Turn on thread page Beta

Drugs aren't illegal because they're harmful watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by didgeridoo12uk)
    a source for these claims?
    Widely reported in the Lancet and other reputable medical journals. Even a quick google search would do the job, but here.

    Cancer
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7098340.stm

    http://www.labnews.co.uk/news_archiv...-cancer-cells/

    Alzheimers
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...sufferers.html

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4286435.stm

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/fe...cation.science
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    from the bbc article
    Unlike cannabis, CBD does not have any psychoactive properties so its use would not violate laws.... ....They added that it would be highly unlikely that effective concentrations of CBD could be reached by smoking cannabis.
    so basically smoking weed won't help with cancer, but an already non-physcoactive legal substance derived from it will... kind of completely ruins your point there.

    with the whole Alzheimers thing. the research seems to be inconclusive, nowhere near sure enough for it to be considered a treatment. taking cannabis increases the risk of schizophrenia and other mental issues, let alone lung cancer (if its smoked)... so it would never be used as a preventative medicine anyway.


    i do agree though the drug policy of this country is retarded, but even if it weed was completely legalised none of the medical treatments would come to the market any quicker
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by didgeridoo12uk)
    from the bbc article


    so basically smoking weed won't help with cancer, but an already non-physcoactive legal substance derived from it will... kind of completely ruins your point there.

    with the whole Alzheimers thing. the research seems to be inconclusive, nowhere near sure enough for it to be considered a treatment. taking cannabis increases the risk of schizophrenia and other mental issues, let alone lung cancer (if its smoked)... so it would never be used as a preventative medicine anyway.


    i do agree though the drug policy of this country is retarded, but even if it weed was completely legalised none of the medical treatments would come to the market any quicker
    That would be true if the psychoactive elements of Cannabis weren't medicinally beneficially aswell, which includes reversing Alzheimer's memory loss, appetite loss in cancer patients, and combating nauseousness.

    What makes you say the research is inconclusive? It's quite clear scientists were adamant that the results were conclusive. There's more evidence for that case than evidence that cannabis causes mental issues, so that point is moot.

    The drug being illegal is stopping people from legally receiving the benefits, that's obvious. Do you not realise how difficult it would be bringing a medicinal drug to the market that is illegal or associated with an illegal drug?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    That would be true if the psychoactive elements of Cannabis weren't medicinally beneficially aswell, which includes reversing Alzheimer's memory loss, appetite loss in cancer patients, and combating nauseousness.

    What makes you say the research is inconclusive? It's quite clear scientists were adamant that the results were conclusive. There's more evidence for that case than evidence that cannabis causes mental issues, so that point is moot.

    The drug being illegal is stopping people from legally receiving the benefits, that's obvious. Do you not realise how difficult it would be bringing a medicinal drug to the market that is illegal or associated with an illegal drug?
    from reading other bits and pieces of research on the subject, they don't all agree on the same thing and not enough study has been done on it. before drugs come to market a ridiculous number of trials are normally done to prove its worth. this hasn't even started to happen so theres no way you can say it's proved either way.

    being in possession of any prescription drug without a prescription is a criminal offence. so you could argue most medicines out there are illegal. the illegality of weed (and other drugs) obviously doesn't affect the ability of people to do research into their medical benefits. if a derivative of one of these drugs is proven to be helpful then theres nothing to stop it becoming a treatment.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hanvyj)
    I find this hard to belive.

    I would rather canabis be legal than alcohol - it would make people more mellow and sleepy rather than violent and stupid etc etc. Alcohol is a stupid drug but its been in our culture for thousands of years, so its hard to make illigal.

    By my opinion that alcohol should logically be illigal, I dont think we should introduce canabis as legal. As for more hard-core drugs, they really mess up peoples lives and I dont want that to be any easier...
    Using cannabis during chemotherapy has been shown to help people more than other drugs. There have also been cases of cannabis users severely reducing their cancer to treating it all together, who haven't used anything else to treat it, which have been reported in scientific journals. Lab experiments have also showed that Cannabinoids found in the cannabis plant can destroy cancer cells while leaving cancer cells intact, but the doses of these would be a lot higher than just smoking it.

