• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

AUS: Crystal meth is worse than heroin

Koosh

Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
752
Crystal meth is worse than heroin
November 4, 2007

TWO ice users cause more damage to the community through violence, crime and demand on the health system than 50 heroin users, a survey of drug users has found.

But young people on the streets trying the drug were unaware of the devastating side effects of ice - or crystal methamphetamine - and wrongly believed it was a safe alternative to heroin.

Outreach organisation Open Family Australia conducted in-depth interviews with 26 ice users and their families, social workers and doctors.

Chief executive Sue Renkin said the ice epidemic threatened to impose an even greater burden on the health system than heroin, as the drug damages the heart, brain, kidneys and vascular system and causes debilitating hallucinations, violent psychotic episodes, paranoia, the desire to self-harm, extreme weight loss, insomnia and dental problems.

"The community can suffer seemingly more drastic consequences from two ice addicts than 50 heroin users who might go largely unnoticed," she said.

"There is a real risk of increasing demand on the already overcrowded mental health system."

The study found most users administered the drug at least weekly and 77percent also used heroin. Most were unemployed; more than half were homeless.

They "switched" to ice after a shortage of good-quality heroin as ice was widely available and relatively affordable.

Ms Renkin said young people on the streets were attracted to ice, believing it was more widely accepted than heroin since it was mostly used in a social setting and was initially smoked, removing the "junkie stigma" of heroin.

Some believed ice was a safe alternative to heroin, were unaware of its long-term side effects, and had the misapprehension that, unlike heroin, ice could not kill them. Participants in the study had side effects including:

■ Hearing voices;

■ Formication - the sense of bugs crawling under the skin causing compulsive picking;

■ Becoming highly suspicious of others including family, friends, police and strangers;

■ Almost a quarter suffered symptoms of psychosis.

Recent research suggests one in 10 Australians has tried ice at least once.

Click Here
 
Koosh said:
The study found most users administered the drug at least weekly and 77percent also used heroin. Most were unemployed; more than half were homeless.

They "switched" to ice after a shortage of good-quality heroin as ice was widely available and relatively affordable.



They discuss things saying that theyouth are the ones hooked and its damaging our children blah blah blah


This statement alone sounds like theyve been interviewing long term junkies

and honestly Ive not meet to many young long term junkies (ive meet plenty on there way to becoming long term though)
 
Ms Renkin said young people on the streets were attracted to ice, believing it was more widely accepted than heroin since it was mostly used in a social setting and was initially smoked, removing the "junkie stigma" of heroin.

Some believed ice was a safe alternative to heroin, were unaware of its long-term side effects, and had the misapprehension that, unlike heroin, ice could not kill them. Participants in the study had side effects


Sorry to drag up a post from a few weeks ago, but i couldn't help it. This is just 1 example of the idiotic reporting about drugs that goes on all over the world. Come on, who on earth thinks that "Ice" or crystal or whatever is safe and that it has no long term side effects or that it can't kill you? Nobody thinks that. 7th graders have seen long term tweakers somewhere I'm sure and realize that meth is horrible for you. I don't know what to really say here, this just bugs me. I refuse to believe that this reporter found some strung out tweaker who told him that they had no idea that meth was bad until they started hallucinating and had no teeth.

Come on, let's be serious. Kids don't try meth because they think it is safe. They try meth because they want to get high and it feels good. Then they keep doing it because they want to get high and it feels good. End of story.
 
Before meth.........................................................after.
%20%20before%20and%20after.jpg


'nuff said.
 
igotthatwork said:
Before meth.........................................................after.
'nuff said.

LoL... sorry, but I just can't tell you how many times I've seen that same woman's picture. It's all propaganda people. How bad a drug affects you, is up to the user themselves. The reason these meth users look the way they do is because they didn't sleep, eat, or drink, and didn't keep good hygiene... think about it. Besides, I could show you just as many screwed up pictures up heroin users.

These types of photos are a rarity, believe it or not. That's why you see the same ones over and over and over again. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it doesn't as much as you think.

Crystal meth being worse than heroin... is called a bias opinion people, and no doubt an opinion held by a lot of heroin users.
 
and they say there is no difference between hard drugs and soft drugs ?????????????????????????
 
Tytan said:
Crystal meth being worse than heroin... is called a bias opinion people, and no doubt an opinion held by a lot of heroin users.

lol i think you opinion is biased cause you use meth. call it bias or what you want but trying to compare meth to heroin- to make it seem less harmful does not make it any safer. Same thing i guess with comparing heroin to meth though i know.
 
yellodolphin said:
lol i think you opinion is biased cause you use meth.

I do favor it although I’ve not been using for about a year now. Still, I do not have a bias against any drug whatsoever. I'm not the one that stated heroin was worse than meth, or posted a misguiding picture. ;)

yellodolphin said:
call it bias or what you want but trying to compare meth to heroin- to make it seem less harmful does not make it any safer. Same thing i guess with comparing heroin to meth though i know.

