Languish.org

I was just wondering just how many pot heads we have here.

Obviously people can answer however they like, but what I have in mind for "I use marijuana" is if you've used in within the last few months or so.  I'm not trying to judge anyone on how frequently you use it.

"Used to use it" is meant to capture those who maybe used it in college or when younger, but haven't touched it in a long time.

As for legal / illegal, I mean just that - can you openly purchase and possess marijuana.  If it is merely decriminalized it is still illegal.

And I said "used it" in order to capture all different forms - it includes smoking it, edibles, concentrates and the like.

It is illegal where I am now...has been legal in places I've been (Alaska/Washington)...but always illegal for me due to employment status.

Never used it...never had a desire to use.  Pretty certain I'd never smoke it, even after I retire (and in a place where it is legal).  Would I try it in brownie/baked good form sometime in the future when legally allowed to...maybe?   I don't think I'd ever go out of my way to obtain it, but might sample if I were offered it (and thought I was in a "safe" situation to do so). 

It's legal.

I haven't used in ~15 years.

i used it a bit in high school when it was illegal. don't do it now. i can't handle it. it doesn't make me paranoid, but it's like I dissociate. i also lose track of time.

It's illegal and I don't betray the law.

I have quasi-used it within the past several months and it is illegal where I live.*

*Specifically, I've used Delta-8 THC, which is, in KY, technically 'not illegal'. :sleep:

illegal and never used it. No desire to use it either.

"Private consumption" is legal. Growing it for distribution, or using in public, is not.

Haven't used in 5 years or so.

Legal where I live. Used it a few time in the last millenium and didn't find it particularly compelling.

Legal where I live (and have lived) for the last four years. I don't enjoy smoking it (I have asthma), so I don't do that. But I do have gummies that I use when I'm dealing with extreme anxiety or having trouble sleeping. So maybe once every month or so? In the last year, I've had half a gummy maybe six times? Even less frequent before that.

I don't like smoking, never used it. It is "illegal" despite pot smoking being Austin's unofficial pastime.

Though my wife certainly stocked up when we went to Colorado in late December :P

Never used.  I'm very boring.  Also the Psychiatrist said it might cause permeant psychosis.


EDIT: that doesn't mean I want it to remain illegal. Time to end the drug war.

Shockingly, I'm in the "it's legal but I've never used it" club.

It's only been legal for a couple of years.  I guess I'm at the point where if it was in the absolute perfect setting I might try an edible, but it would have have to be a setting where I'm with other people but not around my kids.  And I have no idea when that would ever happen.

Still illegal here. Owning enough for private consumption is not punished here, but police will still confiscate.

I have tried it a handful times in my youth, but not in the last decade. No interest either.

Tried it a few times decades ago, didn't do anything for me and I find the smell unpleasant.

I thought we had more potheads around here.

Although Yi hasn't checked in yet.  :ph34r:

Illegal and used to use it. Never a massive fan but I had friends who were huge potheads.

If it was legal and you just get it in the supermarket I'd probably indulge a little.

I've noticed in the UK that while the MJ is illegal, hemp products are pretty ubiquitous.

I find that I have to check ingredients rather carefully, as it slips into a lot of things.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 20, 2021, 11:43:54 AM
EDIT: that doesn't mean I want it to remain illegal. Time to end the drug war.

Yeah. Sure wish Biden and the right wing Democrats agreed.

Though I haven't totally lost hope. It is a potential winning move for 2022.

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2021, 11:45:41 AM
Shockingly, I'm in the "it's legal but I've never used it" club.

It's only been legal for a couple of years.  I guess I'm at the point where if it was in the absolute perfect setting I might try an edible, but it would have have to be a setting where I'm with other people but not around my kids.  And I have no idea when that would ever happen.

What's holding you back? i mean i don't expect you to go out there and become a hippie, or anything, but you seem way too cautious. Still a stigma in the prosecutors world?

Quote from: HVC on April 20, 2021, 12:13:35 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2021, 11:45:41 AM
Shockingly, I'm in the "it's legal but I've never used it" club.

It's only been legal for a couple of years.  I guess I'm at the point where if it was in the absolute perfect setting I might try an edible, but it would have have to be a setting where I'm with other people but not around my kids.  And I have no idea when that would ever happen.

What's holding you back? i mean i don't expect you to go out there and become a hippie, or anything, but you seem way too cautious. Still a stigma in the prosecutors world?

Not really - there are almost certainly some of my colleagues who use it.  But yeah it's not really discussed openly - I've never heard anyone say "yeah I can't wait to go home and smoke a bowl".

I kind of covered it above.  I would want someone else to be present in case I react badly to it, but I wouldn't want to be acting all stoned in front of my kids.

Like Meri I use it occasionally, it's legal here in licensed shops or to grow for personal use.  I don't smoke, 2 nasty bouts of bronchitis in my 20s ended that for me.  Mostly I use it every now and then to help sleep after those fun days.  I find it to be similar in experience to being slightly drunk.

I would guess I wouldn't use it if I had other reactions, I know paranoia can be associated with it.

Back in the day I'd take a hit if a joint was offered. Pretty sure it was illegal back then, but nobody gave a fuck. Hell I've seen my friends snort coke in broad daylight in front of a cop car and they didn't even bother to give them a warning.

I have known guys who had mental health issues after a lot of smoking, but they were doing all sorts of stuff as well. My take is drugs seem to exacerbate whatever issues you have.

Quote from: Iormlund on April 20, 2021, 12:48:26 PM
Back in the day I'd take a hit if a joint was offered. Pretty sure it was illegal back then, but nobody gave a fuck. Hell I've seen my friends snort coke in broad daylight in front of a cop car and they didn't even bother to give them a warning.

I have known guys who had mental health issues after a lot of smoking, but they were doing all sorts of stuff as well. My take is drugs seem to exacerbate whatever issues you have.

Drugs mix very badly with mental health issues.

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2021, 11:51:39 AM
I thought we had more potheads around here.

Although Yi hasn't checked in yet.  :ph34r:

Also, Malthus

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2021, 12:50:42 PM

Quote from: Iormlund on April 20, 2021, 12:48:26 PM
Back in the day I'd take a hit if a joint was offered. Pretty sure it was illegal back then, but nobody gave a fuck. Hell I've seen my friends snort coke in broad daylight in front of a cop car and they didn't even bother to give them a warning.

I have known guys who had mental health issues after a lot of smoking, but they were doing all sorts of stuff as well. My take is drugs seem to exacerbate whatever issues you have.

Drugs mix very badly with mental health issues.

Yeah you probably shouldn't do them.

But you know what mixes even worse with mental health issues? Prison.

Champions don't use drugs to stay out of gaol.

69 420 hehehehe

Quote from: Valmy on April 20, 2021, 12:52:23 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2021, 12:50:42 PM

Quote from: Iormlund on April 20, 2021, 12:48:26 PM
Back in the day I'd take a hit if a joint was offered. Pretty sure it was illegal back then, but nobody gave a fuck. Hell I've seen my friends snort coke in broad daylight in front of a cop car and they didn't even bother to give them a warning.

I have known guys who had mental health issues after a lot of smoking, but they were doing all sorts of stuff as well. My take is drugs seem to exacerbate whatever issues you have.

Drugs mix very badly with mental health issues.

Yeah you probably shouldn't do them.

But you know what mixes even worse with mental health issues? Prison.

What are you implying here?

None of these really apply to me.
It's illegal and I don't really use it but it's also not accurate to say I used to use it. Depends which friends I'm hanging out with, albeit not for a while what with lockdown and those friends being elsewhere.

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2021, 01:07:07 PM

Quote from: Valmy on April 20, 2021, 12:52:23 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2021, 12:50:42 PM

Quote from: Iormlund on April 20, 2021, 12:48:26 PM
Back in the day I'd take a hit if a joint was offered. Pretty sure it was illegal back then, but nobody gave a fuck. Hell I've seen my friends snort coke in broad daylight in front of a cop car and they didn't even bother to give them a warning.

