Yemen's bad habit- You can't easily qat it out

[blah]

I think more people here would use khat if it was a bit easier to get. At the end of the day, I don't know where to get it, and if I did I might be loth to actually try and purchase it, given that a language barrier is likely and that Somalians are sometimes pretty fucking scary (if you'll excuse the sweeping generalisation).

Out of interest, how big was the dose he gave you? I was under the impression that typical use involved the chewing of an entire bundle in a sitting.

Yes I agree, if khat was easier to get, more people probably would use it. Why shouldn't they? And if more people used khat, maybe less people would drink alcohol or pop pills? Perhaps on the balance of probabilities, that would be a good thing?

Every country of the world has its share of pretty fucking scary people. In my experience the scariest/most commonly psychotic are those who have been drinking large amounts of alcohol, and that does not at all relate to availibility as much as the characteristics of the drug itself rendering some people into aggresive maniacs. I wonder what the incidence of drunk driving is in Yemen?

Regards dosage...this depends on the potency of the plant, and tollerance issues, like cannabis similarly. Suffice to say, some select tips and tender leaves freshly picked(once chewed, as much as a large piece of chewing gum) can impart some pleasant effects which last a couple of hours. If one has a headache or a hangover, or had the flu, or suffers from fatigue, only 3-5 leaves chewed slowly over half an hour can alleviate those things efficiently and effectivly. Use as much as is required. And to think, if you live in a suitable climate, it's free. No need for aspirin, or paracetomol, or what have you. No wonder they banned coca huh. Too competitive and too effective. We wouldn't want people to medicate themselves for free now would we. Or use things like coca, cannabis or khat, or betel nuts...because all those things could be free too...or at least much cheaper than the pharm rip-off monopoly rackets.

 

[blah]

^ You're starting to make a complete and utter idiot out of yourself, my friend .

Well, I might say the say about the tag team. I'm just trying to set the record straight and promote harm minimisation is all.

 

[blah]

With reference to the Economist 'taking the piss', here is a short explanation for them, and others who may have fallen for their ever so subtle propaganda piece. I couldn't agree more.

http://www.druglibrary.org/gh/what_is_a_narcotic.htm

What is a "narcotic" drug?

The first thing you should understand about the word "narcotic" is that it is used incorrectly more than it is used correctly. One good, quick way to tell whether someone actually knows anything about this subject is to listen to their use of this word. If they tell you that marijuana, cocaine, and meth are "narcotics" then count them among the vast legions of totally clueless people on this subject.

The word "narcotic" comes from the Greek word "narkos", meaning sleep. Therefore, "narcotics" are drugs that induce sleep. Specifically, that means the opiates such as heroin, morphine and related drugs. This is the correct meaning, so you should accept no other.

Cocaine and meth are not "narcotics". They are "stimulants", the exact opposite of a "narcotic". They cause people to be more awake and more active, not sleepy. Calling them :"narcotics" makes as much sense as calling coffee a "narcotic".

The classification of other drugs such as marijuana, alcohol, and others is open to question. (That is a subject for another page.) Some might call them "tranquilizers", "depressants", or even "hallucinogens". Marijuana and alcohol may even have a tendency to induce sleep at times. However, calling them "narcotics" simply shows a lack of understanding of the different effects.

The problem is that US Government officials, and others who enforce and support drug prohibition, tend to refer to all illegal drugs as "narcotics". They do that for three major reasons.

One reason is that they are genuinely ignorant about these drugs and their effects. That may sound like a strange thing to say about our top drug law enforcers -- people supposed to be the top experts in this field -- but I can assure you that it is 100 percent true. After years of talking to them, I haven't met one yet -- from the official United States Drug Czar to the local narcotics officers on the street -- who could pass the most basic factual quiz on the subject.

The second reason is that "narcotic" sounds dangerous and makes good headlines. Consider how attractive newspaper headlines would be if government officials proclaimed the dangers of "tranquilizers" (which narcotics are, in some respects). It just doesn't have the same sex appeal.

The third reason is that it blurs the line between things like marijuana and heroin. Police can't take a lot of credit for busting someone with an ounce of pot, so they call it a "narcotics bust."

Watch for how people use the word "narcotic". It will tell you instantly whether their opinion on the subject is really worth the puff of air it takes to speak it.

 

[Jamshyd]

Well, I might say the say about the tag team. I'm just trying to set the record straight and promote harm minimisation is all.

How is anything you posted related to "harm minimisation"?

The most important part of Harm Reduction is recognizing a problem when you see one. But I guess I don't blame you - you're clearly twacked out of your scull, and getting carried away with the little subculture in DiTM who seem to do not much more than sit around telling us how shitty the media is.

 

[Hammilton]

You've got that much right. This subforum has serious issues with people doing nothing more than saying how awful the media is.

