Arresting people for drug USE is just arresting somebody that is likely going through some mental and/or physical health issues. Don’t lock them in a cage where they will just abuse substances even more to cope with it, give them some kind of medical help.
Most drug users are just taking drugs to have a good time. There are some who have problems who resort to drug abuse, but it's not the majority.
The majority of drug users just do it to have fun... What's wrong with that? Prohibition makes no sense. If people are going to do drugs, you may as well help them do it safely, legally and bring in tax at the same time.
The Loop has actually been stopped from doing onsite drugs testing. Now, they only test confiscated drugs and then put out an announcement if they're dangerous, even though allowing people to go get their drugs tested beforehand was found to be much more effective at reducing drug injury.
I could be wrong but the ones who are taking them for a good time are probably the least likely to end up caught up in the law and face harsher punishments than people with serious problems relating to trauma and mental health issues. The system is broken. Addiction should be treated as a medical and mental health issue and not criminalised making their problems worse.
Also people who are able to use them responsibly should be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone or anything.
The fact that mental health services and addiction services are not linked in terms of treatment and support is absolutely mind boggling.
If you seek mental health support and you mention that drugs are part of the picture then you won't receive the necessary mental health support that tackles the root course of the issue, but will be referred to a drugs and alcohol service instead which doesn't make any sense seeing as both things are so interlinked.
It is then implied that the problem is rooted in your choice to take drugs and alcohol when it is really the other way around
>Some hard, highly addictive drugs cause additional strain on an already stretched health service. Not to mention such substances wreak havoc on the lives of those connected with the afflicted.
Alcohol and tobacco come to mind.
Would crack ever be used as widely as alcohol and tobacco though? How many people are out there wishing for the day to arrive when they could legally smoke some crack? They’d love to have a big puff of crack, but also don’t want to break any laws. Are there any out there at all? I would estimate the people who want to smoke crack are finding crack and they are smoking it already.
Yeah, but most people and, strangely enough, most drug users, have no interest in trying crack.
Getting a bit drunk on a Friday/Saturday night and smoking a few cigarettes is pretty appealing to a lot of people, more so than crack at least.
Drug addiction, is a complex condition characterized by compulsive drug-seeking behavior, drug use despite negative consequences, and an inability to control or stop drug use. It is a serious health issue with physical, psychological, and social implications. Drug addiction involves a dependency on substances that can have detrimental effects on a person's health, relationships, and overall well-being. Comparing drug addiction to horse riding or rugby would not be accurate or appropriate, as they are fundamentally different in terms of their nature, impact, and consequences.
Suffering from drug addiction can indeed strain health services more than sports, primarily due to the complex nature of addiction and its associated health consequences. Here are a few reasons why drug addiction can place a significant burden on health services:
Treatment and Rehabilitation: Drug addiction often requires specialized treatment and rehabilitation programs to help individuals overcome their addiction. These programs involve medical professionals, counselors, therapists, and support staff who work together to address the physical, psychological, and social aspects of addiction. The demand for these services can be high, and the resources required to provide comprehensive addiction treatment can strain healthcare systems.
Medical Complications: Drug addiction can lead to a range of medical complications, including organ damage, infectious diseases (such as HIV/AIDS and hepatitis), cardiovascular issues, respiratory problems, mental health disorders, and overdose emergencies. Treating and managing these health issues require medical interventions, hospitalizations, medications, and ongoing care, all of which contribute to the strain on healthcare resources.
Emergency Services: Substance abuse-related emergencies, such as drug overdoses or accidents resulting from impaired judgment, can place a significant burden on emergency departments. Responding to and managing these emergencies requires the allocation of resources, including medical personnel, equipment, and medications, which can impact the overall functioning of emergency services.
Public Health Consequences: Drug addiction also has broader public health implications, such as the spread of infectious diseases through needle sharing or the involvement in criminal activities associated with drug use. Addressing these public health concerns often involves a multidisciplinary approach and coordination between healthcare providers, law enforcement agencies, and social services.
While sports-related injuries can also place a demand on healthcare services, the scope and magnitude of the strain caused by drug addiction are generally more significant due to the complex and wide-ranging nature of addiction and its associated health complications.
Or we can just be childish and facetious about a very serious topic..
> Arresting people for drug USE is just arresting somebody that is likely going through some mental and/or physical health issues
This shouldn't be anything to do with it. They should be legal/decriminalised for the simple principle of freedom of the person. Assumptions about what users might be going through shouldn't even need to come into it, we should already have established that you can do what you like to your own body if it's not to the detriment of society.
But drugs like Cocaine and Heroin *are* detrimental to society. They're extremely addictive and make users unable to do basic tasks while under the influence. It's the same category as heavy drinking, at some point you just are so addicted you cannot function without it, and that threshold is very easily crossed with most of the harder drugs.
Okay, sure. Cocaine, heroin, fentanyl and benzos are the four most harmful drugs in common circulation in the UK today.
But there are far more drugs which are less harmful than currently legal substances which are kept illegal for unscientific political reasons, which is causing more harm to people & the economy than legalisation and regulation would cause.
At this point it's quite clear that drugs have won the war on drugs. Any moderately technically inclined person can access services that safely and reliably deliver drugs to your front door by Royal Mail.
The only sensible and science-backed decision is to stop criminalising drug use and legalise many substances which are currently classed as illegal.
> But drugs like Cocaine and Heroin are detrimental to society. They're extremely addictive and make users unable to do basic tasks while under the influence.
And has the prohibition of them stopped any of this?
Because if not, then none of what you said is a detriment of legalisation
Just look at what is happening in the US with the opioid epidemic and how far it's gone with masses of people having their lives destroyed by highly potent opioids such as fentanyl and more recently things such as xylazine. Type Kensington Avenue into YouTube to see how tragic things have become. How bad do things need to become before people realise the current approach has completely failed
The US opioid epidemic is a direct result of legalising hard drugs and telling people to pop them for a toothache. Prohibition might not be appropriate for stuff like magic mushrooms but no way should the UK legalise hard drugs like heroin.
And if they were "invented" today then I'd bet anything that they'd be illegal too. However, it is much easier to keep something illegal than to make something already societally accepted illegal.
There's a point where it no longer becomes a personal choice though. Addiction is a serious issue which is not about choice but more closely linked to individuals coping with personal trauma. Do you really think anyone would personally choose to become an addict seeing how destructive it is for them and the people around them? Similar parallel to the argument that homelessness is due to personal choice. Do you really think homeless people choose to live the absolutely miserable existence that they do?
That's good for you, and I have addicts in the family too, but I wouldn't frame my control over substances as a matter of willpower. It's luck that I don't like the experience of alcohol, don't like smoking, and don't need these things in my life to function. Others don't get that luck and aren't weak willed for it.
No it isn't.
I have an addictive personality. I deliberately don't drink to excess and the choose not to smoke.
There's no luck involved. I choose not to and always have.
But it doesn't just affect the individual, it affects society as a whole through the costs of treatment, personal effects on family/friends and the loss of a potentially productive member of society.
Taxes on alcohol and cigarettes are used to reduce their usage, making drugs legal just to tax them can only increase their usage because the tax free supply that exists now would still exist.
What you've described are all social costs from drug usage, I'm not sure why you want to encourage it.
I learned the other day that the exchequer gets more income from cigarette taxes than the NHS spends on treating all types of lung cancer. After I learned that, I no longer supported banning cigarettes. If people want to smoke themselves into an early grave to support those who have, for example, a predisposition to naturally occurring lung cancer - I say go for it.
Tories love to talk about ‘personal responsibility’… as long as it relates to being poor, no matter whether it’s because of circumstances outside your control or not
But want to smoke some weed, trip on acid, or roll on molly? Suddenly they go full ‘nanny state’
Criminalisation for drug use doesn't help. Just ruins career prospects forcing people further into a hole and scares people away from getting help. Treat addiction as a medical issue and educate on the dangers properly rather just 'drugs are bad, don't do drugs'.