I have known guys who had mental health issues after a lot of smoking, but they were doing all sorts of stuff as well. My take is drugs seem to exacerbate whatever issues you have.

Drugs mix very badly with mental health issues.

Yeah you probably shouldn't do them.

But you know what mixes even worse with mental health issues? Prison.

What are you implying here?

I think that's clear...that putting people with mental health issues in prison is worse than them being on drugs.

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2021, 12:17:36 PM

Quote from: HVC on April 20, 2021, 12:13:35 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2021, 11:45:41 AM
Shockingly, I'm in the "it's legal but I've never used it" club.

It's only been legal for a couple of years.  I guess I'm at the point where if it was in the absolute perfect setting I might try an edible, but it would have have to be a setting where I'm with other people but not around my kids.  And I have no idea when that would ever happen.

What's holding you back? i mean i don't expect you to go out there and become a hippie, or anything, but you seem way too cautious. Still a stigma in the prosecutors world?

Not really - there are almost certainly some of my colleagues who use it.  But yeah it's not really discussed openly - I've never heard anyone say "yeah I can't wait to go home and smoke a bowl".

I kind of covered it above.  I would want someone else to be present in case I react badly to it, but I wouldn't want to be acting all stoned in front of my kids.

Do you use alcohol?

Alcohol is proven to cause worse behaviour. Basically, other than the bad health effects that come from smoking anything, alcohol is worse in every way as a drug - short term and long term, in behaviour, and in addiction potential. By any objective measure, alcohol really ought to be classified with the "hard" drugs, while pot should not be. The current ranking of the regulation of drugs is largely based on culture, not on scientifically proven risks. Drugs long familiar to our society (like booze and tobacco) get ranked less harmful for regulatory purposes than they actually are.

I used to smoke pot. I don't any more, except occasionally - I worry about the health effects of smoking anything.

I have tried it, have never used it habitually (voted used to use).

Quote from: Malthus on April 20, 2021, 02:10:41 PM
Do you use alcohol?

Alcohol is proven to cause worse behaviour. Basically, other than the bad health effects that come from smoking anything, alcohol is worse in every way as a drug - short term and long term, in behaviour, and in addiction potential. By any objective measure, alcohol really ought to be classified with the "hard" drugs, while pot should not be. The current ranking of the regulation of drugs is largely based on culture, not on scientifically proven risks. Drugs long familiar to our society (like booze and tobacco) get ranked less harmful for regulatory purposes than they actually are.

I used to smoke pot. I don't any more, except occasionally - I worry about the health effects of smoking anything.

You're acting as if the effects of alcohol and drugs on people's health and behaviour wasn't a massive part of my career for the last 20 years.

I agree with everything you're saying.  What I don't understand is what it has to do with what I said.

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2021, 02:40:16 PM

I agree with everything you're saying.  What I don't understand is what it has to do with what I said.

Well, I've heard the same sentiment before, and I always thought it odd.

Most people I know have no difficulty having a few beers or glasses of wine in the backyard, with their kids playing right there. The very same people will say they don't want to smoke in front of the kids, because they don't want their kids to see them stoned.

Yet as you know, alcohol makes the average person behave far worse that pot does. So why not express the same reluctance to have the kids see them drunk?

I think the difference is that there is still simply a greater cultural acceptance of casual drinking. It isn't seen as 'drug taking'.

Quote from: Malthus on April 20, 2021, 03:38:38 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2021, 02:40:16 PM

I agree with everything you're saying.  What I don't understand is what it has to do with what I said.

Well, I've heard the same sentiment before, and I always thought it odd.

Most people I know have no difficulty having a few beers or glasses of wine in the backyard, with their kids playing right there. The very same people will say they don't want to smoke in front of the kids, because they don't want their kids to see them stoned.

Yet as you know, alcohol makes the average person behave far worse that pot does. So why not express the same reluctance to have the kids see them drunk?

I think the difference is that there is still simply a greater cultural acceptance of casual drinking. It isn't seen as 'drug taking'.

I certainly do not want my kids to see me drunk either!  But I have a good understanding of how alcohol effects in and in what amounts.

It has more to do with I have no idea how cannabis would effect me, as I've never had it before.

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2021, 11:51:39 AM
I thought we had more potheads around here.

Although Yi hasn't checked in yet.  :ph34r:

:o I'm surrounded by squares!

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2021, 03:44:37 PM
:o I'm surrounded by squares!

I'll try to do better, I am in Santa Cruz after all.

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2021, 01:07:07 PM

Quote from: Valmy on April 20, 2021, 12:52:23 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2021, 12:50:42 PM

Quote from: Iormlund on April 20, 2021, 12:48:26 PM
Back in the day I'd take a hit if a joint was offered. Pretty sure it was illegal back then, but nobody gave a fuck. Hell I've seen my friends snort coke in broad daylight in front of a cop car and they didn't even bother to give them a warning.

I have known guys who had mental health issues after a lot of smoking, but they were doing all sorts of stuff as well. My take is drugs seem to exacerbate whatever issues you have.

Drugs mix very badly with mental health issues.

Yeah you probably shouldn't do them.

But you know what mixes even worse with mental health issues? Prison.

What are you implying here?

That I think we need to end the drug war in the United States.

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2021, 11:02:09 AM
I was just wondering just how many pot heads we have here.

Obviously people can answer however they like, but what I have in mind for "I use marijuana" is if you've used in within the last few months or so.  I'm not trying to judge anyone on how frequently you use it.

"Used to use it" is meant to capture those who maybe used it in college or when younger, but haven't touched it in a long time.

As for legal / illegal, I mean just that - can you openly purchase and possess marijuana.  If it is merely decriminalized it is still illegal.

And I said "used it" in order to capture all different forms - it includes smoking it, edibles, concentrates and the like.

Legal and never used directly.  I inhaled, once, from people standing beside me at a Megadeth show.  Was enough to convince me it's shit.  It should still be illegal though, while we're trying to reduce the dependency to tobacco, it's just silly to legalize and promote something just as dangerous if not more.

But what's done is done.

:lol:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2021, 03:44:37 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2021, 11:51:39 AM
I thought we had more potheads around here.

Although Yi hasn't checked in yet.  :ph34r:

:o I'm surrounded by squares!

I did tell you guys about the time I got high as fuck off of medicinal cocaine though right?  :ph34r:

Tried hashish a few times back in the Precambrian. I love a good New Years' cigar, wine in good company, beer with mates but those are fairly intermittent occaisions for me.

Fuck it, once I don't want to work anymore I'll want to try psychedelics with Malthus. :hmm:

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2021, 03:42:43 PM

I certainly do not want my kids to see me drunk either!  But I have a good understanding of how alcohol effects in and in what amounts.

It has more to do with I have no idea how cannabis would effect me, as I've never had it before.

Fair enough.

Though smoking titrates somewhat like booze does (as in, having a beer at the backyard barbecue isn't exactly the same as getting raging drunk; likewise, smoking a little bit won't make you instantly into Cheech and Chong).

In short, it is possible to do each in such a way as to not scare the kids ... though I can understand not wanting to do it for the very first time with the kids around.

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2021, 04:09:02 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2021, 03:44:37 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2021, 11:51:39 AM
I thought we had more potheads around here.

Although Yi hasn't checked in yet.  :ph34r:

:o I'm surrounded by squares!

I did tell you guys about the time I got high as fuck off of medicinal cocaine though right?  :ph34r:

no, you didn't.  spill the beans, now!

Quote from: Legbiter on April 20, 2021, 04:15:48 PM
Tried hashish a few times back in the Precambrian. I love a good New Years' cigar, wine in good company, beer with mates but those are fairly intermittent occaisions for me.

Fuck it, once I don't want to work anymore I'll want to try psychedelics with Malthus. :hmm:

To be sure, Iceland would be a pretty awesome setting.

Illegal, never. 

