Do designer drugs present a more dangerous threat than heroin?

[BREAKaBEAT]

At least MDMA users will stay alive long enough to have long term effects.

Thats right. Heroin addicts die and dont cause that much of a strain on future resources(tax dollars) on the government and tax funded clinics to deal with problems that older ecstasy users will have in 5 - 15 years time.

 

[BREAKaBEAT]

By the way, all my comments are in relation to MDMA. I have very little knowledge or experience with other "designer drugs".

As I said in my first post, ecstasy is NOT a designer drug. Be careful with terminology you use !

 

[baileylsd]

Long term damage u say? what kind of damage, or is it just a guess for the time being, i know that a don't feel as normal as i did before i started x. But i thought this passed overtime?

i saw it somewhere that some heavy users had a brain scan, and well there was not much activity. After time though, there brains came back to normal though, right??

 

[middle finger]

Heroin does no damage to the brain, Ecstasy kills parts of the brain.
It seems very simple to me

Heroin kills the soul.

 

[ashaman]

Herion addicts die, ecstasy users will bleed funding from the government for quite a few years in psychological and other areas of specialisation. Heroin does no damage to the brain, Ecstasy kills parts of the brain.
It seems very simple to me

Heroine addicts would use just as much funding, especially if they hit the rehabs and have go to hospitals because they overdosed.

Also, most escstasy users are more or less working men and women, who pay the taxes. Heroine addicts most likely do not have a job, and would thieve and steal- so who will harm the society more- the tax paying ecstasy users or the thieving heroine addicts who do nothing all day except stay in their depressed state?

A dead person means a lot of wasted potential. Ever learnt of oppourtunity cost? The opportunity cost of someone dieing is everything they could do in life- earning all the money they would have, paying all those taxes, taking care of old grannies...

I dont see a heroin addict doing that, but i could see ecstasy ravers doing that in the later stages of their life...

 

[ebeneezer_geeza]

if you mean by what most pharmacologists mean by "Designer drugs", then they are much more dangerous than heroin - many ppl confuse the term designer drug. see the following and it will answer your essay question

http://www.totse.com/en/drugs/rare_and_exotic_drugs/opiatesy.html

NOTE: DESIGNER DRUGS are analogs of known pharmacological agents, synthesized by underground chemists, for sale on the street.

 

[onetwothreefour]

Originally posted by ashaman
Also, most escstasy users are more or less working men and women, who pay the taxes. Heroine addicts most likely do not have a job, and would thieve and steal- so who will harm the society more- the tax paying ecstasy users or the thieving heroine addicts who do nothing all day except stay in their depressed state?

don't take this personally man, but...

<rant>
because, of course, one little experience with that evil drug heroin and you've suddenly turned into a grandma-robbing social deviant; all those people that actually hold down steady jobs whilst simultaneously being addicted to h must be kidding themselves - surely their time would be better spent passing out in some gutter?

dude, where the fuck does this kind of attitude come from? presumably you take pills? how would you feel if i -or anyone else here- went around saying how all ecstasy users were uneducated dickheads who just liked getting fucked up and had no idea what was going on?

generalisations are shit.
</rant>

 

[Killing_time]

MDMA does

• Irreversibly inhibit tryptophan hydroxylase
• Depletes reserves of 5HTP and serotonin
• Reduces levels of 5HT carrier molecule
• Damages 5HT axons

That's neurotoxicity in anyone's books. What the argument is currently, is whether these changes are long-term, and what exact levels cause these effects. But the actions of the drug in each of these areas has been well documented.

Research Chemicals/designer drugs more dangerous than Heroin?

Heroin has been used & abused for over a hundred years, and virtually all there is to know has been learned. "Research chems" (and most new designers) on the other hand are mostly complete unknowns, seldom if at all tested in man at recreational levels in clinical environments. There's your answer

We'll just pretend I never said anything...

Also...

Thats right. Heroin addicts die and dont cause that much of a strain on future resources(tax dollars) on the government and tax funded clinics to deal with problems that older ecstasy users will have in 5 - 15 years time.