All Blah seems to be saying is that they misused the word narcotic. Wow, talk about pedantic. Outside of academia and special interest groups (in this manner, I'd consider bluelight to be a sig) the word narcotic has been expanded to include all illegal recreational drugs. This is nothing new. It's been done for decades now.

For there to be multiple definitions of a word depending on context is nothing new. There is lots of terminology used by lay culture that makes no sense when used in whatever context it first began. Just consider how many medical terms are misused.

Worrying about the misuse of the word narcotic is simply pedantic nonsense. The purpose of writing is to inform and no one reading this is misinformed as a result. We know what the author meant (using the phrase mild narcotic to refer to a mild recreational drug) and everyone else will only know the common sense of the word.

Whether khat is truly addictive or not? It's hard to say. It's certainly more way more habit forming than coffee. Was Yerg saying that coca is addictive? Nope. Perhaps reading isn't Blah's strong point. Comparing coca and khat is ridiculous. Coca is no stronger than coffee in terms of the stimulation produced. Khat, OTOH, is certainly much stronger than good coffee and produces noticeable stimulation.

 

[seep]

I hate to see the Economist trampled under foot like this here. They're the outlet that has been calling for the legalization of all drugs since Reagan.

(if anyone knows where to find their 1988 article calling for drugs to be legalized--much obliged)

Edit: This is the article

 

[blah]

How is anything you posted related to "harm minimisation"?

The most important part of Harm Reduction is recognizing a problem when you see one. But I guess I don't blame you - you're clearly twacked out of your scull, and getting carried away with the little subculture in DiTM who seem to do not much more than sit around telling us how shitty the media is.

What I posted was an effort to point out that khat is 'not addictive'. Nor is it a 'narcotic'. You may not have noticed, but I did try an explain why it is not addictive, aswell as other 'qualities' the plant has, rather than simply propagating 'hysteria', which is exactly what the article in the Economist was doing. I base this upon personal observation of others who have used khat, in many different countries and different cultures, aswell as my own experiences useing khat on many ocassions. Contrary to what may currently be blindly accepted as conventional wisdom, khat is grown and used in many more countries than the article claims to represent.

Instead of just leaving a misinformed article as it was - which would merely primarilly serve to promote more xenophobia and further the efforts by the powers that be to prohibit khat - I put forth something other than the 'party line'. Why a voice of reason, or an alternative point of view, is so taboo here, I have no idea.

At the least, instead of people posting articles which are seldom discussed - and not just criticising the article itself - I did generate some discussion. I hope that some who have read my alternative view point, may just think twice before accepting what is essentially bullshit(Economist propaganda in this instance), as gospel. The article was not just full of misinformation, it was poorly written. How many public servants in Yemen again? How many million was it Mr.editor?8) I could strip this article down piece by piece, but I'm not sure that would serve any further purpose since the point has been made.

What is somewhat perplexing to me is how several people in this thread have regurgitated the nonsense that this plant is somehow 'addictive' or a 'narcotic'. Nothing could be further from the truth! I was never saying that this 'plant', or any other plant, could not bring about negativity for some people who use them; in khats case, cassualties would be exceedingly rare.

But it is all relative, and to use terms like 'addiction' and 'narcotic' really is 'taking the piss'. Is alcohol a narcotic because that promotes sleep? What about a big meal? No. Just because the DEA and similar wish to corrupt reason is no reason to go along with their propaganda; propaganda which sweeps the world into its ugly net.

Perhaps some of those who have had the audacity to claim this plant is addictive and a narcotic would like to sample the plant for themselves and then determine for themselves whether it is even remotly addictive or a narcotic.

Btw Jamshyd, I am not 'twacked out of my skull' thank you very much. I've used 'no' drugs at all for the last 3 weeks.

 

[blah]

All Blah seems to be saying is that they misused the word narcotic. Wow, talk about pedantic. Outside of academia and special interest groups (in this manner, I'd consider bluelight to be a sig) the word narcotic has been expanded to include all illegal recreational drugs. This is nothing new. It's been done for decades now.

For there to be multiple definitions of a word depending on context is nothing new. There is lots of terminology used by lay culture that makes no sense when used in whatever context it first began. Just consider how many medical terms are misused.

Worrying about the misuse of the word narcotic is simply pedantic nonsense. The purpose of writing is to inform and no one reading this is misinformed as a result. We know what the author meant (using the phrase mild narcotic to refer to a mild recreational drug) and everyone else will only know the common sense of the word.

Whether khat is truly addictive or not? It's hard to say. It's certainly more way more habit forming than coffee. Was Yerg saying that coca is addictive? Nope. Perhaps reading isn't Blah's strong point. Comparing coca and khat is ridiculous. Coca is no stronger than coffee in terms of the stimulation produced. Khat, OTOH, is certainly much stronger than good coffee and produces noticeable stimulation.