Everyone in the US who answered "legal" is technically incorrect, btw.  At most, legal and illegal simultaneously under state and federal law.

Quote from: ulmont on April 20, 2021, 07:27:40 PM
Everyone in the US who answered "legal" is technically incorrect, btw.  At most, legal and illegal simultaneously under state and federal law.

I did a little bit of reading about federal possession and consumption laws, and to my addled brain it seemed they only applied on federal property or in federal buildings.

Now I understand this an entirely academic issue because the DEA is not going to swoop in and arrest me for lighting up outside the Regal Beagle, but I'm curious if anyone can confirm or deny my understanding.

I have not used it.

However, I did take Marinol, a synthetic THC drug that was prescribed when I was getting cancer treatment. I hated it. It was a surreal out of body experience and I refused to take it again.

Recreational use of marijuana should be legal.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 20, 2021, 08:06:30 PM
I have not used it.

However, I did take Marinol, a synthetic THC drug that was prescribed when I was getting cancer treatment. I hated it. It was a surreal out of body experience and I refused to take it again.

Recreational use of marijuana should be legal.

Probably depersonalization.  You get used to it after a while.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2021, 07:35:35 PM
I did a little bit of reading about federal possession and consumption laws, and to my addled brain it seemed they only applied on federal property or in federal buildings.

Now I understand this an entirely academic issue because the DEA is not going to swoop in and arrest me for lighting up outside the Regal Beagle, but I'm curious if anyone can confirm or deny my understanding.

Nah.  "On federal property or in federal buildings" is where the federal government often has general criminal jurisdiction - in particular, the former is where you see crimes like assault being federal crimes - but the crime of possession of a controlled substance is a federal crime under 21 USC 844 regardless of where it happens.

For example:

QuoteOf the 2,149 marijuana simple possession offenders [in FY2013], the vast majority, 91.5 percent, were arrested at or near that [US/Mexico] border. The second most frequent location of arrest was at military bases (3.6%), though clearly to a substantially lesser extent than at the border. National parks accounted for 2.8 percent of the arrests and the remaining four locations identified in the coding [***Non-Federal Land***, Indian Country, Federal Building, and U.S. Highway] accounted for less than one percent each.

https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2016/201609_Simple-Possession.pdf

Marijuana is not a serious political issue in Hong Kong.  It is treated on par with any other drug like heroin.  You don't want to be caught with marijuana in Hong Kong. 

Quote from: Monoriu on April 20, 2021, 10:50:39 PM
Marijuana is not a serious political issue in Hong Kong.  It is treated on par with any other drug like heroin.  You don't want to be caught with marijuana in Hong Kong. 

I hear China actually has a Goddess of Cannabis named Magu. That sounds like a religion that would really take off among certain populations in this country.

Why is Hong Kong so against freedom of religion :( I blame the British Imperialists -_-  :bowler:

Never smoked anything, just didn't interest me in the slightest.
And because cannabis was legal it also didn't have the thrill factor of doing something illegal.

In Finland it's illegal, but there are increasing calls for legalization (mainly from the Green Party). I've never used it, but if it's legalized, I might try just to see what it's like.

Never used it. It's still illegal here. Mary Hawkins Hitler, the mayor of Madison, Mississippi (since 1985) filed suit to prevent the state initiative authorizing medical marijuana from taking effect. Fuck that dried up old hag. End the drug war.

I used to smoke pot A LOT. I remember being 16 or so the first time. At a friend's, listening to Pink Floyd. It was hash oil, which was big back in the 80s, and I remember feeling as though I was in a bubble floating through the stereo's speakers. I smoked through college, and I'd say my big smoking years, that is almost every night, happened between 19-24. By my late 20s I was stopping and pretty much gave it up completely by the time I was 30 in the mid 90s.. About 5 years ago I met a group of old friends, one was an ex roomie I smoked a lot with at college. We were at a bar and he was going out to smoke a joint, and asked me if I wanted to join him. It had been around 20 years or so, but I said sure. It was a weird high. That was the one and only time since the mid 90s.

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2021, 03:42:43 PMI certainly do not want my kids to see me drunk either!  But I have a good understanding of how alcohol effects in and in what amounts.

It has more to do with I have no idea how cannabis would effect me, as I've never had it before.

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the optics or the lessons it teaches for me to be blitzed in front of my kids. I was a big drinker in my day but now I won't do anything more than a couple glasses of wine or a few cook out beers in front of the kids. Pre-Covid I'd go on cabin trips and fishing trips with friends and my wife would stay home with the kids, I was more than happy to get wasted drunk on those outings.

As for MJ--in my 20s I was big into the partying culture and that included casual drug use, for me much more coke than anything else (and booze), I would smoke MJ very occasionally when it was offered. It's never been the drug for me, when I was inclined to degeneracy I liked feeling up and alive, not drowsy and sedate. That being said it will be legal here in a few months, I could see myself trying it out as a sleep aid. I'm a lifelong sufferer of insomnia and don't take prescription sleep meds because I've used them in the past and don't like their side effects, and also fear dependence and other issues on them. I've heard great things about pot for sleeping, so I might buy some edibles when it's legal and try taking them before bed (which would alleviate any concerns I'd have about being high around the kids since they'll be long asleep.)

Quote from: Josephus on April 21, 2021, 10:29:15 AM
I used to smoke pot A LOT. I remember being 16 or so the first time. At a friend's, listening to Pink Floyd. It was hash oil, which was big back in the 80s, and I remember feeling as though I was in a bubble floating through the stereo's speakers. I smoked through college, and I'd say my big smoking years, that is almost every night, happened between 19-24. By my late 20s I was stopping and pretty much gave it up completely by the time I was 30 in the mid 90s.. About 5 years ago I met a group of old friends, one was an ex roomie I smoked a lot with at college. We were at a bar and he was going out to smoke a joint, and asked me if I wanted to join him. It had been around 20 years or so, but I said sure. It was a weird high. That was the one and only time since the mid 90s.

i've been told, but don't have much of a reference point, that pots gotten much stronger.

The stuff now does seem stronger, but then most of what I partook in back in the day was grown in closets of dorm rooms with less than precise techniques...or it was South Dakota Ditch Weed.

My stoner buddy talks about growing up smoking "brick."  Mexican weed, leaves and stems and stems and all, shmooshed into a brick.  He said it took some work to get high off it.

Quote from: Valmy on April 20, 2021, 11:00:38 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on April 20, 2021, 10:50:39 PM
Marijuana is not a serious political issue in Hong Kong.  It is treated on par with any other drug like heroin.  You don't want to be caught with marijuana in Hong Kong. 

I hear China actually has a Goddess of Cannabis named Magu. That sounds like a religion that would really take off among certain populations in this country.

Why is Hong Kong so against freedom of religion :( I blame the British Imperialists -_-  :bowler:

Thugs are against freedom of religion just like they are against any other kinds of freedoms (except for themselves).

Quote from: HVC on April 21, 2021, 01:23:26 PM
i've been told, but don't have much of a reference point, that pots gotten much stronger.

It is. At least in my experience. Like PDH, I used to use Iowa Ditch Weed in college, which was pretty mild compared to what you can get today in a dispensary.

Quote from: Malthus on April 20, 2021, 03:38:38 PM
Most people I know have no difficulty having a few beers or glasses of wine in the backyard, with their kids playing right there. The very same people will say they don't want to smoke in front of the kids, because they don't want their kids to see them stoned.

When you smoke, your kids smoke with you.

Quote
Yet as you know, alcohol makes the average person behave far worse that pot does. So why not express the same reluctance to have the kids see them drunk?

Right.  First off, that is totally false.  Secundo, you do know that people drink socially, right?  I mean without excess, just to enjoy the taste.  Contrary to pot users who want to get high as fast as possible.
Tertio, the majority of stoners are that, stoners.  The majority of alcohol consumers aren't alcoholics.

Quote
I think the difference is that there is still simply a greater cultural acceptance of casual drinking. It isn't seen as 'drug taking'.