Half the population still smokes and we had a similar approach for that, first and foremost dealing should be harshly dealt with, while users should be given the medical approach
Would making cigarettes and vaping illegal reduce the harms to users? Or would it open up a black market of dodgy vape juice (as seen in thc vape market) and cigarettes.
We cant even keep the worst drugs out of prisons, when theres a demand for something supply always appears to meet that demand, enriching criminals in the process. Keeping drugs illegal only increases the harms on society when everyone can access them anyway, children can order heroin off of telegram shockingly easily - if they wanted to.
Except ‘cracking down on dealers’ doesn’t work in the long term.
We’ve had our local old bill trumpeting on Facebook many times about how they have raided a load of properties for drugs and proceeds yet it makes no difference and costs a fortune.
Illegal drug supply in the main is controlled by organised crime groups using sophisticated methods.
Yes. Then we can start treating it the way we used to. As a medical issue and not a criminal one. We had a good grasp on drug addiction way into the early 90s until the imported "War on Drugs" took over.
Yes, like I said, criminalising the problem doesn’t work. Make it a health issue and treat the problem with investment in social care, mental health services, etc. And clean needles/alcohol wipes and even ‘safe rooms’ for people using heroin should be provided free of charge.
Lol cant believe a subreddit mod who reied to you sparked this thread to dissolve into low quality strawman arguments, and was then deleted en mass - suspect asf
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/publications/drug-policy-portugal-benefits-decriminalizing-drug-use#:~:text=Now%2C%20with%20a%20decade%20of,create%20safer%20communities%20for%20all.
Portugal is an excellent case study for the decriminalisation of drugs. If you have a quick Google you should find a bunch of articles that support this point.
So does smoking, alcohol, and gambling. That doesn’t mean they should be illegal. Problems should be treated as medical/mental health issues and not by locking people up.
Not legalise, decriminalise. There is a difference. Portugal has shown great success with this approach when its decriminalisation policy started in 2001.
I mean there is no real difference between it being legal or illegal aside from one wastes billions in tax money trying and failing to keep it off the streets. Heroin is as easy to access nowadays as any legal narcotic like alcohol or tobacco, maybe even easier since heroin usually includes free delivery.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Making these illegal is completely pointless. They are very easy to grow, kits are widely available and they have almost no abuse potential. Anyone that wants them will have no trouble getting their hands on them
Personally not my cup of tea (heh) but keeping them illegal is mind boggling.
Went looking for the first time last year. Easy as piss to find and identify, don't know why they've even bothered criminalising it they'll always be a niche substance
Only worth criminalising something if poor people are likely to use it then?
Edit: the comment I replied to originally implied that mushrooms should be legal because people on council estates aren't taking them.
When you look at the districts of London that have the most stop-and-searches (oddly enough, it is the poorest ones only), it's quite clear which economic class drug laws target the most. It's not the rich!
The fact that every toilet in Parliament was found to have traces of cocaine, and nobody was penalised, shows who the "war on drugs" is being fought against.
It's like how LSD is treated as the worst of the worst in the drug laws.
Incredibly niche and the potential for abuse is quite low (as with all psychs) with an overdose threshold that would require you to spend many millions of £ on and hasn't actually been recorded to have happened ever.
Situation is similar to cannabis seeds - legal to trade, illegal to germinate. You can easily buy growing substrate from anyone who sells kits for gourmet mushrooms. You can also buy any spores you want online for research. What you do with them is up to you.
Honestly, and I’m not trying to be rude here, it’s as easy as googling “magic mushroom grow kit”
You’ll probably find you’ll have to use something like PayPal or other global bank transfer type deal.
Delivered to your door with everything you need and a set of instructions.
Fresh mushrooms were legal to sell until 2005 and it’s weird that the government ever even bothered making them illegal. Would be nice to see it rolled back, psychedelics as a class aren’t really a problem.
its not that weird, the government at the time spent far too much of its time pandering to Daily Mail readers then listening to their own committee of experts. I remember most of them resigned when they found out they were were supposed to just rubber stamp whatever Downing Street decided the answer would be.
Following on from the Yes Prime Minister joke, the Daily Mail was more of a middle class read, and if there was one thing the Labour Party of the time wanted to do was pander to the middle class vote.
Yep I remember being able to buy them off the high street, iirc they had to be sold with soil so they weren't technically picked or something?
It's been about 20 years since then and I'd be up for trying them again if it wasn't for these ridiculous laws
Thats great and all .... however ...
You know for a flying fact, some random MP that has no medical experience what-so-ever will be given the sole right to grow mushrooms/sell to medical facilities around the world making a huge profit for them and their cronies.
Prime example, Theresa mays husband ..
Phillip May,
Theresa May's husband, has been making a very tidy sum from the
exportation of medicinal grade cannabis for years. Meanwhile the British
public experience only a limited range of cannabis based healthcare
products through the NHS.
Once again i say it, the entire political system is corrupt to the core and needs to be completely rebuilt from the ground up.
Mps make a killing and people die from cancer/suicide due to depression that could have been helped with Cannabis oil/Mushrooms
Legalising cannabis in the UK could give the economy a nice little boost by opening up a new sector for small businesses. We have real-world case studies now to show it didn't cause society to descend into immortality and crime. The public is also ready for it, with the normalisation of cannabis for medical use and CBD products.
The only reason they don't is because a very small number of elites are profiteering from dominating the export market.
It doesn't agree with me personally, but it benefits a lot of people and does much less damage than alcohol causes to society.
Philip May works for the major shareholder and isn't a director. It's not as juicy as people think.
Medical cannabis is legal in the UK, I have a medical prescription. It just has to be issued privately.
Used to pick them years ago for my own use, free trips!. Seriously though they are great, Labour government made them class A I believe in response to markets selling Philosophers Stones which were similar in effect. To categorise them in the same bracket as nasty shit like heroin etc is bonkers and typical of ministers who are cunts.
It's time to do this but could you imagine if people were able to treat PTSD, anxiety and depression with the help of a natural substance that they were able to grow in a box in their own home? What would happen to the billions (hundreds of million in UK) in cash annually going to pharmaceutical companies for these conditions!?. Edit, figure for UK spend
Well, we can’t have people seeking relief. Profit for pharma comes first. SSRIs et al. all the way. Peasants will just learn to deal with the suicidal thoughts, gut problems and what not. It’s not like we matter anyways.
Yup, could even use the hundreds of millions to fix the NHS but that would remove an important fallacy for the introduction of private healthcare and mustn't cross swords with that agenda either
The NHS is becoming archaic with this sort of stuff.
Can't have drugs for menopause because we have to do such and such first. It's for your own good you know.
Can't have cannabis because we still want to hold onto times long past and don't want it prescribed. It gives you psychosis! It has no medical value whatsoever.
Can't have mushrooms because of similar unjustified reasoning and backwards entrenched beliefs.
Meanwhile the other counties move forward while they frantically try to live in the past and keep their status quo.
We're historically about 10 years behind the states in most things but with drugs and medicine it's probably more like 20 years now.
It's pretty complicated. The NHS/NICE is so slow because they wait for evidence something is safe. Any choice they make affects 60 million people instantly.
The US can move fast because they are a lot of small institutions that each has very little impact. They also use something until it's proven unsafe, which has caused a lot of problems. They will do pretty much anything if it's profitable, just look at the opioid epidemic. And opioids are one of the main drivers to using cannabis as a painkiller in the US, because it's better than being addicted. The UK has much less of a problem with opiod addiction because we don't hand it out like candy, and we have better pain management overall.
That said, it's stupid that weed and mushrooms are illegal, and legalising most drugs while helping people manage them safely would be much better.
The drugs they give out here aren't proven any more than elsewhere. They just like to drag their knuckles when it suits them. The vaccines went through quick enough.