Are you trying to say that within 5 -15 years there is going to be a mass epidemic, whereby all persons who consume ecstasy frequently will become 'vegetables', unable to support themselves?
What about all those persons who consumed copious amounts of E in the past 10 -15 years?
Just tryin' to justify my consumption I guess...
PEACE

 

[-Thoth]

Thats right. Heroin addicts die and dont cause that much of a strain on future resources(tax dollars) on the government and tax funded clinics to deal with problems that older ecstasy users will have in 5 - 15 years time.

This is an incredibly naive and misleading statement. Can you imagine the current tax burden on dealing with secondary social costs of chronic drug addiction? Heroin is the most singled out within this category, but really it can apply to any drug. Alchololism? Meth addiction?
Contrary to popular perception, the majority of chronically addicted heroin users do not simply OD and die (which is in itself a tragedy, not a positive expedient like you seem to make it sound). The majority continue living. They may lose jobs, resort to theft or robbery, require publicly funded resources in treatment and counselling, contract hepatitis, aids, needle site infections and require more publicly funded treatment, get jailed etc, etc... While these secondary factors might not exist to quite the same extent in a fantasy drug legal world, the fact is they do, and their effects are markedly exacerbated in certain classes of drugs.

While MDMA may indeed have more deleterous long term primary physical effects, to claim it may once in the future provide more of a drain on public resources than serious heroin addiction does right now on the legal/health/welfare areas is a bold and unsubstantiated claim to make.
Ecstasy has been in use since the 80's. If long term effects were quite so adverse as the worst case scenario you posit, it's likely we would be starting to see some elements of it by now. However, we simply have no information on 'long term effects' at all, so idle speculation about it is just phlostigon in terms of making an argument against it when comparing with something like heroin.

 

[Macksta]

The question of what poses the more 'dangerous threat' is quite general open to interpretation.

So why just focus on the health consequences?

I have no idea how one quantifies the criminal cost a drug like heroin has on society. But moving from purely physiological consequences to broader ones... Im sure the case could be made that the criminal cost of heroin and the threat it poses to society is far greater than that of Ecstasy.

To extend the theory, (a little fanciful maybe but worth a thought) if autocratic regimes such as North Korea, Burma and the Taliban in Afghanistan in the 90's use the state sponsored manufacture and export of heroin to help prop up their regimes... could it be argued that heroin poses a threat to geo-political stability by assisting these dangerous autocratic states to persist in politically and militarily destabilising their regions? This of course has a monetary flow on effect beyond the political with millions spent on arms and defence.

Actually I looked into this a little bit and found some interesting figures quoted in Testimony given to a US Senate Subcommittee in 2003 on North Korea's trade in Drugs.

"North Korea's exports from legitimate businesses in 2001 totaled just $650 million, according to Wall Street Journal reports of April 23, 2003, citing South Korea's central bank. Income to Pyongyang from illegal drugs in the same year ran between $500 million and $1 billion , while missile sales earned Pyongyang about $560 million in 2001. North Korea is producing some 40 tons of opium a year according to U.S forces...<snip>"

Given the North Korean national budget was estimated to be around $10 billion for the year 2002, Heroin sales might account for as much as 10% of this. Which is quite phenomenal really.

Hmmm. Interesting take on the question anyway.
Maybe you could move this thread to Current Events & Politics 1234

http://govt-aff.senate.gov/_files/052003wortzel.pdf[/url]
http://www.nis.go.kr/eng/north/others58.html

 

[papermate]

So why just focus on the health consequences?

Like Macksta I agree. Quite fancy pancy with the North Korea situation, but i see his point.

I think the question is a great question beacuse it brings up what everyone COMMON PERCEPTION about:



1. what designer drugs are? : ie ecstasy - there has been no mention of other drugs (suprised GHB) didnt make it. And this is from a bunch of people that are ''educated'' in drugs/awareness etc... (bluelighters). Think of what the general public would think.

2. Our perception as society on the use and the ''social stigma'' of Herion and ecstasy. I think it was awesome of Thoth to bring up some other points about Herion and its use/misue.




The question uses the word dangerous and people immediately think about "Physical effects''....''and then the effect on society...'' . This tends to show what we beleive is important as society is our healt ( and i think thats true)...and then our standard of living (which i also think is true).

So...to answer the question:

1. is it dangerous to our health? - well, pills definately effect our health and as Phasedancer has indicated..in a negative way. Whos to say its worse than what herion does to you?

2. is it dangerous to societies function? - i think the answer at the moment is no. Although the people who use herion range from beggers to rock stars..i think generally speaking the use of ecstasy does not encourage or co-exist with personality type that is non-functional in society.

 

[ashaman]

don't take this personally man, but...

<rant>
because, of course, one little experience with that evil drug heroin and you've suddenly turned into a grandma-robbing social deviant; all those people that actually hold down steady jobs whilst simultaneously being addicted to h must be kidding themselves - surely their time would be better spent passing out in some gutter?

dude, where the fuck does this kind of attitude come from? presumably you take pills? how would you feel if i -or anyone else here- went around saying how all ecstasy users were uneducated dickheads who just liked getting fucked up and had no idea what was going on?

generalisations are shit.
</rant> [/B]

I am going along the line of his thought- that all heroin users are 'addicts' and will just crawl into a corner and die and all ecstasy users 'bleed funding from the government'

I was merely arguing from his viewpoint. Of course not all heroine users are total addicts; but his argument was flawed in the beginning, so i rather use that flaw that tell him that not all ecstasy/heroin users are as fucked up as he thinks (since everybody has been trying to tell him that to no avail)

And if you tell me that all ecstasy users are undeducated dickheads who just liked to get fucked up and had no idea whats going on? I'll believe it... I know its a generalisation, and it doesnt apply to everyone, but i *do* know the majority of the people to be like that.

No offense taken, take it easy 1234

 

[phase_dancer]

Who's to say that even a single dose of MDMA is even harmless 35-40 years down the track?

Many toxins do not poison you directly. Some like asbestos and Beryllium compounds take 30-40 years to cause their damage, the outcomes always proving fatal in both cases. We don't yet know what MDMA will do that far down the line because the longest anyone has been taking it is probably only now approaching 30 years.

While it's unlikely MDMA will prove to be such a toxin, there are many unknowns with the drug. MDMA would never have got approval if it had been entered into clinical trials. The points outlined above demonstrate this, as although a drug having one or two of those side effect may be approved, a drug affecting 4 metabolic processess in the way MDMA does, would not.

Heroin as mentioned, does not cause any neural degeneration. Apart from its very toxic result from actions on the central nervous system, heroin is remarkedly non-toxic to organs. During addiction, the body even learns to produce various endogenous chemicals from the metabolism of heroin.

A few of my old hometown friends have died of heroin overdoses, others survived only to feed their addictions. Yet others - and that's most of my mates who've used H- are still alive, happy and healthy. A couple from the old crew probably still use everyday, but both have always been very strict about dosages. Once driven by necessity to secure themselves a lifetime supply, neither is tempted to go silly apart from the very occasional social "splash".

I've also known a few users who held very important jobs, and afaik none were ever suspected or accused of being users. I hated the effects of heroin myself, having smoked it on a couple of occasions. But just because I find MDMA used occasionally to be preferable, it doesn't mean I see it as being less dangerous pharmacologically speaking, apart from the obvious difference in respective margins for dosage error.

In the end, weighing up the good and possible bad, particularly when talking about some of the recent "research chems", it could be said the safest option may be to go with the devil you know

Used regularly, I agree with middle finger. Heroin, like most drugs, has the potential to reduce the spark. It's all to do with the devils (self induced manifestations etc) who also "move in" with any addiction.

 

[Tabernacle]

some other things to consider:
absolutely pure heroin is something of a rarity i would imagine so there are the damaging aspects of injecting the adulterants like micro-scarring of the liver etc.

i think some people are making the causal link between phenylethylamine use and later mental illness, this link has not been proven nor will it- how can one ostensible prove that you developed a mental illness from ecstacy use 5-10 years ago without considering all over the extraneous variables that may have had a role in the development of the disease. It's like the marijuana causes schizophrenia hypothesis- how can u tell that you weren't going to be diagnosed with it anyway. In reality it probably contributes to the problem but to say that it directly causes it is IMHO a gross simplification.