And it ain't, in small quantity.  But not many parents will drink to excess in front of their kids, or in front of kids.  I've been drunk many times (the goold ol' times ;) ), but never in front of kids.  While I drink at family gatherings, it's never to excess.  And most people are just like that.  And I certainly don't pass out from excessive drinking if I need to watch over children, even teens.

Quote from: viper37 on April 23, 2021, 02:40:18 PM

Quote from: Malthus on April 20, 2021, 03:38:38 PM
Most people I know have no difficulty having a few beers or glasses of wine in the backyard, with their kids playing right there. The very same people will say they don't want to smoke in front of the kids, because they don't want their kids to see them stoned.

When you smoke, your kids smoke with you.

No more than my kids (as children) were allowed to drink with me.

Quote

Quote
Yet as you know, alcohol makes the average person behave far worse that pot does. So why not express the same reluctance to have the kids see them drunk?

Right.  First off, that is totally false.  Secundo, you do know that people drink socially, right?  I mean without excess, just to enjoy the taste.  Contrary to pot users who want to get high as fast as possible.
Tertio, the majority of stoners are that, stoners.  The majority of alcohol consumers aren't alcoholics.

That is not at all true. I know plenty of casual weed users. I'm one of them. I might have half a gummy once a month, if that.

Quote

Quote
I think the difference is that there is still simply a greater cultural acceptance of casual drinking. It isn't seen as 'drug taking'.

And it ain't, in small quantity.  But not many parents will drink to excess in front of their kids, or in front of kids.  I've been drunk many times (the goold ol' times ;) ), but never in front of kids.  While I drink at family gatherings, it's never to excess.  And most people are just like that.  And I certainly don't pass out from excessive drinking if I need to watch over children, even teens.

You've bought into the whole "drugs are evil" message from the 80s, and it shows. Marijuana is no worse than alcohol and far better for you than cigarettes. It does, however, have a stigma which you've accepted as fact. Malthus is right. The only reason it's a big deal when parents smoke pot in front of their kids is because the war on drugs has made it a big deal. My children's generation will be completely lost on why this is a big deal today.

Quote from: merithyn on April 23, 2021, 03:39:37 PM
No more than my kids (as children) were allowed to drink with me.

If they are in the house, worst in the same room, they will inhale your smoke.  Not so with a drink.

Quote
That is not at all true. I know plenty of casual weed users. I'm one of them. I might have half a gummy once a month, if that.

I don't even know what's a gummy :P

Fine, they may exist.  They may even be more numerous thank pink unicorns. :P  But they still aren't the majority.

Quote
Marijuana is no worse than alcohol and far better for you than cigarettes.

For the lungs, it's slightly better than tobacco.  For the brain, it's worst.

Quote
It does, however, have a stigma which you've accepted as fact.

Personal experience + scientific studies.

QuoteMalthus is right.

Malthus has used to much of the stuff over the years, he can't be trusted to be impartial :P

A gummy is a soft candy with weed in it.

Maybe you've seen Gummy Bear candies?

Quote from: viper37 on April 23, 2021, 02:40:18 PMwhen you smoke, your kids smoke with you.

Responsible smokers don't smoke up their kids, either on purpose or second hand. So no.

Quote
Right.  First off, that is totally false.

You are probably wrong. Alcohol is worse for people in every way:

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/alcohol-marijuana-which-worse-health-2017-11%3famp

In terms of behaviour, there is no comparison - alcohol is widely associated with violence, as it lowers inhibitions against violent behaviour. Pot is not associated with increased violence.

Quote
  Secundo, you do know that people drink socially, right?  I mean without excess, just to enjoy the taste.  Contrary to pot users who want to get high as fast as possible.
Tertio, the majority of stoners are that, stoners.  The majority of alcohol consumers aren't alcoholics.

People certainly smoke socially, not just to get totally wasted. Basing your stereotype of smokers on teens who binge smoke makes exactly as much sense as basing your stereotype of drinkers on teens who binge drink. Neither is the only way the drug is consumed.

Last time I smoked pot was last summer. I was at a friend's summer cabin. Our wives and kids were up at the cabin, we were down at the lake poking sticks into a fire at night, and we had a joint. We later went up to the cabin and played bridge.

QuoteAnd it ain't, in small quantity.  But not many parents will drink to excess in front of their kids, or in front of kids.  I've been drunk many times (the goold ol' times ;) ), but never in front of kids.  While I drink at family gatherings, it's never to excess.  And most people are just like that.  And I certainly don't pass out from excessive drinking if I need to watch over children, even teens.

Yes, and responsible pot smokers are - get this - exactly the same: they don't get completely stoned when the kids are around, no matter what they may have done in their wild youth. Is that so surprising?

The difference is that booze is a lot worse, on average - more addictive, more associated with family violence and a leading cause of death. The "on average" is the important part, obviously it is easily possible to be a responsible drinker.

If the stigma about drugs were based on rational fact, the stigma would be a hell of a lot worse for drinking than pot smoking - but of course it isn't.

Even the biggest pot heads I know are fully capable of going most of the week without lighting up. I've only ever know one guy who seemed to have a genuine addiction that was messing with his life.
Alcohol on the other hand... Go to any bar in the land and you'll find problem alcoholics. I've known a bunch of people with alcoholism.
And this goes beyond anecdotes. On a scientific level and in terms of hard numbers alcohol is far more addictive.
The science just isn't there for cannabis being worse than alcohol.

In Anglo lands, alcohol is seen both as way more dangerous than in wine countries (Prohibition...), where wine drunk in reasonable quantity (25cl for a man for instance) is part of the meal. Binge drinking is now becoming common, but not so much with wine, more with cheap, strong beer, drunk in great quantities, say 8.6% (but not Trappist triple beers for some reason) or cheap liquor, the real problem.
Of course, more often than not, it's not XO cognac that is problematic, old grand-bourgeois notwithstanding (your kilométrage may vary though).

So you can spin pot as being not so dangerous. Pot driving or drunk driving gets the same result however.
Plus there is the whole tasting aspect of wine, beer or even liquor which is completely absent of pot, where the only thing that counts is the effect, not the taste. So not really comparable.

In Portugal, drug taking is depenalised for Portuguese citizens, sorry foreigners.
France, in theory criminalises pot smoking but the law is not really enforced. Macron suggested giving tickets instead of the theoretical misdemeanor.

As for me, smoking pot would have meant dealing with pot dealer scum sooner or later, so it was never really palatable. Not to mention the product is often cut with God/Allah knows what.
Some legalization as in Uruguay or the Portuguese approach would be fine.

PS: potheads I knew could not pass a single day without a joint, starting when they get up. In comparison, having a glass of beer or wine at breakfast, puts you firmly in alcoholic territory (trembling hand etc.).

Quote from: Malthus on April 23, 2021, 07:21:10 PM
Responsible smokers don't smoke up their kids, either on purpose or second hand. So no.

Sure.And if everyone was responsible, there wouldn't even be a pandemic right now :P
It's like saying we don't need gun control at all because responsible gun owners keep it under lock&key and don't go out on a shooting spree.

Quote
In terms of behaviour, there is no comparison - alcohol is widely associated with violence, as it lowers inhibitions against violent behaviour. Pot is not associated with increased violence.

Only works for alcoholics.

Quote
People certainly smoke socially, not just to get totally wasted. Basing your stereotype of smokers on teens who binge smoke makes exactly as much sense as basing your stereotype of drinkers on teens who binge drink. Neither is the only way the drug is consumed.

color me skeptical.

Quote
Last time I smoked pot was last summer. I was at a friend's summer cabin. Our wives and kids were up at the cabin, we were down at the lake poking sticks into a fire at night, and we had a joint. We later went up to the cabin and played bridge.

no sane individual under 70 would play bridge, so you made my point :P

Quote
Yes, and responsible pot smokers are - get this - exactly the same: they don't get completely stoned when the kids are around, no matter what they may have done in their wild youth. Is that so surprising?

