Drug Policy, Self Medication And What Legalisation Means Thread...

[freefloat]

I've been posting on the MDMA as a possible treatment for PTSD thread. I find it very unfortunate that there will be 30 year hiatus in that medications use due to politics and hysteria. I also find it unfortunate that the propaganda around it leads to some having a knee jerk reaction to discounting its merit prior to looking at it from an objective stance.

In the addictions field it is commonly accepted that 50% of the people who are chemically dependent on illicit or illegal substances are self medicating mental health(MH) issues. I find it appalling that those same people are arrested, charged and go to jail for using a coping method to deal with the MH issues. Just recently New Mexico has accepted that pot is a valid reason for obtaining a medical marijuana license. Yet those that have used it for such a reason have been jailed. IMHO for no valid reason.

Its an emotional issue when we speak of decriminalization, legalization etc of drugs of abuse. The language is very important in speaking of theses issues. Also in what legalization of drugs of abuse would look like. All to often the ideal is portrayed as functioning in an unrealistic, hazardous model. As some feel legalization is having the 7-11 sell crack as well as toquitos. Or decriminalization is the same as wide spread distribution.

Lots of conjecture out there as to what drug recovery looks like. Some believe we don’t have the answers when we do. Its just not supported as well as the legal intervention is. Lets face it the war on drugs is a war on people. It makes billions for organized crime. Makes billions for the industrial legal complex. Fuels terrorism internationally and locally. Leads to much suffering form those that use and those around them. It immoral and unjust. With no basis of support except financial gain, political traction and moral imposition.

It harms more than helps. Isn't a deterrent. Keeping it illegal attracts more people to use than it deters.

There exists a continuum of use, abuse and addiction. With incremental harms as one progresses through the continuum.

There is so much bad education on drugs of abuse it leads to more abuse. Real education and allowing people to make valid decisions is what is needed..not hysteria and a just say no policy. Empowering people to know the risks and make the right choice will reduce addiction rates. The truth needs to be supported.


People have been altering their state of mind since the beginning of time. This will never change. Do we accept that human behavior can change through legislation? Can we accept that the laws are to help the individual when we throw them in jail for their own good? Do we allow dying people to be literally drug out of bed and arrested as they smoked pot in their last days? From a compassionate, humanistic point of view that isn't valid. Or do we evolve and learn as a society. It belongs to us not the politicians.

 

[anthony]

I've been posting on the MDMA as a possible treatment for PTSD thread. I find it very unfortunate that there will be 30 year hiatus in that medications use due to politics and hysteria. I also find it unfortunate that the propaganda around it leads to some having a knee jerk reaction to discounting its merit prior to looking at it from an objective stance.

Maybe it is just me, but the way I read that opening paragraph is that you actually believe MDMA is a treatment option for PTSD, instead of what that thread actually talks about, being MDMA is used in a very limited capacity within initial trauma therapy sessions to help the member get past the worst of their fears and open up about their trauma to allow a dialogue to exist for trauma therapy.

Have you read the studies on MDMA for the treatment of PTSD, anxiety, etc? They don't anywhere claim MDMA is a treatment for PTSD or such, and quite the opposite, as outlined, they talk about it in a very limited and controlled fashion for initial sessions only. Once the dialogue is there, then there is no real reason for it once the person has gotten past the worst of their initial traumatic fear.

In the addictions field it is commonly accepted that 50% of the people who are chemically dependent on illicit or illegal substances are self medicating mental health(MH) issues. I find it appalling that those same people are arrested, charged and go to jail for using a coping method to deal with the MH issues. Just recently New Mexico has accepted that pot is a valid reason for obtaining a medical marijuana license. Yet those that have used it for such a reason have been jailed. IMHO for no valid reason.

The figure is probably even higher than that... agreed, it is bad. Not all countries are the same though, and they do not just toss people in jail for regular drug use. You have to something way worse than regular drug use in Australia, as an example, in order to get put in jail. You have to be holding dealer level substances... otherwise you just keep getting fined and community service, as not all countries are jail oriented for offences less than serious in nature.

The American jail system is quite controversial in itself, for how it perpetuates criminal activity by putting lesser offence persons in jail with those more severe, typically only increasing criminality within the country, not lowering or maintaining a low level.

Its an emotional issue when we speak of decriminalization, legalization etc of drugs of abuse... ...As some feel legalization is having the 7-11 sell crack as well as toquitos. Or decriminalization is the same as wide spread distribution.

Is it really about that? I don't believe so. The problem is that pharmacies may then be required to hold such legal forms of narcotics that are proven, without question, to be addictive and their side effects to the extreme end with statistically high rates, far higher than what any drug could otherwise obtain pharmaceutical approval for.

There is so much bad education on drugs of abuse it leads to more abuse. Real education and allowing people to make valid decisions is what is needed..not hysteria and a just say no policy. Empowering people to know the risks and make the right choice will reduce addiction rates. The truth needs to be supported.

Come on... that is the piss poorest excuse for the validation of legalising harmful drugs I've read in some time.

Here are some fact sheets on some of the main types of drugs... and I don't read very attractive primary side effects compared to those on over the counter prescriptions, which whilst some can have nasty effects, then go to statistical information on those effects, and the nasty side effects are rare, not common, which is the case with illicit illegal drugs, being:

• Dead Link Removed
• Dead Link Removed
• Dead Link Removed
• Dead Link Removed
• Dead Link Removed
• Dead Link Removed
• Dead Link Removed
• Dead Link Removed

There is some serious, serious side effects in those drugs, from just a single use.

Does the benefit outweigh the risks in each case? Not a chance in hell, hence why they are illegal drugs, and those forms that have a legal prescribed version of the active ingredient, aren't readily available from any pharmacy.

Ok, so lets stick with just ecstasy then, and could you please tell me what benefit it could be to prescribe someone a drug in which all it does is:

Ecstasy usually produces a euphoric rush, usually within 20 minutes of swallowing it, which can last up to eight hours. There have been reported cases of symptoms lasting for as long as 32 hours after using ecstasy. Users may feel more alert, energetic and affectionate. Ecstasy also suppresses appetite. The stimulants in ecstasy actually speed up the activity in the central nervous system. At the same time the hallucinogens in the drug can affect perception, causing things to appear distorted, or things that don’t exist to be seen or heard.

Please explain what benefit prescribing someone that drug, as you're stating for legal prescription purposes, when all it does is create euphoria with the added benefit of hallucinations and paranoia (or things that don’t exist to be seen or heard).

There are less potent forms of relaxation drugs already available, in which get used all the time, pethidine comes to immediate mind. Valium and Xanax do the same thing, without the hallucinations, paranoia, alertness, energetic increase, appetite suppressing, etc. Morphine is another... available in tablet form already for pain management, again, relaxing and removing pain without the paranoia or hallucinations.

I see no valid arguments for the need to legalise any substance with such massively distressing side effects that affect a majority, not a minority. America went through this with Valium, and now it's extremely difficult to obtain via prescription in the US because people got addicted to the stuff so fast, it wasn't funny. Now those who actually need it struggle to get it due to abuse. Why exactly would prescribing illicit drugs not be any different?

 

[freefloat]

Look up the side effects of Prozac, Xanax, chemo therapy drugs.

Not all users are addicts.

Tainted drugs and varying potency cause death.

I am speaking of Canadian, US and European studies. Have alot of respect for how Methadone is done in Oz. But have seen no research coming from there. Maybe my issue is I belive people are mostly all the same. I know foolish, huh?

Very professional comment 'piss poorest excuse' . Why? The scholars have shown that to be true. So if dont support proper eductaion for kids on drugs then you support telling them the wrong information? huh? One example 'pot is a gateway drug, 100% of addicts used it before harder drugs' most used ETOH before pot but. Ever smoke a joint in your life? Ever do anything harder? If you answer yes and no..congrats your like 95% of the people that ever smoked pot. 'all drugs are bad!' so heroin is as bad to try as MDMA.

So addicts rob pharmacies for condoms and anti-biotics?

wheres the harm?

'Ecstasy usually produces a euphoric rush, usually within 20 minutes of swallowing it, which can last up to eight hours. There have been reported cases of symptoms lasting for as long as 32 hours after using ecstasy. Users may feel more alert, energetic and affectionate. Ecstasy also suppresses appetite. The stimulants in ecstasy actually speed up the activity in the central nervous system. At the same time the hallucinogens in the drug can affect perception, causing things to appear distorted, or things that don’t exist to be seen or heard.

'ecstasy actually speed up the activity in the central nervous system.' Sedatives suprees the CNS. Apples and oranges.

Valium is a fast acting benxodiazapine. So is Xanax. Ativan is medium term. Due to its fast acting nature it has been more serious controlled by the medical community. There is a higher burdeon of proof in finding it necessary to prescibe. So they prescribe other benzos. Apples and apples. BTW benzo withdrawl is potentially life threatening. Heroin withdrawl isn't. But having run a 36 bed detox what do i know.

So what's the solution from your point of view? China shoots addicts so does Iran maybe we should look at their drug policy. Oh but wait that isnt working either they just end up shooting more and more people.

 

[anthony]

You agree that valium and xanax are fast acting, yet all narcotics are even faster acting then xanax. Valium is actually slower release, xanax is fast release... but you agree to the problem of those legal drugs, yet you then think even worse problems won't occur from even faster acting drugs such as MDMA, pot, etc. Instant high, instant euphoria... instant paranoid delusions.

I will ask again, where is the legal application for that result in medicine, when you already have such drugs which adequately do that role, yet without the lethality of said side effects.

Yes, I have looked up the side effects of those drugs, and some are nasty, but they have low incident rates for rare side effects, which narcotics DO NOT... narcotics have high incidents for the worse side effects and low incidents for lesser side effects.

Narcotics are the direct opposite of the "majority" of pharmaceutical drugs on the market. You can't really bring cancer treating drugs into this, because cancer is a different problem than anxiety and depression, and the drugs used to treat cancer are aggressive for good purpose, due to cancer being a killer and it spreads rapidly. Not an adequate comparison when talking about PTSD.

If all you have is what you write above, then no wonder such drugs still aren't legalised, because there are no valid medical options cited above to adequately argue against the facts of drug severity for the application.

 

[freefloat]

What's a narcotic to you?
Xanex and Vailum peak in the plasma at the same rate.
http://www.mental-health-today.com/rx/benzo.htm

Do you really belive that the only factor in a drugs abuse profile is its pharmokenetics?

What do you think of New Mexico approving pot for ptsd? As you may know shrinks came up with that.

I've changed govt/college of physicans policy on drug issues. Saved thousands of lives and reduced HIV rates significantly by doing so. In a region with the highest HIV rates in the developed world. And you?

 

[freefloat]

Anthony where do you belive drug laws come from and there intended purpose?

 

[anthony]

Answering questions with questions... you aren't providing answers!

What do you think of New Mexico approving pot for ptsd? As you may know shrinks came up with that.

Hey, the Netherlands, Swiss and Thai's (Governmental Levels) have a pretty huge ignorance to selling children as sex slaves and child pornography. Should the rest of the world adopt the same ignorance?

I do sincerely congratulate you on any positive work you have done to help the less fortunate... that is excellent to hear.

I am a little disturbed with the challenging pissing contest you are trying to invoke, which leads me closer to banning your account for trolling, as you seem to be more argumentative across this site, challenging people, than participative. I will be honest, you have been on staff radar since you got on here challenging near most things without providing evidence or answers yourself.