No, I was not simply saying they misused the word 'narcotic'. If some people wish to corrupt not only the English language but also basic logic, there will always be some people who will not go along with their bullshit. Just because someone, or some body, wants to corrupt what ever, is no good reason to let them have their way without some criticism at least. Faux news may like to make an art of propaganda for example, but if enough people start to buy into their lies, their deceptions and the down right obsurd, then slowly but surely, this type of despicable broadcasting will just fuel all that which is contrary to the human spirit.

At least you concede that you don't know if khat is addictive or not. That's a start.

I agree, for some people it could be more 'habit forming' than coffee. But even if it were, that does not make it 'bad' which is the general theme of the original article. In my estimation, khat, like coffee, is a plant which has as much a place on this earth as any other plant, and people should be free to use those plants as they please. If they develop problems from useing said plants, they should seek medical intervention. The worst case scenario, make no mistake, is if the WHO, or the UN, or the DEA and many other similar organisations, get enough 'clones' to march to the beat of the drum...and the next thing you know, khat will share a similar status to cannabis and coca. And we all know damn well what the results of that has been to millions of people around the world.

Comparing khat to coca is ridiculous? No! That statement is ridiculous. Yes, khat is stronger than good coffee in terms of 'stimulation', but 'good coca leaf' is much stronger than khat. That's a subjective 'opinion' of course.

Stronger than that, is if you combine the two.:D Or how about triple therapy? Nah. Let's go for 'quad therapy'. Coca, khat, ephedra and betel nuts at the same time.

 

[psychomimetic]

I've tried both khat and coca, on numerous ocassions. So are you now claiming that coca is 'addictive' too? Please, if you have something to say regards 'harm reduction', do not spread this misinformation. Neither coca leaf or khat is remotly addictive. Habit forming? Certainly - like coffee. But addictive? What is addiction exactly again? Do we use the WHO/DSIM criteria or the UN/DEA version?

I've known people who I considered addicted to khat, and I've met people who I'd consider to be somewhat addicted to coca. These people were daily users of numerous years. Coffee is also addicted, or rather, caffeine is. I can attest to this because I'm addicted to caffeine. I need it every day in order to feel normal, if I don't take it by a certain time in the day I'll get a headache and be quite irritable and get other symptoms as well.

The American Society of Addiction Medicine defines addiction asa primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. Dysfunction in these circuits leads to characteristic biological, psychological, social and spiritual manifestations. This is reflected in the individual pursuing reward and/or relief by substance use and other behaviors. The addiction is characterized by impairment in behavioral control, craving, inability to consistently abstain, and diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships. Like other chronic diseases, addiction involves cycles of relapse and remission. Without treatment or engagement in recovery activities, addiction is progressive and can result in disability or premature death.

According to the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), substance dependence is defined as:
"When an individual persists in use of alcohol or other drugs despite problems related to use of the substance, substance dependence may be diagnosed. Compulsive and repetitive use may result in tolerance to the effect of the drug and withdrawal symptoms when use is reduced or stopped. This, along with Substance Abuse are considered Substance Use Disorders...."
Substance dependence can be diagnosed with physiological dependence, evidence of tolerance or withdrawal, or without physiological dependence.

In 1980 the World Health Organization classified qat as a drug of abuse that can produce mild to moderate psychological dependence.


So this basically comes down to whether or not you consider substance dependence to classify as addiction, which is a matter of debate in the field. Khat can definitly cause psychological dependence though, which is enough to cause addiction in my opinion. For instance, cocaine is not physically addictive. But it can cause psychological dependence, which is what cocaine addicts are afflicted with. Some people consider addiction to be limited to physical addiction, in which case Khat (and coca, and cocaine, and a number of other drugs) are not addictive.

In my estimation, khat is less potent than coca leaf, but in terms of their effects, there are similarities. However, the Economist describes the plant as a mild narcotic! Narcotic? Are we sure it is a narcotic? What is a mild narcotic again?8) Semantics - 'reinventing words', and from an alleged esteemed journal at that!

Khat is certainly not a narcotic, but that is a completly incorrect definition of the word semantics. Semantics is technically the study of meaning, and linguistic semantics, which is often simply called semantics, is the study of the meaning of words. Not reinventing them.

Narcotic is often a word used to describe drugs in general. The government and many media agencies do this. I often hear cocaine referred to as a narcotic. Is it stupid of them to call stimulants narcotics? Yes. But it doesn't really mean much because there's a difference between common use and technical definition of words.

All of the khat users I've known have been responsible, pleasant people to be around. Khat makes people social, relaxed, talkative and considerate. When the effects wear off, those people do not become 'abnormally aggresive and mean'; and I'd actually consider 'abnormally aggressive mean people' to fit the bill as far as assholes are concerned.