Yes, it is.

Quote
The difference is that booze is a lot worse, on average - more addictive, more associated with family violence and a leading cause of death. The "on average" is the important part, obviously it is easily possible to be a responsible drinker.

If the stigma about drugs were based on rational fact, the stigma would be a hell of a lot worse for drinking than pot smoking - but of course it isn't.

Marijuana was barely studied, due to its illegalness.  As the product is more&more strudied, we see the adverse effects it has on brain development of teens, and the adverse effect on overall memory on adults.
It may be less adverse than smoking tobacco for your lungs, because you generally smoke less of it, but it is still linked with an increase in lung cancer.

The idea that marijuana has not been extensively studied because it is illegal is false, just as that sentiment is false for recreational opioids, cocaine, etc.  It has been extensively studied.  Its effects are not completely known, because THC is a complex molecule with a complex impact on humans (and marijuana has a host of other canniboids in lesser amounts).

Studies have shown it to be less harmful than almost any other harmful drug, but it is still harmful.  It can be addictive, it can lead to reduced verbal skills when regularly imbibed during development, and its effects on any given person are hard to predict.  Two of its more harmful aspects are that (1) it isn't well-regulated in terms of quality and effect (much  worse where illegal, of course) and (2) the average person has little knowledge of its actual effects on things like driving, or dosage relevance, etc. (also clearly worse where illegal).

While certainly it is true that alcohol is a more harmful substance, the fact that alcohol is worse doesn't eliminate the dangers of marijuana.  I favor marijuana legalization not because I think that marijuana is a delightful substance that everyone should at least be allowed to try, or because I think it will make research easier, but because legalization will bring it out of the shadows and make it possible for people to find accurate information on its pros and cons, and allow the states to regulate its production and distribution.  The only argument against legalization that I really see as honest is the one that says that vices are evil - and my response t that is that people who argue that should abstain, and let others choose to abstain or not.

Its legal and I smoke lots of marijuana

Anecdotally, the main dangers of pot are that smoking anything is bad for your lungs, and that in my experience excessive use can lead to a sort of dullness of behaviour - heavy potheads tend to get stuck in a rut, not wanting to try anything new. I know the that it is alleged to be associated with some increase in mental problems in people prone to them, as well. Another danger is that potheads often don't think they are impaired, which is bad for driving etc.

All recreational drugs have risks, particularly with immoderate use. My point is that the actual risks were not historically reflected in legislation, which was based much more on cultural preferences. Assuming that the more harm a drug does, the more regulation it ought to attract, pot should be at the low end of the regulatory spectrum, and alcohol at the high end - but of course that would prove very unpopular with voters, who are attached to the use of alcohol. Prohibition was a notorious failure, after all (almost as much as the 'war on drugs').

Hell, I'd be fine legalizing almost all drugs.  Meth is a terrible drug and there isn't really any upside to taking it, but if it was legal people who are addicted to it may be more likely to seek out help.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 24, 2021, 07:49:30 PM
Hell, I'd be fine legalizing almost all drugs.  Meth is a terrible drug and there isn't really any upside to taking it, but if it was legal people who are addicted to it may be more likely to seek out help.

Legalised drugs would at least have a more consistent strength and quality. There would be far fewer overdoses for example.

It would be far better to treat addictions as illnesses than to criminalise use...but we have said this so many times before.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 25, 2021, 02:50:21 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 24, 2021, 07:49:30 PM
Hell, I'd be fine legalizing almost all drugs.  Meth is a terrible drug and there isn't really any upside to taking it, but if it was legal people who are addicted to it may be more likely to seek out help.

Legalised drugs would at least have a more consistent strength and quality. There would be far fewer overdoses for example.

It would be far better to treat addictions as illnesses than to criminalise use...but we have said this so many times before.

I don't know if that is entirely true. 

For example, even if legal, I doubt there will be a big scramble to produce "commercial/legal" meth as there has been with marijuana..it would probably be mostly small, fly-by-night companies that would skirt the regulatory edge.

And even if you heavily regulate/tax the now legal drugs...doing those both strictly enough will enable a significant homemade black market to still persist.

Thinking about it isn't Canada's black market in cannabis still really large? Something similar would probably happen with other drugs  :(

I still have no conception why people would start on meth or injecting themselves with heroin. People losing control over an alcohol, pot or cocaine habit I can see....could happen to anyone  :P
But why even start with such horrible drugs, I find it baffling  :hmm:

Quote from: Razgovory on April 24, 2021, 07:49:30 PM
Hell, I'd be fine legalizing almost all drugs.  Meth is a terrible drug and there isn't really any upside to taking it, but if it was legal people who are addicted to it may be more likely to seek out help.

I'd agree in theory... Though maybe not with e.g. Meth. Doesn't it just exist due to the inaccessibility and expense of cocaine?

Quote from: Tyr on April 25, 2021, 05:12:25 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 24, 2021, 07:49:30 PM
Hell, I'd be fine legalizing almost all drugs.  Meth is a terrible drug and there isn't really any upside to taking it, but if it was legal people who are addicted to it may be more likely to seek out help.

I'd agree in theory... Though maybe not with e.g. Meth. Doesn't it just exist due to the inaccessibility and expense of cocaine?

I'm not sure.  I don't think I'd let people sell it, it's like suicide in crystal form, but I don't want a situation where someone won't seek help because they fear legal repercussions.

I used to oppose drug legalization, back when I had a stick up my ass and I thought of only obeying the law, but I've shifted pretty far away from that position.

Quote from: Tonitrus on April 25, 2021, 03:55:34 AM
I don't know if that is entirely true. 

For example, even if legal, I doubt there will be a big scramble to produce "commercial/legal" meth as there has been with marijuana..it would probably be mostly small, fly-by-night companies that would skirt the regulatory edge.

And even if you heavily regulate/tax the now legal drugs...doing those both strictly enough will enable a significant homemade black market to still persist.

Maybe. With pot a legal market has developed pretty quickly - and I know several very established big American/global law firms advertising their expertise in advising cannabis companies.

It's pretty surprising how quickly it's gone like htat.

Sure, but I think a lot of people have this idea of a "legalize and tax" panacea, that I don't think is really true.

I agree the situation will probably be better than the status quo...but if you keep high taxes and regulation on it, there will still be a robust underground market.

Shoot, there is a still a robust trade in bootlegging untaxed/counterfeit tobacco cigarettes between US states (or from outside the US).

It certainly isn't a panacea and there will be downsides.  You'll see an increase consumption and with that you'll see increases in accidents, addictions and overdoses.  Cartels won't go away over night, they'll focus on other sources of revenue.  There will be unforeseen consequences. Still, I think it would be worth it.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 25, 2021, 05:04:17 AM
Thinking about it isn't Canada's black market in cannabis still really large? Something similar would probably happen with other drugs  :(

Canada's continuing black market, so I am told, is largely due to the odd fact that the regulated stuff tended to be of lower quality and higher cost than the black market stuff. This is not expected to continue into the future, though.

Quote

I still have no conception why people would start on meth or injecting themselves with heroin. People losing control over an alcohol, pot or cocaine habit I can see....could happen to anyone  :P
But why even start with such horrible drugs, I find it baffling  :hmm:

With opiates, a part of the problem was caused by changes in pain management from a medical perspective. A story of the best of intentions gone wrong (and some skullduggery).

The basic story was this: in the 90s, there was a big shift in how pain was perceived in the medical community. Control of pain became a much more significant goal of medicine. Pain became known as the "fifth vital sign" health care professionals were supposed to look out for.

https://www.jointcommission.org/-/media/tjc/documents/resources/pain-management/pain_std_history_web_version_05122017pdf.pdf?db=web&hash=E7D12A5C3BE9DF031F3D8FE0D8509580

Unfortunately, this had a huge unintended consequence. Prescriptions for various forms of opioid skyrocketed. Some manufactures took advantage of this to promote their particular formulation as "non addictive" - they were lying. All opioids come with a risk of addiction.