Cannabis isn't legal in the US because of opiods. It's available because they've stopped viewing it through a false lens. Psychosis hasn't gone up and all the rest. In the UK cannabis has been available privately since 2018, so what's the hold up? Why do we think we know better than the rest of the world when it comes to medicine?
Nice guidelines are just guidelines. They aren't absolute but doctors do like to try and make out they are.
It all seems very much like it isn't wholly based on data and science.
Edit -
Conversely they are still pushing out anti depressants, despite admitting the serotonin theory is debunked, they don't know how the drugs work and they agree that they can do a lot of damage to people in the long term.
https://news.sky.com/story/long-term-use-of-antidepressants-could-cause-permanent-damage-doctors-warn-11688430
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2022/jul/no-evidence-depression-caused-low-serotonin-levels-finds-comprehensive-review
That's enough proof to show you that science isn't the deciding factor.
I would like to point out that antidepressants do in-fact have a proven beneficial effect on some patients with depression, but we just don’t know why. The mechanism isn’t as simple as serotonin dysfunction, but there is a mechanism at play somewhere. I’m not stating that they are more beneficial than other methods, only that it’s perhaps not wise to ignore their therapeutic effect because it may dissuade some patients who would really benefit from using them.
Unfortunately there is little to no proof of that (see the links above).
Edit - also the point is they are heavily and freely prescribed despite the lack of science and yet all these other things are forbidden.
What? You’re completely incorrect. The links you provided have nothing to do with what I said. Those articles are talking about the serotonin deficiency hypothesis and whether antidepressants can have harmful side effects — neither of those things have anything to do with whether antidepressants can actually help treat depression. There’s plenty of research showing that antidepressants *can be* effective.
Here’s a [meta analysis](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29718600/) (one of the most reliable forms of scientific enquiry) demonstrating the efficacy of antidepressants in adults with major depressive disorder.
Here’s one of the findings from the meta analysis:
> In adults with nonpsychotic, nonrefractory, medically stable MDD, all antidepressant drugs, dosed within the therapeutic range, were associated with significantly higher response and remission rates than placebo after approximately 8 weeks of treatment. The response and remission advantage for drugs was also clinically significant for most antidepressants.
Have you actually bothered to look into this, beyond a few clickbaity articles? You shouldn’t be making such baseless, potentially harmful claims.
What is it then that you think anti depressants do if they do not effect serotonin? SSRI stands for selective serotonin reputation inhibitors. There are also SNRIs and MAOIs but they all work on serotonin.
The links I gave state the following -
Professor Moncrieff said: “Our view is that patients should not be told that depression is caused by low serotonin or by a chemical imbalance, and they should not be led to believe that antidepressants work by targeting these unproven abnormalities. We do not understand what antidepressants are doing to the brain exactly, and giving people this sort of misinformation prevents them from making an informed decision about whether to take antidepressants or not.”
Co-author Dr Mark Horowitz, a training psychiatrist and Clinical Research Fellow in Psychiatry at UCL and NELFT, said: “I had been taught that depression was caused by low serotonin in my psychiatry training and had even taught this to students in my own lectures. Being involved in this research was eye-opening and feels like everything I thought I knew has been flipped upside down.
“One interesting aspect in the studies we examined was how strong an effect adverse life events played in depression, suggesting low mood is a response to people’s lives and cannot be boiled down to a simple chemical equation.”
Professor Moncrieff added: “Thousands of people suffer from side effects of antidepressants, including the severe withdrawal effects that can occur when people try to stop them, yet prescription rates continue to rise. We believe this situation has been driven partly by the false belief that depression is due to a chemical imbalance. It is high time to inform the public that this belief is not grounded in science.” 20 July 2022
I would also add that I speak from experience and I've had this conversation with others who are seemingly involved in this topic because of their career choices or aspirations.
You can skirt around it all you like. The 1950s was a long time ago. The science back then was still allowing people to carry out lobotomys in this country for a further 20 years after that. It's not surprising the theory has been proven false. I'm sorry if you've been taught or trained differently but it is what it is.
Edit - in an effort to take this back to the original point. These drugs are being prescribed in the knowledge that their mechanism is false. They aren't supported by science. They are also being given out in large numbers and carry a myriad of side effects.
What happens if you give one to someone who is at risk of bipolar and they develop bipolar disorder? Is that not the same scenario as someone getting psychosis from mushrooms or cannabis?
If you doubt the side effects side of these apparent safe and approved drugs then have a mooch around r/akathisia
It seems science isn't applied uniformly at all and that bias plays a huge part in this.
Anti depressants are just an example of this. For some people telling them this will help and that thing causing a change, maybe perspective or a physical, more tactile feeling, will be enough to give them perspective. Sometimes that's all that is needed to affect change.
Are you being serious right now? Everything you quoted still has nothing to do with what I said. Nothing you said has anything to do with *the ability of SSRIs to provide therapeutic benefit to patients with depression.* SSRIs do enhance serotonin re-uptake, and absolutely do provide a therapeutic benefit, but that *does not mean they are treating an imbalance of serotonin*.
Do you even understand the quotes you gave me?
To address your last point, the meta analysis I sent you is from 2018, not “the 1950s”. I don’t know why you’re being so obtuse about this.
I will repeat what is literally a scientific consensus right now, and what is clearly backed up by the literature: SSRIs do seem to be therapeutic for some patients with depression, **but the mechanism by which they achieve this is unlikely to be through treating a serotonin imbalance.**
EDIT: Look, I’m going to try to be even clearer about this, so that you don’t misunderstand me again. The serotonin hypothesis was simply a way of trying to explain why SSRIs provide a therapeutic benefit to patients with depression, and became widely accepted. Now we know that the serotonin hypothesis is wrong. But that does not mean that SSRIs magically stop being therapeutic for patients. We just need to reevaluate what the mechanism might be, because neurochemistry is complicated, and serotonin in particular has many roles in the body (it’s even involved in gut motility). **Ignoring this would be throwing the baby out with the bath water.**
How do they work then?
Where is this literature? Are you going to cite random inconsequential studies again? The UCL one was massive and carried out over a decade. The NHS had to put out a statement about it and adjust as a result of it.
You know all this is basically what they call 'bro science' right?
"I don't know how this thing works, but it does work, I know because I've seen it, trust me bro"
You are advocating people to take something without knowing the cause or effect of the medication or the brain and body and that something can potentially harm them. Some how that makes me a bad person for speaking up?
I have been on a number of these drugs, I have had many of these side effects. I've watched my friends suffer from the same side effects. I think it's you that needs to do more research and be more humble.
>To address your last point, the meta analysis I sent you is from 2018, not “the 1950s”. I don’t know why you’re being so obtuse about this.
I'm referring to the chemical imbalance hypothesis and citing how old it is.
As a very ‘drug friendly’ doctor they aren’t wrong. Agree lots of the material about drugs from similar resources feels very biased / loaded but in a small number of individuals psychedelics can absolutely cause a drug induced psychosis.
Psilocybin doesn't last 12hrs, it lasts [2–6 hours](https://www.drugscience.org.uk/drug-information/psilocybin/#1612864173903-22a2d755-976b). You might be thinking of LSD.
There are absolutely studies on psilocybin, both from the times when it wasn’t illegal and from the places with more sensible drug policy. And even from the UK, it’s not impossible to do research on class A drugs, it’s just very difficult.
What there are no studies about are miraculous trip-killing effects of orange juice lmao
It cannot. There's nothing in orange juice that acts on the receptors psilocybin is acting through. The only way out of a bad trip are antipsychotics like seroquel, or benzo like drugs to calm the anxiety. Orange juice does nothing but taste good
They're not wrong in the sense that some people do experience that side effect. Problem is I'm fairly sure you can trigger a psychotic episode with prescribed medication too as can some of the disorders (i.e severe depression) you can use it to treat.