    Interestingly there was also a study which showed that at frequent extremely high doses, a synthetic form of THC actually stimulated brain cell growth, which is interesting considering a lot of people think it kills brain cells, which has shown to be not true.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by didgeridoo12uk)
    from the bbc article


    so basically smoking weed won't help with cancer, but an already non-physcoactive legal substance derived from it will... kind of completely ruins your point there.

    with the whole Alzheimers thing. the research seems to be inconclusive, nowhere near sure enough for it to be considered a treatment. taking cannabis increases the risk of schizophrenia and other mental issues, let alone lung cancer (if its smoked)... so it would never be used as a preventative medicine anyway.


    i do agree though the drug policy of this country is retarded, but even if it weed was completely legalised none of the medical treatments would come to the market any quicker
    Actually both THC and CBD have been shown to have anti-cancerous properties, and there are case studies of people treating cancer with cannabis.

    The case of getting schizophrenia is low anyway. One report a while ago showed that ( I think) 98% of the population had no increased risk while for the other 2% it was incredibly small. With lung cancer, there are loads of contradictary studies. Probably the largest and least flawed showed no increase in cannabis only smokers, and a very slight reduction in cannabis and tobacco smokers of lung cancer
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Maybe in terms of weed and such but I think heroin is illegal because of the harm it causes.
    Heroin is one of the least physically harmful drugs around. Granted its addictive but no more so than nicotine and going cold turkey wont kill you like doing so with an alcohol addiction could. Risk of overdose is not much higher than with alcohol and is unlikely unless done purposefully. The harms heroin use causes come almost entirely from its illegality.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Maybe in terms of weed and such but I think heroin is illegal because of the harm it causes.
    Interesting point.
    Heroin is illegal when it's called heroin but it's legal when it's called morphine.
    Same drug, different names.
    It's legal to take morphine, otherwise known as heroin,
    when it's prescribed by a doctor .
    When a doctor prescribes it , it's supposed to do good-stop pain-but when someone buys it on the street it's supposed to do harm.
    The idea is that because it's addictive it has to taken under medical supervision so that if someone does get addicted to it there's a good reason and the bad points of the addiction are on balance better than the person suffering the pain.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Horsedobbin)
    Interesting point.
    Heroin is illegal when it's called heroin but it's legal when it's called morphine.
    Same drug, different names.
    It's legal to take morphine, otherwise known as heroin,
    when it's prescribed by a doctor .
    When a doctor prescribes it , it's supposed to do good-stop pain-but when someone buys it on the street it's supposed to do harm.
    The idea is that because it's addictive it has to taken under medical supervision so that if someone does get addicted to it there's a good reason and the bad points of the addiction are on balance better than the person suffering the pain.
    *diamorphine
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)
    *diamorphine
    "Clinical Bottom Line
    There are no significant clinical differences between diamorphine and morphine in patients with chest pain. "

    http://www.bestbets.org/bets/bet.php?id=351
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    In response to people saying that drugs are illegal because of the potential societal harms; I actually think if people took more drugs society would be better. Drugs are only associated with problems because they are illegal, they are driven underground. Alcohol is far more prevalent in creating social harms though.

    Drugs like MDMA and cannabis, among many others, can really change a person's perspective on life and help them with experiences when off the drug. I'm not for one second suggesting that people should use this drugs as a 'crutch', but that these illegal drugs are much more thought-provoking and interesting than alcohol or tobbaco.

    I think to most thinking people it is obvious that drugs aren't illegal because they are harmful. You can see this in the attempt to glorify and go to town on anything that the papers can get about illegal drugs, like their madness regarding rave culture and ecstasy deaths in the 90s, many of which weren't even attributed to ecstasy.

    To be honest, I really think that drugs are illegal because they tend to make people think out of the box, and make people question things that the government wouldn't really like them to question. I think this applies particularly well to psychedelic drugs.