Then it just became a numbers game. A certain percentage of those taking opioids legitimately, for pain management, became addicted. They started shopping for doctors willing to give them ever more of those marvellous pills. When their addiction got so severe they could not get "legitimate" prescriptions enough to fulfill them, they would have no choice but to go for the black market stuff - heroin and fentanyl.

Fentanyl is the real killer. It is cheap and way more potent than heroin. Problem is that it is so potent, it is very easy to screw up the dosage and so overdose accidentally. Since it is cheaper than heroin, pushers mix it in to cut heroin to make more money ...

And that is how we are in the current mess.

Basic problem is this: we simply don't have any powerful drugs to manage pain, that also do not create a risk of addiction. If so one is in pain, we have a choice - give them pain medicine, and risk them getting addicted; or tell them to endure it as best they can.

Our current system has turned a lot of pain patients into addicts (and so, criminals).

True that.
Louis theroux did an excellent documentary on meth in a random town in West Virginia (iirc). A lot of addicts blamed proscription meds.
It is notable meth doesn't seem to be an issue at all outside the US :hmm:

I think it's a pretty big thing in Australia.

But yeah the only context I've heard about it in the UK is the very hardcore gay party scene.

Pain can be controlled.

The UK appears to have escaped this prescription opioid problem so far. I wonder if there are cultural factors at play or whether it will inevitably spread here?

One reason we watch the US so closely is that if some numpty blows up half his state in a gender-reveal party it is more or less guaranteed that someone will do it in the UK 6 years later  :lol:

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 25, 2021, 03:25:46 PM
The UK appears to have escaped this prescription opioid problem so far. I wonder if there are cultural factors at play or whether it will inevitably spread here?

More gatekeeping and rationing in healthcare is probably the biggest factor?

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 25, 2021, 03:36:04 PM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 25, 2021, 03:25:46 PM
The UK appears to have escaped this prescription opioid problem so far. I wonder if there are cultural factors at play or whether it will inevitably spread here?

More gatekeeping and rationing in healthcare is probably the biggest factor?

Yes, my suspicion is that there may be more acceptance of mediocre medical care and acceptance of unpleasant realities like pain....which in this case is actually helpful.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 25, 2021, 03:25:46 PM
The UK appears to have escaped this prescription opioid problem so far. I wonder if there are cultural factors at play or whether it will inevitably spread here?

I think it is less cultural and more about the healthcare system, marketing, and capitalism:

Quote from: article about Empire of Pain, a book about the Sackler familyFor decades, the Sackler family was known for its philanthropy and patronage of art galleries, museums and universities.

But bankrolling all that generosity was the family business for which the Sacklers have in recent years been in the headlines: Purdue Pharma, the company behind OxyContin, the drug considered at the heart of the opioid epidemic.

...

The opioid crisis has killed some 500,000 in the United States, and thousands in Canada, from both prescribed and illicit drugs. Last month, Purdue filed a restructuring plan to dissolve itself, while the Sackler family agreed to pay US$4.2 billion to resolve various civil claims.

For his book, Keefe takes a look at the family starting years before OxyContin was in development, when the patriarch Arthur Sackler and his two brothers began in pharmaceuticals, scoring their first big hit with the drug Valium and showing a particular marketing savvy.

"Arthur Sackler, the patriarch, he died before OxyContin was even created, but he was a pioneer in terms of how the drugs were marketed, and this was marketed directly to physicians," said Keefe.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/sackler-family-owners-of-company-behind-oxycontin-in-the-spotlight-in-new-book-1.5393453

Are NHS doctors allowed to have outside income?  I'm guessing the absence of pay to prescribe is a big part of it.

As in, I think one of the key drivers of the opiod crisis is that there was a massive pharmaceutical company that generated billions in profits by producing huge amounts of opiods that they actively marketed as a mass market product, while claiming that their products (like OxyContin) were not addictive (in spite, apparently, of having evidence that it is).

You can call that "cultural factors" but IMO that's a poor combination of capitalism and a series of regulatory failures.

Years back I used to work in an office where my desk had a view of a back alley in the heart of the Vancouver opiod crisis. A not particularly uncommon sight was seeing what looked like an average suburban mom scoring pills off of some dubious looking dealer.

I reckon that eventually the OxyContin becomes insufficient to feed the addiction so - out of desperation - people graduate on to injections, to heroin, and/ or to fentanyl. Not that OxyContin can't fuck you up by itself, of course.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 25, 2021, 04:00:32 PM
Are NHS doctors allowed to have outside income?  I'm guessing the absence of pay to prescribe is a big part of it.

They are but I believe it is fairly heavily regulated. There is no general advertising of prescription drugs in the mainstream media here either, so patients demanding the latest wonder pain-killer is unlikely.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 25, 2021, 04:06:05 PM
They are but I believe it is fairly heavily regulated. There is no general advertising of prescription drugs in the mainstream media here either, so patients demanding the latest wonder pain-killer is unlikely.

I'm not sure if the crisis was driven by marketing convincing consumers to request opioids on a wide scale, but rather by marketing (and incentives) to convince doctors to prescribe them on a wide scale.

I think the vector wasn't "I've heard these are the best pills, so I demanded them and now I'm addicted" but rather "the doctor prescribed me these pills and they're working pretty well, shit now I'm addicted."

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 25, 2021, 04:00:32 PM
Are NHS doctors allowed to have outside income?  I'm guessing the absence of pay to prescribe is a big part of it.

So I don't think pay to prescribe exists in the UK or medical advertising - which is always amazing when we watch American TV.

And it wouldn't really work even if it did because a doctor would still need to prescribe within NHS rules and if there was a spike in prescriptions it would be investigated (not least because they are generally subsidised by the NHS). Not sure about outside income - I don't think there'd be an issue with that, GPs are private sector but I imagine there'd be conflict of interest rules.

On the other hand I got plenty of codeine when I left hospital last year :lol:

When I had my wisdom teeth pulled they gave me two goddamn fixes. Had to go back for more.  :mad:

Doctors in the NHS are encouraged to prescribe cheap generics whenever possible https://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/epact2/dashboards-and-specifications/medicines-optimisation-generic-prescribing and, as sheilbh said, I don't think there is any real financial incentive for them to dish out drugs.

I was shocked, on my first visit to the USA, to see a barrage of political and drugs adverts when I switched on the TV.

The opioid crisis had a fairly well documented origin story in the United States. Before about the mid-90s, people here were generally not prescribed narcotics very much for chronic pain management. Serious opioids were primarily used in hospital settings to handle extreme, acute pain, for brief periods of time. While you could get prescriptions for things as powerful as morphine, it was not common and even less common that someone would have a long running, frequently refilled prescription for something that strong.

It was common after sending you home for surgery that you might be given a one time prescription of x number of days supply of something like codeine, hydrocodone (vicodin) or such. People with terminal illnesses the standards might be relaxed a bit.

Meanwhile there were indeed lots of people who had chronic pain issues. They largely had to get by with NSAIDs and rehab and other things, some of which worked and for some people they didn't work. It was generally understood powerful opioids were not appropriate for long term prescription (again, there has always been some level of people who were able to finagle a long term prescription for Vicodin or even morphine, but this was quite rare and usually involved questionable medical decisions.)

Then in 1995 Purdue Pharma comes out with OyxContin, which is delayed release Oxycodone ( a drug that had been synthesized some 80 years earlier.) Purdue basically marketed it as a "miracle drug" for chronic pain. They claimed that because the product was formulated in a delayed release, it would help a patient manage chronic pain and was much safer than regular opioids. Absolutely none of these claims were true in any real way. However in the initial years of the OxyContin deluge, a lot of people did consider it basically a miracle drug. People who had been beset with genuine, crippling, horrible and permanent pain suddenly were pain free.