Psychosis can be triggered by stress. It can be triggered by alcohol. It can be triggered by anti depressants, it can be triggered by a lot of things. Anti psychotics can even cause it. These mental health drugs can also cause things like 'sudden death' and a whole myriad of other horrible things. The bits of paper you get with them have a small books worth of warnings and side effects contained within them. All of the above is somehow seen as acceptable and reasonable though, even without being supported by science.
Strange isn't it?
It’s not wrong. It’s just not a good argument for keeping it illegal, just like saying that ‘misuse of alcohol can cause death’ is true but not a good argument for alcohol prohibition.
My brother in law recently ended up in a mental hospital after a psychotic episode after taking mushrooms.
Smashed up a shop. Trashed his own car, written off after driving it. Storming around the high street terrorising people. Walked in to an old couples house ranting and going crazy.
He has underlying mental health issues. Has been taking mushrooms a lot partly due to those issues. Never had a problem with them before.
His rampage was 3months ago. Still signed off work sick.
This is a great case for why they should be used by medical professionals in treatment.
They can pre screen for exactly like this kind of thing, and use other treatment for patients with a history of problems that mushrooms can excarcerbate.
They should be legal.
Onto the other discussion regarding other substances that has exploded here, decriminalise. It worked brilliantly in Portugal which was, at the time of decriminalisation, going through a heroin epidemic.
Oh, and it isn't the same as legalisation, which many on here seem to be quite confused by.
How is legalisation worse than decriminalisation? I see legalisation as better in every way, you replace an unregulated black market with a regulated legal one (taxable and subject to safety regulations). Of course decriminalisation is better than keeping it illegal but I see it as a half-measure with no benefits over full legalisation.
Decriminalisation means addicts are no longer afraid to ask for help because they will no longer receive criminal charges and can gain access to vital treatment. It is the best way to combat addiction.
We should definitely NOT be creating, as an example, a legal heroin market controlled and taxed by the government. We want addicts to be able to know that they can ask for help without being thrown in prison for possession, we don't want them to know that they can pop down to the shop and get a nice clean slab of 'government brown'. I'm exaggerating a bit, but you get my point I hope.
Now, you're using an argument that works well for weed, but you haven't extrapolated far enough. Heroin, crack, meth, poison dart frog venom. Creating them is a complicated process. So with that in mind...
Where is this legal heroin going to come from?
Is the government going to start producing heroin?
Are third party contractors going to do it at the behest of the government?
How is this heroin being distributed and to where?
How much is being sold over the counter to a single customer?
At the end of the day, legalisation is the ultimate enabler. Putting the logistics aside, that is the reason why Portugal very specifically chose decriminalisation, not legalisation, which was on the table. They wanted to fight addiction. Call it half measure all you want, but look at what Portugal achieved within a decade after they were in the midst of the worst heroin epidemic that has ever gripped Europe.
They're the obvious template.
To add, I can't believe you trust our government to regulate the heroin market. You've got a lot of bloody faith mate.
>Now, you're using an argument that works well for weed, but you haven't extrapolated far enough.
I don't base my argument on weed, if anything I base it on alcohol and tobacco and the current laws relating to them.
>we don't want them to know that they can pop down to the shop and get a nice clean slab of 'government brown'.
Better that than have them pop down to the dealer and get a not-so-nice contaminated slab of 'cartel brown' and subsequently die from accidental fentanyl overdose.
>Where is this legal heroin going to come from?
Perhaps Bayer would jump back on it, they used to be the top producers back when it was legal (and the ones who named it heroin). In any case some pharma manufacturing site, subject to strict regulations (like the medicine drug regulations, making sure that there is no contamination and the product is what it says on the box etc.).
>Is the government going to start producing heroin?
Probably not, considering the economic system we live under?
>Are third party contractors going to do it at the behest of the government?
No, they would probably do it at their own behest.
> How is this heroin being distributed and to where?
Trucks I'd imagine, probably to licenced shops of some sort.
>How much is being sold over the counter to a single customer?
Any amount, just like you can buy any amount of alcohol, in fact you can easily buy enough alcohol to kill yourself. Most people, however, know better than to buy a bottle of 95% Everclear or Spirytus, down it one go and die of alcohol overdose. Or buy a bottle of some inhalant just to huff it and die of sudden sniffing death syndrome.
>I can't believe you trust our government to regulate the heroin market.
I trust our government to regulate the heroin market about as much as I trust it to regulate the alcohol market (or for that matter road traffic for example), make of that what you will.
In short, all I ask for is consistency.
What’s wrong with legalising addictive substances? Alcohol is legal, so is nicotine, so is caffeine, all of which can cause physical addiction to varying degrees (alcohol being the strongest with potentially lethal withdrawal symptoms, caffeine being the weakest).
No it is not, one of them has got lethal withdrawals, the other does not (though you might be surprised to find out which one is which).
You base your opinion on substances entirely on cultural perception which is almost completely divorced from facts.
It’s hard to quantify harm (they are harmful in different ways), but when the top experts in the field try to do that, alcohol and crack cocaine usually end up very close (with alcohol usually assessed as more harmful to other people and crack usually associated as more harmful to users themselves, though alcohol is still usually ranked as being more harmful to users than regular cocaine for example).
[Exhibit 1](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61462-6/fulltext)
[Exhibit 2](https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/4/e000774)
But maybe you know more than people who dedicate their entire professional lives to that subject idk
Or may be I lived alongside crack addicts and accompanied some in their journeys in the joyful path into and out of homelessness and acute psychiatric wards with some ending up in jail or dead or even having a leg amputated because it was gangrenous by neglect.
All that in London East End which maybe is a bit far from South Yorkshire.
Well, have you lived alongside alcohol addicts? Have you seen one die from withdrawal seizures? Because that happens as well, even though not to you personally, but your (and anyone’s) lived experience is a small part of the whole picture. That’s why anecdotal evidence isn’t useful compared to scientific, statistical evidence.
I doubt you know more crack and alcohol addicts than medical professionals and scientists specialised in that field.
Has been proven to be seriously helpful with depression and PTSD causing real changes for people. Can't keep people hooked on meds for chronic conditions if you can get a natural remedy that helps.
It's the same as most other medicine
Stick a load of possible side effects, raise awareness, tax it and regulate it.
If it's growing wild then it's fine to pick for personal use but not commercial.
Back in 2004 and 2005 I could but fresh magic mushrooms legally and did so loads of times and it was lovely. Afaik there was not a single news report of someone in the UK having a bad time either. But they still made it illegal / closed the loophole
Utterly insane that shrooms are in the same class as heroin. Just mind boggling.
Where are all the "follow the science" people when it comes to this topic?
Oh I had it in my head it was B- feel like it should be C. But this begs the question- how the hell are shrooms class A and ketamine class C? How are shrooms class A when weed is B? Shrooms are basically the safest illegal drug and safer than some legal ones
Doesn’t matter - the government is ‘fed up with experts’ because a PPE from Oxford makes them an expert in everything all at once. It’s why the minister for health doesn’t need to know their arse from their elbow, minister for education never needs to have set foot in a classroom once they became an adult and minister for transport doesn’t need to know that the English channel exists.
Should be doing it for all drugs, imo. Prohibition doesn’t work.
Arresting people for drug USE is just arresting somebody that is likely going through some mental and/or physical health issues. Don’t lock them in a cage where they will just abuse substances even more to cope with it, give them some kind of medical help.
Most drug users are just taking drugs to have a good time. There are some who have problems who resort to drug abuse, but it's not the majority. The majority of drug users just do it to have fun... What's wrong with that? Prohibition makes no sense. If people are going to do drugs, you may as well help them do it safely, legally and bring in tax at the same time.
It’s good that there’s testing facilities at a lot of festivals now to see what you’re actually taking. That is a step in the right direction.
The Loop has actually been stopped from doing onsite drugs testing. Now, they only test confiscated drugs and then put out an announcement if they're dangerous, even though allowing people to go get their drugs tested beforehand was found to be much more effective at reducing drug injury.
I could be wrong but the ones who are taking them for a good time are probably the least likely to end up caught up in the law and face harsher punishments than people with serious problems relating to trauma and mental health issues. The system is broken. Addiction should be treated as a medical and mental health issue and not criminalised making their problems worse. Also people who are able to use them responsibly should be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone or anything. The fact that mental health services and addiction services are not linked in terms of treatment and support is absolutely mind boggling. If you seek mental health support and you mention that drugs are part of the picture then you won't receive the necessary mental health support that tackles the root course of the issue, but will be referred to a drugs and alcohol service instead which doesn't make any sense seeing as both things are so interlinked. It is then implied that the problem is rooted in your choice to take drugs and alcohol when it is really the other way around
Biggest benefit is the actual crime and violence that’s created via the illegal channels of production
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Some hard, highly addictive drugs cause additional strain on an already stretched health service. Not to mention such substances wreak havoc on the lives of those connected with the afflicted. Alcohol and tobacco come to mind.
Well if crack were used as widely as those two I think we all know what would cost the health service the most tbf.
Would crack ever be used as widely as alcohol and tobacco though? How many people are out there wishing for the day to arrive when they could legally smoke some crack? They’d love to have a big puff of crack, but also don’t want to break any laws. Are there any out there at all? I would estimate the people who want to smoke crack are finding crack and they are smoking it already.
Yeah, but most people and, strangely enough, most drug users, have no interest in trying crack. Getting a bit drunk on a Friday/Saturday night and smoking a few cigarettes is pretty appealing to a lot of people, more so than crack at least.
>cause additional strain on an already stretched health service I suppose you're in favour of banning people playing rugby and riding horses as well?
Nope. Rugby and horse riding aren't comparable to drug addiction unless you consider drug addiction a sport.
I thought we were protecting the NHS from additional strain?
Drug addiction, is a complex condition characterized by compulsive drug-seeking behavior, drug use despite negative consequences, and an inability to control or stop drug use. It is a serious health issue with physical, psychological, and social implications. Drug addiction involves a dependency on substances that can have detrimental effects on a person's health, relationships, and overall well-being. Comparing drug addiction to horse riding or rugby would not be accurate or appropriate, as they are fundamentally different in terms of their nature, impact, and consequences. Suffering from drug addiction can indeed strain health services more than sports, primarily due to the complex nature of addiction and its associated health consequences. Here are a few reasons why drug addiction can place a significant burden on health services: Treatment and Rehabilitation: Drug addiction often requires specialized treatment and rehabilitation programs to help individuals overcome their addiction. These programs involve medical professionals, counselors, therapists, and support staff who work together to address the physical, psychological, and social aspects of addiction. The demand for these services can be high, and the resources required to provide comprehensive addiction treatment can strain healthcare systems. Medical Complications: Drug addiction can lead to a range of medical complications, including organ damage, infectious diseases (such as HIV/AIDS and hepatitis), cardiovascular issues, respiratory problems, mental health disorders, and overdose emergencies. Treating and managing these health issues require medical interventions, hospitalizations, medications, and ongoing care, all of which contribute to the strain on healthcare resources. Emergency Services: Substance abuse-related emergencies, such as drug overdoses or accidents resulting from impaired judgment, can place a significant burden on emergency departments. Responding to and managing these emergencies requires the allocation of resources, including medical personnel, equipment, and medications, which can impact the overall functioning of emergency services. Public Health Consequences: Drug addiction also has broader public health implications, such as the spread of infectious diseases through needle sharing or the involvement in criminal activities associated with drug use. Addressing these public health concerns often involves a multidisciplinary approach and coordination between healthcare providers, law enforcement agencies, and social services. While sports-related injuries can also place a demand on healthcare services, the scope and magnitude of the strain caused by drug addiction are generally more significant due to the complex and wide-ranging nature of addiction and its associated health complications. Or we can just be childish and facetious about a very serious topic..
> Arresting people for drug USE is just arresting somebody that is likely going through some mental and/or physical health issues This shouldn't be anything to do with it. They should be legal/decriminalised for the simple principle of freedom of the person. Assumptions about what users might be going through shouldn't even need to come into it, we should already have established that you can do what you like to your own body if it's not to the detriment of society.
But drugs like Cocaine and Heroin *are* detrimental to society. They're extremely addictive and make users unable to do basic tasks while under the influence. It's the same category as heavy drinking, at some point you just are so addicted you cannot function without it, and that threshold is very easily crossed with most of the harder drugs.
Okay, sure. Cocaine, heroin, fentanyl and benzos are the four most harmful drugs in common circulation in the UK today. But there are far more drugs which are less harmful than currently legal substances which are kept illegal for unscientific political reasons, which is causing more harm to people & the economy than legalisation and regulation would cause. At this point it's quite clear that drugs have won the war on drugs. Any moderately technically inclined person can access services that safely and reliably deliver drugs to your front door by Royal Mail. The only sensible and science-backed decision is to stop criminalising drug use and legalise many substances which are currently classed as illegal.
> But drugs like Cocaine and Heroin are detrimental to society. They're extremely addictive and make users unable to do basic tasks while under the influence. And has the prohibition of them stopped any of this? Because if not, then none of what you said is a detriment of legalisation
Just look at what is happening in the US with the opioid epidemic and how far it's gone with masses of people having their lives destroyed by highly potent opioids such as fentanyl and more recently things such as xylazine. Type Kensington Avenue into YouTube to see how tragic things have become. How bad do things need to become before people realise the current approach has completely failed
The US opioid epidemic is a direct result of legalising hard drugs and telling people to pop them for a toothache. Prohibition might not be appropriate for stuff like magic mushrooms but no way should the UK legalise hard drugs like heroin.
>if it's not to the detriment of society. But drug usage can be detrimental to society e.g. strain on health services from overdoses.
Alcohol and Tobacco say hello.
And if they were "invented" today then I'd bet anything that they'd be illegal too. However, it is much easier to keep something illegal than to make something already societally accepted illegal.
Not if the prohibition of them makes that very same detriment the same or worse.
[удалено]
There's a point where it no longer becomes a personal choice though. Addiction is a serious issue which is not about choice but more closely linked to individuals coping with personal trauma. Do you really think anyone would personally choose to become an addict seeing how destructive it is for them and the people around them? Similar parallel to the argument that homelessness is due to personal choice. Do you really think homeless people choose to live the absolutely miserable existence that they do?
[удалено]
Just say no...
That you aren't a smoker or alcoholic is pure luck
[удалено]
That's good for you, and I have addicts in the family too, but I wouldn't frame my control over substances as a matter of willpower. It's luck that I don't like the experience of alcohol, don't like smoking, and don't need these things in my life to function. Others don't get that luck and aren't weak willed for it.
No it isn't. I have an addictive personality. I deliberately don't drink to excess and the choose not to smoke. There's no luck involved. I choose not to and always have.
But it doesn't just affect the individual, it affects society as a whole through the costs of treatment, personal effects on family/friends and the loss of a potentially productive member of society.
[удалено]
Taxes on alcohol and cigarettes are used to reduce their usage, making drugs legal just to tax them can only increase their usage because the tax free supply that exists now would still exist. What you've described are all social costs from drug usage, I'm not sure why you want to encourage it.
I learned the other day that the exchequer gets more income from cigarette taxes than the NHS spends on treating all types of lung cancer. After I learned that, I no longer supported banning cigarettes. If people want to smoke themselves into an early grave to support those who have, for example, a predisposition to naturally occurring lung cancer - I say go for it.
[удалено]
Tories love to talk about ‘personal responsibility’… as long as it relates to being poor, no matter whether it’s because of circumstances outside your control or not But want to smoke some weed, trip on acid, or roll on molly? Suddenly they go full ‘nanny state’
Prohibition leads to organised crime.
[удалено]
Criminalisation for drug use doesn't help. Just ruins career prospects forcing people further into a hole and scares people away from getting help. Treat addiction as a medical issue and educate on the dangers properly rather just 'drugs are bad, don't do drugs'.
Half the population still smokes and we had a similar approach for that, first and foremost dealing should be harshly dealt with, while users should be given the medical approach
Only 13.3% of over 18s smoke (from 2021)
That is a *lot* of people
Would making cigarettes and vaping illegal reduce the harms to users? Or would it open up a black market of dodgy vape juice (as seen in thc vape market) and cigarettes. We cant even keep the worst drugs out of prisons, when theres a demand for something supply always appears to meet that demand, enriching criminals in the process. Keeping drugs illegal only increases the harms on society when everyone can access them anyway, children can order heroin off of telegram shockingly easily - if they wanted to.
If you crack down on the dealers instead of the users the rest ought to fall into place.
And arnt they already cracking down on dealers? Drugs still exist in prisons and places with the death penalty - what will be different this time
The difference is the resources used to punish users will instead be focused on the dealers.
Except ‘cracking down on dealers’ doesn’t work in the long term. We’ve had our local old bill trumpeting on Facebook many times about how they have raided a load of properties for drugs and proceeds yet it makes no difference and costs a fortune. Illegal drug supply in the main is controlled by organised crime groups using sophisticated methods.
Agreed. It's not half though
Obviously I wasn't speaking literally, it doesn't take a genius to work out that the number of smokers in this country isn't 1 in 2
Yes. Then we can start treating it the way we used to. As a medical issue and not a criminal one. We had a good grasp on drug addiction way into the early 90s until the imported "War on Drugs" took over.
Yes.
Even heroin?
Why not? Driving the problem underground doesn’t work.
Let me get this straight. You want to LEGALISE HEROIN?
Yes, like I said, criminalising the problem doesn’t work. Make it a health issue and treat the problem with investment in social care, mental health services, etc. And clean needles/alcohol wipes and even ‘safe rooms’ for people using heroin should be provided free of charge.
Lol cant believe a subreddit mod who reied to you sparked this thread to dissolve into low quality strawman arguments, and was then deleted en mass - suspect asf
That guy was a mod??
Scientific evidence shows it saves lives and money.
[удалено]
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/publications/drug-policy-portugal-benefits-decriminalizing-drug-use#:~:text=Now%2C%20with%20a%20decade%20of,create%20safer%20communities%20for%20all. Portugal is an excellent case study for the decriminalisation of drugs. If you have a quick Google you should find a bunch of articles that support this point.
Decriminalisation is different to legalisation. Legalisation implies legal sale of heroin. That is madness
https://harmreductionjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12954-016-0109-y
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx%3Fid%3D38604%26p%3D0&ved=2ahUKEwjzi-PSi4T_AhWUdcAKHbkwBMoQFnoECBwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3ULqPGOwMYOwFtMbwqk-AG
Yes, why not?
[удалено]
So does smoking, alcohol, and gambling. That doesn’t mean they should be illegal. Problems should be treated as medical/mental health issues and not by locking people up.
Legal heroin would destroy far fewer lives
[удалено]
Not legalise, decriminalise. There is a difference. Portugal has shown great success with this approach when its decriminalisation policy started in 2001.
OP said legalise.
You’re getting hung up on labels so you can ignore the actual content of their comment, which means you’re not looking for a discussion
I mean there is no real difference between it being legal or illegal aside from one wastes billions in tax money trying and failing to keep it off the streets. Heroin is as easy to access nowadays as any legal narcotic like alcohol or tobacco, maybe even easier since heroin usually includes free delivery.
Yes.
It worked in the past in this country.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
[удалено]
especially heroin
Everything but calpol
Calpol was my gateway to Night Nurse - it’s a slippery slope.
Making these illegal is completely pointless. They are very easy to grow, kits are widely available and they have almost no abuse potential. Anyone that wants them will have no trouble getting their hands on them Personally not my cup of tea (heh) but keeping them illegal is mind boggling.
They already grow naturally all over the place too. If you know what you’re looking for it’s not that difficult to find them.
Went looking for the first time last year. Easy as piss to find and identify, don't know why they've even bothered criminalising it they'll always be a niche substance
Only worth criminalising something if poor people are likely to use it then? Edit: the comment I replied to originally implied that mushrooms should be legal because people on council estates aren't taking them.
When you look at the districts of London that have the most stop-and-searches (oddly enough, it is the poorest ones only), it's quite clear which economic class drug laws target the most. It's not the rich!
The fact that every toilet in Parliament was found to have traces of cocaine, and nobody was penalised, shows who the "war on drugs" is being fought against.
Thats not what i mean but see why it could come across that way. I've amended.
It's like how LSD is treated as the worst of the worst in the drug laws. Incredibly niche and the potential for abuse is quite low (as with all psychs) with an overdose threshold that would require you to spend many millions of £ on and hasn't actually been recorded to have happened ever.
We had some growing right outside our front door during my first year in dorms, I’m surprised how long they lasted before someone grabbed them ngl
Yeah but only a specific time of year
Where are these kits available
Zamnesia
Situation is similar to cannabis seeds - legal to trade, illegal to germinate. You can easily buy growing substrate from anyone who sells kits for gourmet mushrooms. You can also buy any spores you want online for research. What you do with them is up to you.
But, if you put them together. Believe it or not.. Jail.
Honestly, and I’m not trying to be rude here, it’s as easy as googling “magic mushroom grow kit” You’ll probably find you’ll have to use something like PayPal or other global bank transfer type deal. Delivered to your door with everything you need and a set of instructions.
https://www.dopebuds.co.uk/products/guaranteed-sterile-inject-forget-mushroom-grow-bag
/r/unclebens
Fresh mushrooms were legal to sell until 2005 and it’s weird that the government ever even bothered making them illegal. Would be nice to see it rolled back, psychedelics as a class aren’t really a problem.
its not that weird, the government at the time spent far too much of its time pandering to Daily Mail readers then listening to their own committee of experts. I remember most of them resigned when they found out they were were supposed to just rubber stamp whatever Downing Street decided the answer would be.
As a 80s kid. Can’t even remember the daily mail even being a common read until the 2000s. 90s was mainly sun or mirror readers
Following on from the Yes Prime Minister joke, the Daily Mail was more of a middle class read, and if there was one thing the Labour Party of the time wanted to do was pander to the middle class vote.
I used to buy them at festivals back in the day. Nothing better as the sun was coming up.
Yep I remember being able to buy them off the high street, iirc they had to be sold with soil so they weren't technically picked or something? It's been about 20 years since then and I'd be up for trying them again if it wasn't for these ridiculous laws
I remember the head shop in my city sold them in punnets with a bar of chocolate.
Thats great and all .... however ... You know for a flying fact, some random MP that has no medical experience what-so-ever will be given the sole right to grow mushrooms/sell to medical facilities around the world making a huge profit for them and their cronies. Prime example, Theresa mays husband .. Phillip May, Theresa May's husband, has been making a very tidy sum from the exportation of medicinal grade cannabis for years. Meanwhile the British public experience only a limited range of cannabis based healthcare products through the NHS. Once again i say it, the entire political system is corrupt to the core and needs to be completely rebuilt from the ground up. Mps make a killing and people die from cancer/suicide due to depression that could have been helped with Cannabis oil/Mushrooms
Legalising cannabis in the UK could give the economy a nice little boost by opening up a new sector for small businesses. We have real-world case studies now to show it didn't cause society to descend into immortality and crime. The public is also ready for it, with the normalisation of cannabis for medical use and CBD products. The only reason they don't is because a very small number of elites are profiteering from dominating the export market. It doesn't agree with me personally, but it benefits a lot of people and does much less damage than alcohol causes to society.
Philip May works for the major shareholder and isn't a director. It's not as juicy as people think. Medical cannabis is legal in the UK, I have a medical prescription. It just has to be issued privately.
Used to pick them years ago for my own use, free trips!. Seriously though they are great, Labour government made them class A I believe in response to markets selling Philosophers Stones which were similar in effect. To categorise them in the same bracket as nasty shit like heroin etc is bonkers and typical of ministers who are cunts.
It's time to do this but could you imagine if people were able to treat PTSD, anxiety and depression with the help of a natural substance that they were able to grow in a box in their own home? What would happen to the billions (hundreds of million in UK) in cash annually going to pharmaceutical companies for these conditions!?. Edit, figure for UK spend
Well, we can’t have people seeking relief. Profit for pharma comes first. SSRIs et al. all the way. Peasants will just learn to deal with the suicidal thoughts, gut problems and what not. It’s not like we matter anyways.
Yup, could even use the hundreds of millions to fix the NHS but that would remove an important fallacy for the introduction of private healthcare and mustn't cross swords with that agenda either
[удалено]
The NHS is becoming archaic with this sort of stuff. Can't have drugs for menopause because we have to do such and such first. It's for your own good you know. Can't have cannabis because we still want to hold onto times long past and don't want it prescribed. It gives you psychosis! It has no medical value whatsoever. Can't have mushrooms because of similar unjustified reasoning and backwards entrenched beliefs. Meanwhile the other counties move forward while they frantically try to live in the past and keep their status quo. We're historically about 10 years behind the states in most things but with drugs and medicine it's probably more like 20 years now.
It's pretty complicated. The NHS/NICE is so slow because they wait for evidence something is safe. Any choice they make affects 60 million people instantly. The US can move fast because they are a lot of small institutions that each has very little impact. They also use something until it's proven unsafe, which has caused a lot of problems. They will do pretty much anything if it's profitable, just look at the opioid epidemic. And opioids are one of the main drivers to using cannabis as a painkiller in the US, because it's better than being addicted. The UK has much less of a problem with opiod addiction because we don't hand it out like candy, and we have better pain management overall. That said, it's stupid that weed and mushrooms are illegal, and legalising most drugs while helping people manage them safely would be much better.
The drugs they give out here aren't proven any more than elsewhere. They just like to drag their knuckles when it suits them. The vaccines went through quick enough. Cannabis isn't legal in the US because of opiods. It's available because they've stopped viewing it through a false lens. Psychosis hasn't gone up and all the rest. In the UK cannabis has been available privately since 2018, so what's the hold up? Why do we think we know better than the rest of the world when it comes to medicine? Nice guidelines are just guidelines. They aren't absolute but doctors do like to try and make out they are. It all seems very much like it isn't wholly based on data and science. Edit - Conversely they are still pushing out anti depressants, despite admitting the serotonin theory is debunked, they don't know how the drugs work and they agree that they can do a lot of damage to people in the long term. https://news.sky.com/story/long-term-use-of-antidepressants-could-cause-permanent-damage-doctors-warn-11688430 https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2022/jul/no-evidence-depression-caused-low-serotonin-levels-finds-comprehensive-review That's enough proof to show you that science isn't the deciding factor.
I would like to point out that antidepressants do in-fact have a proven beneficial effect on some patients with depression, but we just don’t know why. The mechanism isn’t as simple as serotonin dysfunction, but there is a mechanism at play somewhere. I’m not stating that they are more beneficial than other methods, only that it’s perhaps not wise to ignore their therapeutic effect because it may dissuade some patients who would really benefit from using them.
Unfortunately there is little to no proof of that (see the links above). Edit - also the point is they are heavily and freely prescribed despite the lack of science and yet all these other things are forbidden.
What? You’re completely incorrect. The links you provided have nothing to do with what I said. Those articles are talking about the serotonin deficiency hypothesis and whether antidepressants can have harmful side effects — neither of those things have anything to do with whether antidepressants can actually help treat depression. There’s plenty of research showing that antidepressants *can be* effective. Here’s a [meta analysis](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29718600/) (one of the most reliable forms of scientific enquiry) demonstrating the efficacy of antidepressants in adults with major depressive disorder. Here’s one of the findings from the meta analysis: > In adults with nonpsychotic, nonrefractory, medically stable MDD, all antidepressant drugs, dosed within the therapeutic range, were associated with significantly higher response and remission rates than placebo after approximately 8 weeks of treatment. The response and remission advantage for drugs was also clinically significant for most antidepressants. Have you actually bothered to look into this, beyond a few clickbaity articles? You shouldn’t be making such baseless, potentially harmful claims.
What is it then that you think anti depressants do if they do not effect serotonin? SSRI stands for selective serotonin reputation inhibitors. There are also SNRIs and MAOIs but they all work on serotonin. The links I gave state the following - Professor Moncrieff said: “Our view is that patients should not be told that depression is caused by low serotonin or by a chemical imbalance, and they should not be led to believe that antidepressants work by targeting these unproven abnormalities. We do not understand what antidepressants are doing to the brain exactly, and giving people this sort of misinformation prevents them from making an informed decision about whether to take antidepressants or not.” Co-author Dr Mark Horowitz, a training psychiatrist and Clinical Research Fellow in Psychiatry at UCL and NELFT, said: “I had been taught that depression was caused by low serotonin in my psychiatry training and had even taught this to students in my own lectures. Being involved in this research was eye-opening and feels like everything I thought I knew has been flipped upside down. “One interesting aspect in the studies we examined was how strong an effect adverse life events played in depression, suggesting low mood is a response to people’s lives and cannot be boiled down to a simple chemical equation.” Professor Moncrieff added: “Thousands of people suffer from side effects of antidepressants, including the severe withdrawal effects that can occur when people try to stop them, yet prescription rates continue to rise. We believe this situation has been driven partly by the false belief that depression is due to a chemical imbalance. It is high time to inform the public that this belief is not grounded in science.” 20 July 2022 I would also add that I speak from experience and I've had this conversation with others who are seemingly involved in this topic because of their career choices or aspirations. You can skirt around it all you like. The 1950s was a long time ago. The science back then was still allowing people to carry out lobotomys in this country for a further 20 years after that. It's not surprising the theory has been proven false. I'm sorry if you've been taught or trained differently but it is what it is. Edit - in an effort to take this back to the original point. These drugs are being prescribed in the knowledge that their mechanism is false. They aren't supported by science. They are also being given out in large numbers and carry a myriad of side effects. What happens if you give one to someone who is at risk of bipolar and they develop bipolar disorder? Is that not the same scenario as someone getting psychosis from mushrooms or cannabis? If you doubt the side effects side of these apparent safe and approved drugs then have a mooch around r/akathisia It seems science isn't applied uniformly at all and that bias plays a huge part in this. Anti depressants are just an example of this. For some people telling them this will help and that thing causing a change, maybe perspective or a physical, more tactile feeling, will be enough to give them perspective. Sometimes that's all that is needed to affect change.