In answering the essay you have to deal with what is known at the present, but that doesn't stop you from mentioning the possible long-term implications of designer drug use

Because the outcome of research chem use is the great unknown, a bluelighter once said to me:
'If you've done one research chem, then you may as well do more because the long effects are unknown."
the answer to this if your in any way concerned about this is not to take them in the first place, but for me it was too late anyway

 

[UnSquare]

A dead person means a lot of wasted potential. Ever learnt of oppourtunity cost? The opportunity cost of someone dieing is everything they could do in life- earning all the money they would have, paying all those taxes, taking care of old grannies...

Opportunity cost???
Shit.
I'm starting to feel like a fucking equation
& just saw three meat puppets walk down the road.

 

[evilbza]

Besides the physical addiction and the damage it does to your body and brain, do you think people on ecstacy are more dangerous, more of a threat, to the community etc???

 

[evilbza]

Sorry---my mistake. didn't realise there was a second page. Love the feed back. Thanks for the spell check and if any are interested i chuck up the essay. Thanks for all your help.

 

[Biscuit]

I take my hat off to Thoth and Macksta - I am in complete agreeance with everything you said. There have been so many sweeping statements made in this thread it is like listening to talk-back radio.

Thanks P_D for the physiological analysis - as always fair, thorough and scientifically correct (as far as anyone can know of course)


I think people do have to watch this designer drug tag. GHB is definitely not a designer drug. Neither is ketamine. MDMA probably is not but some MDXX drugs certainly are.
The term designer drugs reflects a situation where a chemist has taken one existing molecular structure and tinkered with it to make another molecular structure - a different chemical that he or she has in a word "designed". If this chemical happens to effect the body's physiology in some appreciable manner it could be called a designer drug. We obviously would generally only be concerned with ones that are pyschoactive - drugs that effect a person's brain, thoughts etc. It is these types of chemicals that have earned this moniker of designer drugs.

The designing may be undertaken to circumvent laws that apply to existing known drugs. Or as Shulgin did so brilliantly, to investigate the effects a vast variation of different molecules, based upon the same base structure, can have on the human mind. Putting it differently, what changes in the effects of this substance will be felt if I alter the molecular structure in the following minor way..."

A problem is that people have made this a heroin vs MDMA topic. IF we are truly considering designer drugs as a whole it makes particularising about the PHYSIOLOGICAL effects in a general sense very difficult. Perhaps restricting it to the common phenylethylamines is more accurate. However in reality it is still an unacceptable basis to make comparisons when you are including drugs in that group with vastly different physiological effects, most of which are completely unknown.


As alluded to the essay topic can be interpreted many different ways. To me, describing a drug as a threat means considering its effects globally. A drug cannot threaten an individual if it is not taken. If you were only talking about direct physiological effects then you would say "Are designer drugs more deleterious to a person's health than heroin." That is going on the assumption that both are actually deleterious.

IMO by couching the question in the phrase of what poses the bigger threat, one can only approach the answer by considering what "drug" poses the bigger threat to society as a whole, that society being made up of people who take E, people who take H, people who take both and people who take neither. (This reflective of the line of argument this thread has taken in making MDMA Heroin's opposing "benchmark" in the question.)

Saying heroin is not as bad as MDMA because it kills people and therefore can remove the possibility of those users being a burden on the taxpayer, a burden that the MDMA user is PRESUMED to be later in life, is bordering on obscene. This view is about as narrow, presumptive and solely economic driven as you could get.
And btw, if we are discussing economic issues, then we are discussing the impact of the drug on society. You cannot just select some of those aspects and not others. If it is not solely about the physiological effects upon an INDIVIDUAL, then it must be about the global considerations of these types of drugs and the capacity of them to affect society as a whole.

 

[rah]

wow lots of misinformation about heroin in here. it's one of the safest drugs out there to use if you know what your doing. Addiction? thats totaly subjective, i've known people totaly addicted to mdma taking it every day and have never had a problem with their heroin useage. im more addicted to tobacco or weed then heroin, whatever.. save the horror stories for your children

 

[BigTrancer]

Everyone knows what heroin is, and that you shoot it up into a vein in your arm, and you get it from a smack dealer... how many people know exactly what a designer drug is or what to do with it, let alone where to get any?

BT