UK: Ketamine 'could be re-examined'

correlation does not equal causation
Click to expand...
No, of course it doesn't. But it seems pretty unlikely that people with a predisposition to bladder problems are particularly likely to abuse ketamine, or that the correlation is coincidence, right? There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of kidney and bladder damage and now studies to back it up, we can't just bury our heads in the sand.
Personally, I agree that the declining quality of other popular drugs is a factor in the popularity of ketamine. It's cheap and it's clean, and a lot of people just want to get "mashed" on whatever is most convenient.
 
A friend of mine has certainly developed bladder problems from Ketamine (ab)use. Actually he probably didn't do more than a couple ounces in his life before he found it hard to take a piss and seemed to have to go more frequently, and sometimes had some shitty discomfort down there as a result.

I'm not going into details to try to prove it, but it's obvious after a small binge when these symptoms get way worse, the Ketamine use was to blame.

The question I wonder is, since I have no bladder problems at all and most people don't, how predisposed do you have to be? And perhaps some brands of veterinary Ketamine have preservatives which are more the culprit than Ketamine as a pure molecule itself?
 
people will always experience unwanted side effects, and possible damage, from using drugs. thats simply a fact. but it seems like the incidence of bladder and kidney problems from ketamine is rather low, so the safety factor is still pretty high

regardless, more research into this is definitely needed. it could be a cut, a preservative, the drug itself, or something else that is at fault, and its possible some people could be more genetically predisposed to this kind of damage than others. who knows.
 
Yerg said:
No, of course it doesn't. But it seems pretty unlikely that people with a predisposition to bladder problems are particularly likely to abuse ketamine, or that the correlation is coincidence, right? There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of kidney and bladder damage and now studies to back it up, we can't just bury our heads in the sand.
Personally, I agree that the declining quality of other popular drugs is a factor in the popularity of ketamine. It's cheap and it's clean, and a lot of people just want to get "mashed" on whatever is most convenient.
Click to expand...

I think the "correlation does not imply causation" stands for at least two points.

1. That not all people are disposed to bladder problems with Ketamine (let alone abuse frequency)

2. That it may not be Ketamine at all that is causing it, but rather an additive in certain preparations.

I have used several kilos of Ketamine over my lifetime, but responsibly for the most part, and never, ever had any bladded problems.

Even when all this is said and done, bladder problems ARE indeed a problem with Ketamine abuse, but when you compare the problems associated with Ketamine with the problems associated with all other drug, Ketamine is a pretty damn safe drug. Let's not forget that K is actually the only drug whose recreational doses are actually lower (but a 100x factor in some cases) than its legit medicinal doses!

And as for addiction, I would personally argue that its addictive potential is lower than that of cannabis.

p.s. Said bladder problems are generally an infection that can be cured if taken care of promptly and is thus perfectly reversible, unlike problems with other drugs.
 
Last edited:
could you imagine a world where the only thing you had to worry about if you were addicted to cigarettes or alcohol were bladder problems? Sure would be nice
 
^Yeah, pissing into a bag for the rest of my life sounds fine. Seriously, it takes many years of use of alcohol or tobacco to develop health problems, there are people using ketamine for a few months and getting sick. Plus the whole going nuts thing. Let's not forget that.
 
Crankinit said:
I think a comparison to alcohol and the liver is probably rather apt
Click to expand...

Except that thousands of people die from Alcohol-induced liver-damage, and I don't know of many (if any at all) who have died of Ketamine-induced bladder damage.

No, it is not rather apt. Not even close.
 
^That's because the liver is more vital to survival than the bladder. I think the analogy was meant to be between the likelihood of damage and the level of use. With both drugs, moderate use isn't likely to cause problems, but heavy, sustained use will seriously affect an organ.
 
^ So you're telling me that not all alcoholics suffer from liver damage? That's actually good news, since I am kinda turning into one these days :\
 
^No, I'm not saying that. I would imagine that if one were to use ketamine to a similar extent as the average alcoholic drinks, and over a similar period of time, bladder damage is pretty inevitable.
 
so doing a couple hundred mgs every day for months on end should cause damage?

funny, cuz i know people who did just that and never had any problems
 
Your typical alcoholic drinks heavily, all day, every day, for years on end. Lots of people drink in moderation every day and don't have any problems.
 
^We don't have Class IV, or any number classes. A, B, C, that's it. It's as legal as it can be without being legal.
 
Why do people act like death is the only possible negative outcome from drug use that matters? Harm is measured in more than just the number of people killed, an impeded quality of life due to bladder problems or requiring extensive and invasive surgery to repair the damage done by the drug shouldn't just be dismissed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top