overdose, but by a standard, high recreational dose. Again, opiates can cause brain damage with a recreational dose, more insidiously, nothing may seem to be the matter. You're on the nod, things are going fine, and you don't realize your neurons drying up from suffocation.

There is no doubt that the dangers heroin poses would be substantially mitigated by legalizing and standardizing the substance, but, as I pointed out earlier, it isn't, so you are digging your own grave by subconsciously brainwashing yourself of diacetylmorphines safety in pure form while ingesting shit you bought from a dealer; that is it.

Alcohol is absolutely integral to our society, period. Its been around in humanity for thousands upon thousands of years, and has generally helped us. You know this. I know this. Appreciate it.

Ok. While its possible that people could be born with a deficiency of endorphin that is suspect. First of all there haven't been any scientifically rigorous studies on it to my knowledge, so its merely a crude hypothesis. Endorphins are furthermore a very primitive but extremely part of our being; it would seem strange that evolution hasn't perfected this life-propelling aspect of ours long ago; you might quip that the monoamines are too, but endorphin and like chemical chains are basically life force itself. What species would survive long if they could be deficient in such an integral aspect? You know what I mean. Endorphin, when it comes down to it, holds us up. Most of the people who subscribe to a hypothesis that people can be deficient in endorphin are or were opiate addicts; it makes sense that they would be deficient after using for a while.

The jury is out as to whether or not GABAergics or opiates/opioids produce worse of a withdrawal syndrome. I've been through both, and would trade GABA withdrawal for opiate/opioid withdrawal any day. Why, you ask? I find a bit of bad ass pleasure and stimulation from alcohol withdrawal, whereas opiate/opioid withdrawal is a protracted suicidal hell for me. Thats it. And I definitely experienced psychotic symptoms while withdrawing from an opiate, let me tell you.

Opiates/opioids cannot be used safely by the general population without becoming addicted, that's my view, and certainly not in the same way that alcohol is.

Rock climbing is not nearly as insidious an evil, and you know that.

Here's a problem: if heroin were legalized, its completely unknown what would happen.