Crankinit
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2007
- Messages
- 6,175
Both drugs are highly addictive and a large portion of the damage is due to poor dosing, purity and route of administration.
That might be true in the current situation, but only as a side effect of prohibition. No matter how pure or clean you make your meth, no matter how you administer it, it will still cause neurological damage, sleep disturbance and psychosis with regular use. There's no way to be a functional meth addict for long, eventually it just wears you down and catches you one way or another, the strain on the body and the mind is too much.
Whereas heroin doesn't cause any major harm outside of overdose (uncomfortable side effects, sure, but nothing debilitating), which is easily avoidable with on-site administration by a nurse with naloxone on hand. You shouldn't even need that if you have pure diamorphine, but people are idiots.
What I think would be reasonable to try, would be to keep methamphetamine illegal, but to offer another, safer stimulant that can only be taken orally. Even then I'm dubious, but it would be worth the attempt. Perhaps regular d-amphetamine? Certainly not cocaine, in fact finding a safer, less cardiotoxic replacement for cocaine should be one of the highest priorities on drug reform. Remember how the cocaine death rate dropped when mephedrone was big in the UK? Surely they can synthesize a short acting, high oral BA, euphoric stimulant without the cardiotoxicity of cocaine or the neurotoxicity of meth? The biggest question then is how to handle it's place in society. You want it to replace meth and coke, but you don't want everyone and their dog deciding to use it. Very tricky.
Last edited:
