Fentanyl crisis in Calgary: Vice documentary

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Here's a question: suppose a multinational pharma company put a few billion into R&D'ing some recreational drugs that provided an awesome high, but were far, far safer than the current crop of street drugs. No more dangerous or addictive than alcohol, for example - which isn't that high a bar to clear. This is then permitted to be sold in a regulated fashion. The pharma company makes billions, the user is at least better off than they are now and generally able to get a fix without significant risk of death and incarceration (which has to be worth a decent bit to a consumer), and the government gets some tax revenue a la cigarettes.

What's the end result here?

I'm not a chemist, I have no idea if this is even feasible, but in theory it seems to me that it could be accomplished with some of the world's better biochemists working on it, doesn't it?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Thor

Yes for distribution, large quantities of drugs.

Again, the problem is partly because you can't just be a lone country surrounded by others who continue the war on drugs and don't decriminalize.

But as for users, no they don't punish drug crimes of regular users.

I don't think you understand their drug laws. They differentiate between "hard" and "soft" drugs. Opiates are as illegal in Holland as in any other European country

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Here's a question: suppose a multinational pharma company put a few billion into R&D'ing some recreational drugs that provided an awesome high, but were far, far safer than the current crop of street drugs. No more dangerous or addictive than alcohol, for example - which isn't that high a bar to clear. This is then permitted to be sold in a regulated fashion. The pharma company makes billions, the user is at least better off than they are now and generally able to get a fix without significant risk of death and incarceration (which has to be worth a decent bit to a consumer), and the government gets some tax revenue a la cigarettes.

What's the end result here?

I'm not a chemist, I have no idea if this is even feasible, but in theory it seems to me that it could be accomplished with some of the world's better biochemists working on it, doesn't it?

It's an existential question, obviously.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

It's a hypothetical presuming the possibility of developing such a drug. But like I say, if you actually had the resources and expertise to do the R&D, it doesn't seem impossible to me. It has to be easier than developing a new vaccine, I'd think... Then again, I'm not a chemist, so maybe I'm totally out to lunch on that.

[peter12]

I strongly believe that drug use is correlated with cultural, social, and economic changes. Techno-bureaucracy has almost no effect on whether or not people take drugs.

I believe I found a paper in the marijuana thread that demonstrated that cultural openness dictated how many pot cafes opened and closed in Amsterdam.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I don't have one. I also firmly believe you aren't even close to one either.

One doesn't have to have a solution to know that another proposed one is illogical. What you're talking about isn't a scenario where the cartels get crippled. A few government runs spots for addicts? I don't see that making any significant difference.

It's as illogical as the war on drugs. You can't just legalise it and expect it to magically fix everything. You have to have infrastructure in place that is going to comfortably replace what the cartels provide, and "a few spots for addicts" isn't that. You have to go all the way, or you provide room for the cartels to operate.

Do you honestly believe a lot of heroin addicts are going to the government run place to pay significantly more for cleaner heroin while likely filling out some kind of form, or do you think they'll go get it on the street for half the price in half the time?

Not all drugs are created equal. You can't apply the same methodology you do to marijuana as to other drugs. They aren't all going to work the same.

They'll get it for free by the government, because there will be government programs dedicated to weening addicts off of hard drugs. Hell, these programs ALREADY FRIGGING EXIST IN CANADA. Vancouver is way ahead of the curve as usual when it comes to dealing with drugs. Addicts can seek treatment for free and won't be criminally charged for being an addict. These programs also help to identify what works and what doesn't work. These programs exist to understand the addiction and how to overcome it.

Many of you seem to discount the fact that most addicts DO want to get clean. It's just not something that is mentally or physically in their control. These addicts can die from withdrawal if they try to quit cold turkey. Of course this solution isn't going to eliminate addiction, but it will help manage and reduce the severity and number of addicts. 1 less addict is 1 more tax paying citizen who can begin to contribute to society instead of leech off it.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's a hypothetical presuming the possibility of developing such a drug. But like I say, if you actually had the resources and expertise to do the R&D, it doesn't seem impossible to me. It has to be easier than developing a new vaccine, I'd think... Then again, I'm not a chemist, so maybe I'm totally out to lunch on that.

I think there would be negative externalities, no matter the angle.

Would the drug make you slothful? Then, it would have a negative impact on economic productivity.

Would it make you promiscuous? Then, it would have a negative effect on the family structure.

The introduction into the human mind of fiercely intense artificial experiences always has a distorting effect.

The best we have come up with, in terms of maximizing high, and minimizing harm, is probably coffee.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by peter12

I strongly believe that drug use is correlated with cultural, social, and economic changes. Techno-bureaucracy has almost no effect on whether or not people take drugs.

I believe I found a paper in the marijuana thread that demonstrated that cultural openness dictated how many pot cafes opened and closed in Amsterdam.

Sometimes people use drugs just because they like the way drugs make them feel.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Thor

Yes for distribution, large quantities of drugs.

Again, the problem is partly because you can't just be a lone country surrounded by others who continue the war on drugs and don't decriminalize.

But as for users, no they don't punish drug crimes of regular users.

And Portugal punishes anyone found with drugs

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

They'll get it for free by the government, because there will be government programs dedicated to weening addicts off of hard drugs. Hell, these programs ALREADY FRIGGING EXIST IN CANADA. Vancouver is way ahead of the curve as usual when it comes to dealing with drugs. Addicts can seek treatment for free and won't be criminally charged for being an addict. These programs also help to identify what works and what doesn't work. These programs exist to understand the addiction and how to overcome it.

Many of you seem to discount the fact that most addicts DO want to get clean. It's just not something that is mentally or physically in their control. These addicts can die from withdrawal if they try to quit cold turkey. Of course this solution isn't going to eliminate addiction, but it will help manage and reduce the severity and number of addicts. 1 less addict is 1 more tax paying citizen who can begin to contribute to society instead of leech off it.

Vancouver has seen an EXPLOSION in fentanyl use. In regards to treatment centres, if you build it, they will come.

As for your withdrawal will cause death bit - this is a lie. A very pernicious lie.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by nik-

Sometimes people use drugs just because they like the way drugs make them feel.

I think all people use drugs because they like they way drugs make them feel.

Do you know any cases where it is the opposite?

Of course, we all know there are better substitutes for this feeling than drugs.

[Street Pharmacist]

No one has died from opiate withdrawal

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by peter12

I think there would be negative externalities, no matter the angle.

Okay. But presumably the list of side effects would be known and could be minimized to the extent possible by the manufacturer. "Side effects include drowsiness and in rare cases an increased libido" does not seem like a good reason to not do this. You're essentially talking about ripple effects, which, yeah, are inevitable when anything significant is introduced to society. Has the smartphone changed social interaction for the worse? In some ways, surely, but that's not a good reason for saying it shouldn't have been made.

I don't think your "we don't know what the far-reaching down the chain effects would be" is a particularly good answer.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by peter12

I think all people use drugs because they like they way drugs make them feel.

Do you know any cases where it is the opposite?

The cases where you're suggesting drug use is a result of cultural, social, and economic changes. There doesn't always have to be a deeper seated reason for people to start using drugs.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I don't think you understand their drug laws. They differentiate between "hard" and "soft" drugs. Opiates are as illegal in Holland as in any other European country

I've been to Holland recently. You will not go to jail for using drugs. Any drug. They have signs on the road saying as much. Law enforcement in Holland will encourage you to go find them if someone is having a bad trip. Their job isn't to arrest drug users, it's to ensure they are safe and not ODing.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Okay. But presumably the list of side effects would be known and could be minimized to the extent possible by the manufacturer. "Side effects include drowsiness and in rare cases an increased libido" does not seem like a good reason to not do this. You're essentially talking about ripple effects, which, yeah, are inevitable when anything significant is introduced to society. Has the smartphone changed social interaction for the worse? In some ways, surely, but that's not a good reason for saying it shouldn't have been made.

I don't think your "we don't know what the far-reaching down the chain effects would be" is a particularly good answer.

So, I will play ball.

What kind of effect would this drug have?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Many of you seem to discount the fact that most addicts DO want to get clean. It's just not something that is mentally or physically in their control. These addicts can die from withdrawal if they try to quit cold turkey. Of course this solution isn't going to eliminate addiction, but it will help manage and reduce the severity and number of addicts. 1 less addict is 1 more tax paying citizen who can begin to contribute to society instead of leech off it.

You'll have to provide a source for a statement like that.

So, do I want the government spending money on a war on drugs? Or spending money on developing and distributing their own brands of countless drugs in order to make it safer for addicts? I'm not sure either is desirable.

This isn't even JUST about addicts, though. What about recreational users? Pre-addicts? People who just want to get high? Where is the infrastructure for them, because I'm sure the cartels have no problem just creating the addicts while the government runs around and cleans up the mess afterwards.

In line with Cliff and Corsi, there are naturally destructive/thrill seeking individuals out there. If the government isn't providing the drugs for them to try, someone will. The only solution is for the government to produce it's own high-grade, cost friendly versions of these drugs and make them available to the public for recreational use.

The way I see it: you can push out the cartels, or you can focus on the addicts. I don't know how you can do both.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

What kind of effect would this drug have?

All I'm positing is something that would get you high as well, or better than, current street drugs. There may even be a menu of them to satisfy different consumer preferences - "this is our version of ecstasy, this is our cocaine, this is our heroin", and so forth. Yet the health risks are mitigated to the point where consuming these drugs is no more dangerous than a night of getting drunk. That is, if you abuse alcohol regularly, risks of disease and death skyrocket, and if you drink yourself into a stupor you can die right away, but being a regular drinker is less risky than, say, using heroin.

Those are the parameters that I'm working with here. I'm still not an expert so I still don't know if this is a fairy tale, but it seems to me if Pfizer wanted to throw a few billion and a team of geniuses at the problem they might be able to figure something out that meets the above description.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

I've been to Holland recently. You will not go to jail for using drugs. Any drug. They have signs on the road saying as much. Law enforcement in Holland will encourage you to go find them if someone is having a bad trip. Their job isn't to arrest drug users, it's to ensure they are safe and not ODing.

I'm a Dutch citizen, lived on Holland, and you're wrong. Its actually written in their laws.

https://www.government.nl/topics/dru...-deal-in-drugs

Now, you've been to Amsterdam. Great. It's a mecca for drug use holidays (which Holland is taking measures to curb), so Amsterdam is far different than every other place in Holland. You cannot carry, sell or distribute any drugs period. They consider small amounts of "soft drugs" (as their described in their laws) permissible. That's it.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

No one has died from opiate withdrawal

http://americanaddictioncenters.org/...risk-of-death/

When done cold turkey, opiate withdrawal can be deadly. If nothing else you can die of dehydration.

The biggest issue is after reaching a certain point in withdrawal where the addict gives in and does the drug (which happens in most cases). The user has less of an immunity to the drug so it's easier for them to OD on it.

Essentially it sounds next to impossible to quit the drug on your own when severely addicted. Just watch the documentary and it says it all. The one guy has 30k waiting for him at home when he gets clean. Yet he doesn't believe there is any way to get clean without the treatment program that he can't get into for 2-3 months.