    When used responsibly though, drugs are no more dangerous than many every day activities. The key is in responsible and moderate use. Do your research about drugs, know how to handle what you're taking and you will be good. I believe if this sort of information was circulated rather than a 'Just say no' or 'Drugs are bad mmkay' sort of approach, then we'd have a much better idea of what drugs are and how to appreciate them. Just saying no doesn't help anybody, and is responsible for the irresponsible use of drugs.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thompsonbassman)
    In response to people saying that drugs are illegal because of the potential societal harms; I actually think if people took more drugs society would be better. Drugs are only associated with problems because they are illegal, they are driven underground. Alcohol is far more prevalent in creating social harms though.

    Drugs like MDMA and cannabis, among many others, can really change a person's perspective on life and help them with experiences when off the drug. I'm not for one second suggesting that people should use this drugs as a 'crutch', but that these illegal drugs are much more thought-provoking and interesting than alcohol or tobbaco.

    I think to most thinking people it is obvious that drugs aren't illegal because they are harmful. You can see this in the attempt to glorify and go to town on anything that the papers can get about illegal drugs, like their madness regarding rave culture and ecstasy deaths in the 90s, many of which weren't even attributed to ecstasy.

    To be honest, I really think that drugs are illegal because they tend to make people think out of the box, and make people question things that the government wouldn't really like them to question. I think this applies particularly well to psychedelic drugs.

    When used responsibly though, drugs are no more dangerous than many every day activities. The key is in responsible and moderate use. Do your research about drugs, know how to handle what you're taking and you will be good. I believe if this sort of information was circulated rather than a 'Just say no' or 'Drugs are bad mmkay' sort of approach, then we'd have a much better idea of what drugs are and how to appreciate them. Just saying no doesn't help anybody, and is responsible for the irresponsible use of drugs.
    Totally agree. Drugs are fine, in moderation and when the user is aware of its effetcs. MDMA and similars provide a buzz far exceeding alcohol, and the 'user' remains fairly aware (moreso than with alcohol) which in my opinion is far safer! There isn't generally the unpleasantness (ie. fighting/agression), the stupid behaviour, vomiting and memory loss the proceeds!
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reflexive)
    Yea _____ is potentially harmful though, as people realise how good it feels and are less productive members of society. A balance needs to be struck.
    Replace the word "high" with literally any other activity which results in pleasure, and you have a winner!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bacforever3)
    I always believed they were banned due to potential affect on society they would have.
    This is a much more believable rationale than the OP; it don't make sense...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by channy)
    Replace the word "high" with literally any other activity which results in pleasure, and you have a winner!
    go on...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    They're illegal because any government knows that if they legalised them they would lose the next election due to a hysterical backlash from the uneducated majority.


    And can people please stop complaining about other people making grossly inaccurate and wildly misinformed comments about drugs and then doing the exact same thing about alcohol. :facepalm2:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    They're illegal because people are prejudiced against the idea of being "high".
    Not really no. They're prohibited for a number of reasons, from the possible negative effects that can have on an individual, on society and/or the exploitation of people linked to their manufacture and sale. Whether that's something you or I agree with or not it has nothing to do with some sort of insidious government conspiracy.

    Take cannabis for example, it has been found to be more effective at treating cancer than chemotherapy, whilst at the same time far less harmful and with less side effects.
    That is a very bold statement, do you have any evidence for that?

    Certainly there is some evidence that cannabis may be beneficial in some forms of cancer however it is by no means definitive nor is this a universal rule for all forms of cancer.

    It's also found to be more effective at preventing Alzheimers than commercial drugs prescribed by doctors, and can treat things like multiple sclerosis.
    What study are you referring to?

    This one claimed:

    "...Compared to currently approved drugs prescribed for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease, THC is a considerably superior inhibitor of A? aggregation..."

    Eubanks et al. only studied the effects of THC in vitro and not in vivo. Also it is unclear how they compared THC to conventional Alzheimer's drugs - they don't mention the use of conventional Alzheimer's drugs in their method but they do in their conclusion. They underdosed said drugs and the literature values they used are from an 21 year old epidemiological study which has no mention of them.

    Believe me cannabis is just one of many many examples (albeit the best known) of medicinally superior drugs which are banned simply because they get you high, not because they are harmful.
    Again, evidence?

    For example hydrocone is used for post-surgical pain relief, however they add acetaminophen to prevent people taking enough hydrocone to get high off. However acetaminophen is toxic and causes serious liver damage leading to thousands of emergency room visits and deaths per year and less dangerous than taking just Hydrocone.

    ...

    Read more here:
    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...-the-war-drugs
    As mentioned in that article Paracetamol/acetaminophen only causes serious liver damage in cases of overdose or pre-existing liver damage or failure. Used properly (ie; not abused) and there is little or no risk of negative side effects.

    The goverment would rather let you take dangerous medicines with harmful side effects, rather than let you take a medicine which is more effective but gets you high.
    Cannabis is not a universal panacea.

    In the case of cancer chemotherapy drugs they tend to be very toxic because it is very difficult for a drug to differentiate between cancerous and non cancerous cells. The main method is by targeting highly mitotic cells because in the early stages of a cancer it grows very rapidly however other rapidly diving cells include those found in your gut, bone marrow, etc, hence the side effects.

    (Original post by bsforrester80)
    Alcohol is one the biggest contradictions when ti comes to drugs. It kills more people than other drugs yet it is perfectyl legal - and taxable.
    It is important to point out though that alcohol is more prevalent and more widely used which in itself is going to result in more deaths

    To be honest the government, if they legalised cannabis for example could make a fortune out of tax on it and solve the debt crisis!
    It wouldn't even come close. We're in about £1 trillion of debt, tax revenue for tobacco and alcohol last year was only about £25 billion.

    (Original post by ArcaneAnna)
    Funny but I find that I'm a lot more productive when high. I am of course talking when on amphetamines, downers obviousley not.
    Doing your housework while high is a little different to being in a position of risk or responsibility. The US military gives some of it's operators amphetamines to help to keep them alert and there have been instances of friendly fire incidents linked to this.

    I think the main argument FOR legalisation should be that then we could control the ingredients, make sure they're pure and hence cause less damage due to unknown constituents.
    What we save here will probably cost us more elsewhere.

    As we have seen with multiple other drugs if you make them more accessible and/or legal they become more prevalent and we see more problems linked to this which costs society more in the long run.

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Widely reported in the Lancet and other reputable medical journals. Even a quick google search would do the job, but here.
    Scientific journals are a lot more useful than incredibly dumbed down and talked up news stories.

    (Original post by Horsedobbin)
    Interesting point.
    Heroin is illegal when it's called heroin but it's legal when it's called morphine.
    Same drug, different names.
    It's legal to take morphine, otherwise known as heroin,
    when it's prescribed by a doctor .
    When a doctor prescribes it , it's supposed to do good-stop pain-but when someone buys it on the street it's supposed to do harm.
    The idea is that because it's addictive it has to taken under medical supervision so that if someone does get addicted to it there's a good reason and the bad points of the addiction are on balance better than the person suffering the pain.
    The difference is that severe pain, one of the main indications for opiods, counteracts their negative side effects (eg; addiction, nausea and vomiting, respiratory depression, ?euphoria?, etc).

    During the Vietnam War morphine was used heavily following severe trauma (eg; gunshot wounds, amputations, etc) - very few (if any) of those involved had problems with addiction or respiratory depression. However addiction and other negative side effects was very commonly seen in the soldiers that used the drugs recreationally.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reflexive)
    go on...
    Can you not think of any?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I like reading this thread, its surprisingly informative.

    I wouldn't hope that it will change the world on the drugs front though.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by channy)
    Can you not think of any?
    Are you making an argument or do you want me to make it for you :curious:
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.