I've known plenty of amphetamine users who were responsible, pleasant people to be around. Amphetamine makes people social, talkative and often considerate (it sure makes me that way). This is true of many of the users and few of that addicts that I know (except for the talkative bit). I'm not comparing khat and amphetamine so much as pointing out that those are the effects of most stimulants when used responsibly. I wouldn't say that khat makes people relaxed, but I guess it's subjective. The same is true of khat. Most people who use it are fine, but most people who use it a lot are not. I really am not saying that using khat is bad. I'm saying that using khat is a large social and economic problem in that region, that that chewing khat habitually is bad. I think there's a difference between people being more aggressive and mean then usual (like when crashing from stimulants) and people being assholes. I guess the people I'm refering to aren't aggressive and mean enough for me to really think of them as assholes, but they're definitly more aggressive and mean then they used to be. Especially when coming off uppers.

Khat also has a long history regards spiritual use contrary to your claims. If you read some literature other than Google you may just find some alternative historical accounts which illustrate this point clearly. Obviously, the church has played a role in the dissemination of the propaganda through the ages(a cultural thing), and the likes of Google are currently swamped with the official 'party line', so it is not as straight forward to get the heart of the matter.

Since you seem to know, and information about spiritual use of khat is hard to find, why don't you enlighten me? It would be very helpful to me if you posted a link instead of just claiming something as fact. If you're going to be rude, at least back up what you're saying.

I don't doubt that many people on this website are quite experienced with drugs. But in line with the 'harm minimisation philosophy' here, I felt it was necessary to point out the gross flaws in the original article and also challenge the further propagation of that misinformation here. If it becomes 'common knowledge' that khat is a, 'mild narcotic', and 'addictive' - regardless of the truth in that - we all know where khat is headed and it is not at ones local farmers market so people have an alternative to pills and booze.

I don't think that encouraging khat use and denying its very obvious and very well documented negative social impact is in line with harm reduction. Khat is certainly not a narcotic. It is addictive though, but not as much and most drugs generally thought of as harder drugs. Whether or not khat is prohibited doesn't depend on posts on bluelight. It's not going to show up at your local farmer's markets anyway, unless you live in Yemen or something.

Slowly but surely, these types of articles, and many peoples blind acceptance of them, is precisly what brings about prohibition. I'm sure we're all familiar with the term, 'manufacturing consent', and we're all familiar with the extreme harms the prohibition of cannabis alone has brought about all over the world. Maybe we should be less naieve as to play right into the devils hands and do their work for them?

Khat is already prohibited in Somalia, and it's illegal during Ramadan in Yemen which is the place this article is talking about.

Khat is also prohibited in the US-

"In the United States, cathine is a Schedule IV controlled substance and cathinone is a Schedule I drug, according to the U.S. Controlled Substance Act. The 1993 DEA rule placing cathinone in Schedule I noted that it was effectively also banning qat.

Cathinone is the major psychoactive component of the plant Catha edulis (khat). The young leaves of qat are chewed for a stimulant effect. Enactment of this rule results in the placement of any material which contains cathinone into Schedule I.

Qat has been seized by local police and federal authorities on several occasions.

The plant itself is specifically banned in Missouri-

Khat, to include all parts of the plant presently classified botanically as catha edulis, whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; any extract from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seed or extracts."

Also, I do not for one moment deny that either khat or coca leaf could have a potencially negative impact for 'some' people who seriously abuse these herbs, ie chew large quantities of it all day every day. That said, some individuals may indeed use either of those herbs all day every day, and they work hard, and live to a ripe old age; just as is the case for those who chew betel nuts every day all day. Kind of paradoxical isn't it, when you go into those remote villages and some of the people, particuarly the elderly, are doing just that. They may be over 90 years old, with stained red teeth...smiling away...not bothering a soul, still working even...just like the coca chewers similarly.

You are painting a very unrealisticcally benign portrait of khat use, and I think this should be obvious to those reading, especially in the above paragraph.

This is about khat though isn't it? You want to know why places like Yemen and Somalia have some problems? How about an average wage of $900/year in Yemen? What is the minimum wage in Somalia? Um, an egg and a bottle of water?8) When there is economic hardship, that really does play into things, and perceptions. When there are deficiencies in governance, or overt corruption, or even a lack of a government, maybe even civil war, and a lack of natural resources...it is easy to blame a plant huh? Now where have we heard that line before? Reefer madness!

There are a lot of socio-economic problems in Yemen and Somalia, but that doesn't mean that the negative impact of khat itself should be downplayed. Does it play as negative a role as hard stimulants play in people's lives? No, of course not. Does it damage the country and the social environment in which much of the population are daily users? Yes.

I think it's much more in line with harm reduction to recognize the risks of using a drug then to completly deny 99% of all negative impact it has and paint is at pretty much completly benign.