I wasn’t comparing meth to heroin in order to make meth seem less harmful. Everything I stated about meth was factual. You confuse a presupposed agenda of making the drug seem less harmful, with an agenda of harm reduction. Propaganda, scare tactic, or diversion tactics, which are spread concerning meth, overstate the implications and misdirect users. Such propaganda misinforms them, or doesn’t honestly inform them at all, which can be more dangerous than the drug itself… and does more harm than good.

Conversely, if someone makes a statement about a drug that portrays it to be more harmful than it actually is… any attempt to debunk their claims, or assertions which claim opposition, should not translate to “trying to make it seem less harmful”. That would be nonsensical.

yellodolphin said:
and they say there is no difference between hard drugs and soft drugs ?????????????????????????

No there is no difference. A drug is a drug. If you assert such, please provide your definition of a hard drug and a soft drug.
 
Sounds to me like the Australian government has a surplus of Heroin that needs unloaded and what better way then to demonize meth? Got to love govt controlled media!
 
No there is no difference. A drug is a drug. If you assert such, please provide your definition of a hard drug and a soft drug.

Can you elaborate on this statement? You can't truly be generalizing all 'drugs' regardless of their impact on the user and society into a single category, can you? That would be absurd.
 
e1evene1even said:
Can you elaborate on this statement? You can't truly be generalizing all 'drugs' regardless of their impact on the user and society into a single category, can you? That would be absurd.

I repeat... if you assert that there are 'hard' drugs and 'soft' drugs, please provide your definition.

There are many 'categories' of drugs... stimulants, depressants, ect... but all are still drugs. Generalized... a drug is a drug... is the default. The absurdity is making the assertion that there are hard drugs and soft drugs, and not providing a valid written definition for such.
 
Tytan said:
I repeat... if you assert that there are 'hard' drugs and 'soft' drugs, please provide your definition.

There are many 'categories' of drugs... stimulants, depressants, ect... but all are still drugs. Generalized... a drug is a drug... is the default. The absurdity is making the assertion that there are hard drugs and soft drugs, and not providing a valid written definition for such.

Maybe he assumed the difference would be obvious. Some drugs are much more likely to lead to trouble than others. i.e. shrooms vs. iv fentanyl


(I don't use the "hard" and "soft" categorization, because I think it can be misleading. But, I know that some drugs are riskier than others.)
 
phrozen said:
Maybe he assumed the difference would be obvious. Some drugs are much more likely to lead to trouble than others. i.e. shrooms vs. iv fentanyl


(I don't use the "hard" and "soft" categorization, because I think it can be misleading. But, I know that some drugs are riskier than others.)

Yeah, I understood his assumption, but feel it's incorrect. Classification of a drug as 'hard' or 'soft' requires that one be compared to another. (i.e. shrooms vs. fentanyl) Something can not be hard with out something to compare it to, anymore than something can be big with something to compare it to. Yet, even then it does not provide a consistent means of classification, and virtually no drug can be classified as either hard or soft individually.

For instance, which is a hard drug and which is a soft drug... methamphetamine or tobacco? While many would say meth is the hard drug and tobacco a soft drug... tobacco is responsible for more deaths every year, more people are addicted to it, it is proved to cause cancer... ect.

Individually... is alcohol a hard drug? Can you classify it as such without comparing it to another drug? ... and if you do, I guarantee there are aspects of it that would nullify any such classification the same as the example I gave.

Another aspect to this is factors regarding purity. Street meth can be considered more riskier than safely and consistently produced Desoxyn.

You can't even make the classification in regards to recreational use potential, or the lack of it... as cigarettes are not recreational, and there are many drugs (even with commercials) that have far worse side effects than even methamphetamine.

Anyway, meth worse than heroin, or this drug worse than that drug... it's all nonsense to me. Ibuprofen is better than aspirin. I mean, yeah... meth is worse than aspirin, but it's also better... it's just a point of view.
 
Last edited:
Reading through this article, maybe one day meth will become the new public enemy number 1 to such an extent that casual Heroin users will come to be seen much like peaceful stoners, laughing at the "syringe madness" of the 20th century. ;)

speaking more seriously, drugs can't be put on a single scale from "soft" to "hard", it's an almost completely meaningless distinction, or at best it's a very superficial, tabloid understanding. Heroin is very safe when administered in hospitals as a painkiller, and amphetamines were safe enough to give to soldiers and fighter pilots in the second world war. Almost all drugs can be made reasonably safe with a few sensible harm reduction measures (although there are a few where I don't know any such measures), and almost all can be used stupidly and dangerously, but the risk profiles are different for each and aren't one-dimensional.
 
Top