However the inevitable happens, the more you take OxyContin, the more addicted you become to the opioid. You start feeling worse because you need a higher dose, higher than your supply can satisfy. So you go to your doctor explaining that while it worked well to start with, now it isn't working so well. You doctor raises your prescription. This cycle repeats several times until you hit the limit of what a reputable doctor will prescribe. At this point is where pain clinics come in. Pain clinics were clinics, frequently operated in seedy areas (they were endemic in Appalachia), where a much less reputable MD would basically give anyone who came in just about as much fucking Oxy as they could carry. This is how you hear news stories about small towns in West Virginia where a pharmacy is processing more doses of OxyContin per week than there are people in the entire state let alone that town. People would come from out of state on buses to line up at the "good" pain clinics in states where regulations were cheap and doctors just looking to make $$$. A lot of people were gophers doing this to just accumulate pills for resale. The pharmacy system wasn't linked together back then either, so some people would do schemes to get the same rx filled at like 10 different local pharmacies as another way to multiply their access.

Meanwhile people are getting worse and worse in their addiction level. The terrible thing about this drug is once you're stuck on the addiction ramp, you perceive any loss of access to the drug as your "pain" coming back. What's actually happening is the drug is no longer really helping with your chronic pain, and you're just regularly feeling the horrible effects of early withdrawal if you aren't keeping supplied.

Some time in the mid-2000s a lot of the pain clinics get shut down, as we have this collective societal revelation that we just let the Sackler family make tens of billions of dollars pushing dangerous, addiction-causing opioids onto a big portion of the population through unsavory doctors and various shockingly inappropriate medical practices. OxyContin is also reformulated to make it a little harder to use recreationally (I don't know that this really changed much.) In a few years as easy ability to get legal opioids craters, suddenly we have a massive problem with people using illegal opioids, concentrated in the same exact areas where OxyContin use was extremely prevalent

Keep in mind even in the U.S. pay to prescribe has never been legal. This stuff was all done in shady ways to skirt the law. For example during Purdue's initial big marketing push, they started recruiting "pain management" doctors for their "Speakers Series", they would appear at events with other medical professionals and speak about how they were familiar with using OxyContin and using it to help patients treat pain. Purdue would pay them a hefty speaker's fee (legal), and while not directly pay to prescribe, what do you really think is going on there? There was also a prominent group of doctors that started lobbying in the 90s through a group they setup to treat pain as the new "Fifth Vital sign", and were making persuasive arguments in the medical community that doctors weren't worried enough about patient comfort and happiness, and were too reticent to prescribe opioids. If you trace the origins of this group, it was Purdue funded.

But it shouldn't be underestimated how much damage the pill mills were doing and what drove them. While Purdue created the environment in which they flourished, the way the pill mills worked is volume. The doctors running them were never paid directly by Purdue. Instead what would happen is they would charge a "Stat Fee" for every pain management consult. That might be $150. They would see 80 patients a day (way more than is appropriate), and that's going to approach $2m/yr if you average out that many patients a day for an average number of working days per year. The doctors couldn't directly make a ton of money just off writing a prescription or etc, and any insurance covered service they provided they had to deal with the negotiated rates of the insurance companies. It was the fact desperate people were willing to gravitate to these pain clinics to get their fix, and were willing to pay a non-covered, $150 upfront fee (sometimes more)

That is all true, but it is only half the story. The way this is often described, it is said that the whole thing was a profit-driven scam by these shady companies.

The shady companies existed and they did over-promote (by lying about the addiction potential, offering various incentives to push their meds, etc.). They made money knowing full well what the impact of their practices would be (and are now getting sued by multiple states and provinces, to claw back some of that cash).

But what is often missed, is that even if they had not, the problem would likely have occurred anyway. The pill makers were just taking advantage of a genuine shift in medical practice, which saw pain management as significantly more important than it had been in the past (check out "pain as the fifth vital sign"). This wasn't done sort of self-interested marketing conspiracy, but a real compassionate movement centred on a change in philosophy of patient care. The unintended consequences were terrible.

Companies like Perdue took advantage of this to peddle their allegedly non-addictive opioid (that was just as addictive as any other) ... to take advantage of a medical system much more willing to use drugs to control pain. But they didn't create that willingness, that was created with the best of intentions by actual medical practitioners, who only wanted what was best for patients.

It is very tempting to make the whole scenario a morality tale of capitalism gone bad, which it is in part, but doing so risks missing some of the nuance.

Legal and smoke a few times a month.

Quote from: Malthus on April 25, 2021, 09:12:20 PM
That is all true, but it is only half the story. The way this is often described, it is said that the whole thing was a profit-driven scam by these shady companies.

The shady companies existed and they did over-promote (by lying about the addiction potential, offering various incentives to push their meds, etc.). They made money knowing full well what the impact of their practices would be (and are now getting sued by multiple states and provinces, to claw back some of that cash).

But what is often missed, is that even if they had not, the problem would likely have occurred anyway. The pill makers were just taking advantage of a genuine shift in medical practice, which saw pain management as significantly more important than it had been in the past (check out "pain as the fifth vital sign"). This wasn't done sort of self-interested marketing conspiracy, but a real compassionate movement centred on a change in philosophy of patient care. The unintended consequences were terrible.

Companies like Perdue took advantage of this to peddle their allegedly non-addictive opioid (that was just as addictive as any other) ... to take advantage of a medical system much more willing to use drugs to control pain. But they didn't create that willingness, that was created with the best of intentions by actual medical practitioners, who only wanted what was best for patients.

It is very tempting to make the whole scenario a morality tale of capitalism gone bad, which it is in part, but doing so risks missing some of the nuance.

No, I agree the Sacklers/Purdue aren't the sole villains and much of this would have happened without their existence. The conditions were ripe for the fire and it was probably inevitable, but they were an accelerant to the flame to be sure.

It's interesting how much the mentality is now changing back to the pre-90s norm, I've read op-eds by physicians in the last few years that advocate "teaching patients to understand that there is probably no magical fix to their pain, that pain often improves with rehab and specific exercise programs, but some pain is going to be chronic and they should find coping strategies." Which is a nice way of saying "learn to live with it."

Quote from: Malthus on April 25, 2021, 09:12:20 PM
That is all true, but it is only half the story. The way this is often described, it is said that the whole thing was a profit-driven scam by these shady companies.

The shady companies existed and they did over-promote (by lying about the addiction potential, offering various incentives to push their meds, etc.). They made money knowing full well what the impact of their practices would be (and are now getting sued by multiple states and provinces, to claw back some of that cash).

But what is often missed, is that even if they had not, the problem would likely have occurred anyway. The pill makers were just taking advantage of a genuine shift in medical practice, which saw pain management as significantly more important than it had been in the past (check out "pain as the fifth vital sign"). This wasn't done sort of self-interested marketing conspiracy, but a real compassionate movement centred on a change in philosophy of patient care. The unintended consequences were terrible.

Companies like Perdue took advantage of this to peddle their allegedly non-addictive opioid (that was just as addictive as any other) ... to take advantage of a medical system much more willing to use drugs to control pain. But they didn't create that willingness, that was created with the best of intentions by actual medical practitioners, who only wanted what was best for patients.

It is very tempting to make the whole scenario a morality tale of capitalism gone bad, which it is in part, but doing so risks missing some of the nuance.

If the fraudulent claim that the pills were not addictive had not been made the pills would not have been prescribed in those numbers.  It is a nonsense to suggest it would have happened absent the fraud. 

Edit: the important take home here is that industry self regulation does not work.

Isn't there the bit about pain management and the fifth vital sign being (at least partially) driven by Purdue sponsored groups?

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2021, 11:40:23 AM

Quote from: Malthus on April 25, 2021, 09:12:20 PM
That is all true, but it is only half the story. The way this is often described, it is said that the whole thing was a profit-driven scam by these shady companies.

The shady companies existed and they did over-promote (by lying about the addiction potential, offering various incentives to push their meds, etc.). They made money knowing full well what the impact of their practices would be (and are now getting sued by multiple states and provinces, to claw back some of that cash).

But what is often missed, is that even if they had not, the problem would likely have occurred anyway. The pill makers were just taking advantage of a genuine shift in medical practice, which saw pain management as significantly more important than it had been in the past (check out "pain as the fifth vital sign"). This wasn't done sort of self-interested marketing conspiracy, but a real compassionate movement centred on a change in philosophy of patient care. The unintended consequences were terrible.

Companies like Perdue took advantage of this to peddle their allegedly non-addictive opioid (that was just as addictive as any other) ... to take advantage of a medical system much more willing to use drugs to control pain. But they didn't create that willingness, that was created with the best of intentions by actual medical practitioners, who only wanted what was best for patients.

It is very tempting to make the whole scenario a morality tale of capitalism gone bad, which it is in part, but doing so risks missing some of the nuance.

If the fraudulent claim that the pills were not addictive had not been made the pills would not have been prescribed in those numbers.  It is a nonsense to suggest it would have happened absent the fraud. 

Edit: the important take home here is that industry self regulation does not work.

I think you are seeing an either/or claim that is not actually being made.

The problem of increased addiction rates would have surfaced no matter what Perdue did, because that was a risk inherent in medicinal pain management, which was the way the pendulum of medical opinion was swinging at the time. Did Perdue and company make things worse? Absolutely.

Point is this: every time a doc prescribed an opioid for pain, there is a percentage chance the patient will become addicted. Basically nothing can be done about that. It's a risk, but depending on the condition, it may be a risk worth taking - problem was that this risk was not rated seriously enough, against the benefits of pain management.

Now Perdue lied and said it's products did not have any risk, which fed into and took advantage of an already existing pattern, and made the problem much worse. But even products that are not OxyContin were prescribed without enough weight given to addiction risk. The problem would have existed without Perdue (although I can see the attraction of making a simple greed-driven morality take out of this saga).

The problem was that everyone - doctors, regulators, and scientists - greatly underestimated the risk of opioid addiction, which fact only became evident over time. It did not help that the pill makers were actively encouraging everyone else to underestimate that risk, of course, but it is complete nonsense to suggest that they *created* out of whole cloth that underestimation. They simply could not have done what they did, if the medical professionals and regulators had not, with the best intentions in the world, underestimated those risks.

Take the manufacturers out of the equation and the disaster would still have happened, albeit to a lesser extent, because it was inherent in the pendulum shift in pain management.

Quote from: Jacob on April 26, 2021, 02:46:28 PM
Isn't there the bit about pain management and the fifth vital sign being (at least partially) driven by Purdue sponsored groups?

Way it worked was something like this.

Patient groups and medical professionals alike began agitating that the medical profession is not patient centred enough - they tend not to treat patients subjective symptoms, only the objective signs. In short, they treat patients as machines, and only care about keeping them working. Thus leads to a great deal of dissatisfaction, particularly around pain management. Traditionally not seen as a priority (the pain may indicate something is amiss, treat that something so you don't die, but lots of people suffer chronic pain that not much can be done about).

The pendulum swings in their direction. 'Progressive' doctors, heeding the voices of their patients, elevate pain management to equal status with (say) keeping a patient's airway clear. This becomes the medical establishment.

Thus leads to an upswing in prescription of pain medication. As it turns out, while pain can be managed in many ways, nothing actually works as well as opioids on certain kinds of pain.

Unscrupulous companies like Perdue see there is a market for opioids. They do a bunch of research and their own research tells them that their products are addictive. They lie about their products deliberately, claim they are not addictive.

In addition, they create all sorts of incentives for docs to prescribe their stuff, and shove money at already existing groups to promote pain management as a positive good. They did not create this shift, but rather, they encouraged the shift for all they were worth.

Their involvement may well end up discrediting these groups by association, and the pendulum of medical opinion may well swing back again ... but I think it is a mistake to think that the original point (pain management) was simply a greedy sham. It was, I think, more a case of good intentions with bad unintended consequences, with the bad consequences helped along by the greedy companies.

This isn't unprecedented in the medical field - think of the good intentions behind clearing out the old lunatic asylums, with the unintended consequences of filling the jails and the ranks of the homeless.

Legal - never used it.

He Rex.  Some of us were just talking about you.

Quote from: Malthus on April 26, 2021, 06:38:40 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2021, 11:40:23 AM

Quote from: Malthus on April 25, 2021, 09:12:20 PM
That is all true, but it is only half the story. The way this is often described, it is said that the whole thing was a profit-driven scam by these shady companies.

The shady companies existed and they did over-promote (by lying about the addiction potential, offering various incentives to push their meds, etc.). They made money knowing full well what the impact of their practices would be (and are now getting sued by multiple states and provinces, to claw back some of that cash).

But what is often missed, is that even if they had not, the problem would likely have occurred anyway. The pill makers were just taking advantage of a genuine shift in medical practice, which saw pain management as significantly more important than it had been in the past (check out "pain as the fifth vital sign"). This wasn't done sort of self-interested marketing conspiracy, but a real compassionate movement centred on a change in philosophy of patient care. The unintended consequences were terrible.

Companies like Perdue took advantage of this to peddle their allegedly non-addictive opioid (that was just as addictive as any other) ... to take advantage of a medical system much more willing to use drugs to control pain. But they didn't create that willingness, that was created with the best of intentions by actual medical practitioners, who only wanted what was best for patients.

It is very tempting to make the whole scenario a morality tale of capitalism gone bad, which it is in part, but doing so risks missing some of the nuance.

If the fraudulent claim that the pills were not addictive had not been made the pills would not have been prescribed in those numbers.  It is a nonsense to suggest it would have happened absent the fraud. 

Edit: the important take home here is that industry self regulation does not work.

I think you are seeing an either/or claim that is not actually being made.

The problem of increased addiction rates would have surfaced no matter what Perdue did, because that was a risk inherent in medicinal pain management, which was the way the pendulum of medical opinion was swinging at the time. Did Perdue and company make things worse? Absolutely.

Point is this: every time a doc prescribed an opioid for pain, there is a percentage chance the patient will become addicted. Basically nothing can be done about that. It's a risk, but depending on the condition, it may be a risk worth taking - problem was that this risk was not rated seriously enough, against the benefits of pain management.

Now Perdue lied and said it's products did not have any risk, which fed into and took advantage of an already existing pattern, and made the problem much worse. But even products that are not OxyContin were prescribed without enough weight given to addiction risk. The problem would have existed without Perdue (although I can see the attraction of making a simple greed-driven morality take out of this saga).

The problem was that everyone - doctors, regulators, and scientists - greatly underestimated the risk of opioid addiction, which fact only became evident over time. It did not help that the pill makers were actively encouraging everyone else to underestimate that risk, of course, but it is complete nonsense to suggest that they *created* out of whole cloth that underestimation. They simply could not have done what they did, if the medical professionals and regulators had not, with the best intentions in the world, underestimated those risks.

Take the manufacturers out of the equation and the disaster would still have happened, albeit to a lesser extent, because it was inherent in the pendulum shift in pain management.

Before the fraudulent claim of not being addictive was made, Doctors rarely prescribed opioids for pain management because they understood how addictive it was.  That was the reason the fraudulent claim was made.  We will never know what resources would been poured into the pain management field to find other treatments.  All that become unnecessary and impractical because of the fraudulent claim.  We are now basically starting from scratch.

Given the age demographic of this group I am surprised by the number of people who have never tried it.  Less surprised by the fact that most of the people don't now use it.  We are aging.

"Recreational marijuana is regulated and taxed but legal in Massachusetts, with retail sales from licensed dealers becoming legal on November 20, 2018. Legalization occurred in staging, with decriminalization followed by legal medical marijuana before full legalization."

I had to lookup just what the laws were in my state. I don't use it, have tried it when younger, smoked a bit just a couple time. But I had pot brownies once or twice and damn those things were potent!!  :wacko:

That was the Clinton method.  :P

Quote from: Tonitrus on April 27, 2021, 03:34:52 PM
That was the Clinton method.  :P

:D