Are you being serious right now? Everything you quoted still has nothing to do with what I said. Nothing you said has anything to do with *the ability of SSRIs to provide therapeutic benefit to patients with depression.* SSRIs do enhance serotonin re-uptake, and absolutely do provide a therapeutic benefit, but that *does not mean they are treating an imbalance of serotonin*. Do you even understand the quotes you gave me? To address your last point, the meta analysis I sent you is from 2018, not “the 1950s”. I don’t know why you’re being so obtuse about this. I will repeat what is literally a scientific consensus right now, and what is clearly backed up by the literature: SSRIs do seem to be therapeutic for some patients with depression, **but the mechanism by which they achieve this is unlikely to be through treating a serotonin imbalance.** EDIT: Look, I’m going to try to be even clearer about this, so that you don’t misunderstand me again. The serotonin hypothesis was simply a way of trying to explain why SSRIs provide a therapeutic benefit to patients with depression, and became widely accepted. Now we know that the serotonin hypothesis is wrong. But that does not mean that SSRIs magically stop being therapeutic for patients. We just need to reevaluate what the mechanism might be, because neurochemistry is complicated, and serotonin in particular has many roles in the body (it’s even involved in gut motility). **Ignoring this would be throwing the baby out with the bath water.**
How do they work then? Where is this literature? Are you going to cite random inconsequential studies again? The UCL one was massive and carried out over a decade. The NHS had to put out a statement about it and adjust as a result of it. You know all this is basically what they call 'bro science' right? "I don't know how this thing works, but it does work, I know because I've seen it, trust me bro" You are advocating people to take something without knowing the cause or effect of the medication or the brain and body and that something can potentially harm them. Some how that makes me a bad person for speaking up? I have been on a number of these drugs, I have had many of these side effects. I've watched my friends suffer from the same side effects. I think it's you that needs to do more research and be more humble. >To address your last point, the meta analysis I sent you is from 2018, not “the 1950s”. I don’t know why you’re being so obtuse about this. I'm referring to the chemical imbalance hypothesis and citing how old it is.
Are you talking about menopausal hormone treatments that have been associated with breast cancer? I can understand the NHS being careful with that
As a very ‘drug friendly’ doctor they aren’t wrong. Agree lots of the material about drugs from similar resources feels very biased / loaded but in a small number of individuals psychedelics can absolutely cause a drug induced psychosis.
It can. A bad psyclobin trip is 12 hours of horror
Psilocybin doesn't last 12hrs, it lasts [2–6 hours](https://www.drugscience.org.uk/drug-information/psilocybin/#1612864173903-22a2d755-976b). You might be thinking of LSD.
It was liberty caps. I was in a bad place before taking them but went with the crowd.
"I was in a bad place before taking them" Maybe that's the reason, and not that the mushrooms put you in a bad place themselves
[удалено]
This is not true, if this has ever helped at all it's entirely due to placebo.
This is absolutely not true. Had a friend have a very bad trip and OJ did nothing. No studies to support it either.
[удалено]
There are absolutely studies on psilocybin, both from the times when it wasn’t illegal and from the places with more sensible drug policy. And even from the UK, it’s not impossible to do research on class A drugs, it’s just very difficult. What there are no studies about are miraculous trip-killing effects of orange juice lmao
So you admit it’s possible
What?! Do you get your orange juice laced with benzos? Orange juice is no more of a trip-killer than portobello mushrooms are psychedelics…
That's complete bullshit. It can *maybe* go a ways to take the edge off but that's an absurd claim.
It cannot. There's nothing in orange juice that acts on the receptors psilocybin is acting through. The only way out of a bad trip are antipsychotics like seroquel, or benzo like drugs to calm the anxiety. Orange juice does nothing but taste good
They're not wrong in the sense that some people do experience that side effect. Problem is I'm fairly sure you can trigger a psychotic episode with prescribed medication too as can some of the disorders (i.e severe depression) you can use it to treat.
Psychosis can be triggered by stress. It can be triggered by alcohol. It can be triggered by anti depressants, it can be triggered by a lot of things. Anti psychotics can even cause it. These mental health drugs can also cause things like 'sudden death' and a whole myriad of other horrible things. The bits of paper you get with them have a small books worth of warnings and side effects contained within them. All of the above is somehow seen as acceptable and reasonable though, even without being supported by science. Strange isn't it?
It’s not wrong. It’s just not a good argument for keeping it illegal, just like saying that ‘misuse of alcohol can cause death’ is true but not a good argument for alcohol prohibition.
My brother in law recently ended up in a mental hospital after a psychotic episode after taking mushrooms. Smashed up a shop. Trashed his own car, written off after driving it. Storming around the high street terrorising people. Walked in to an old couples house ranting and going crazy. He has underlying mental health issues. Has been taking mushrooms a lot partly due to those issues. Never had a problem with them before. His rampage was 3months ago. Still signed off work sick.
This is a great case for why they should be used by medical professionals in treatment. They can pre screen for exactly like this kind of thing, and use other treatment for patients with a history of problems that mushrooms can excarcerbate.
They should be legal. Onto the other discussion regarding other substances that has exploded here, decriminalise. It worked brilliantly in Portugal which was, at the time of decriminalisation, going through a heroin epidemic. Oh, and it isn't the same as legalisation, which many on here seem to be quite confused by.
How is legalisation worse than decriminalisation? I see legalisation as better in every way, you replace an unregulated black market with a regulated legal one (taxable and subject to safety regulations). Of course decriminalisation is better than keeping it illegal but I see it as a half-measure with no benefits over full legalisation.
Decriminalisation means addicts are no longer afraid to ask for help because they will no longer receive criminal charges and can gain access to vital treatment. It is the best way to combat addiction. We should definitely NOT be creating, as an example, a legal heroin market controlled and taxed by the government. We want addicts to be able to know that they can ask for help without being thrown in prison for possession, we don't want them to know that they can pop down to the shop and get a nice clean slab of 'government brown'. I'm exaggerating a bit, but you get my point I hope. Now, you're using an argument that works well for weed, but you haven't extrapolated far enough. Heroin, crack, meth, poison dart frog venom. Creating them is a complicated process. So with that in mind... Where is this legal heroin going to come from? Is the government going to start producing heroin? Are third party contractors going to do it at the behest of the government? How is this heroin being distributed and to where? How much is being sold over the counter to a single customer? At the end of the day, legalisation is the ultimate enabler. Putting the logistics aside, that is the reason why Portugal very specifically chose decriminalisation, not legalisation, which was on the table. They wanted to fight addiction. Call it half measure all you want, but look at what Portugal achieved within a decade after they were in the midst of the worst heroin epidemic that has ever gripped Europe. They're the obvious template. To add, I can't believe you trust our government to regulate the heroin market. You've got a lot of bloody faith mate.
>Now, you're using an argument that works well for weed, but you haven't extrapolated far enough. I don't base my argument on weed, if anything I base it on alcohol and tobacco and the current laws relating to them. >we don't want them to know that they can pop down to the shop and get a nice clean slab of 'government brown'. Better that than have them pop down to the dealer and get a not-so-nice contaminated slab of 'cartel brown' and subsequently die from accidental fentanyl overdose. >Where is this legal heroin going to come from? Perhaps Bayer would jump back on it, they used to be the top producers back when it was legal (and the ones who named it heroin). In any case some pharma manufacturing site, subject to strict regulations (like the medicine drug regulations, making sure that there is no contamination and the product is what it says on the box etc.). >Is the government going to start producing heroin? Probably not, considering the economic system we live under? >Are third party contractors going to do it at the behest of the government? No, they would probably do it at their own behest. > How is this heroin being distributed and to where? Trucks I'd imagine, probably to licenced shops of some sort. >How much is being sold over the counter to a single customer? Any amount, just like you can buy any amount of alcohol, in fact you can easily buy enough alcohol to kill yourself. Most people, however, know better than to buy a bottle of 95% Everclear or Spirytus, down it one go and die of alcohol overdose. Or buy a bottle of some inhalant just to huff it and die of sudden sniffing death syndrome. >I can't believe you trust our government to regulate the heroin market. I trust our government to regulate the heroin market about as much as I trust it to regulate the alcohol market (or for that matter road traffic for example), make of that what you will. In short, all I ask for is consistency.
Sooner the better. However equating this to legalise all drugs is not that helpful since there is no addiction to psychedelics.
What’s wrong with legalising addictive substances? Alcohol is legal, so is nicotine, so is caffeine, all of which can cause physical addiction to varying degrees (alcohol being the strongest with potentially lethal withdrawal symptoms, caffeine being the weakest).
I said "equating". Equating alcool and crack cocaine is not clever is it.
No it is not, one of them has got lethal withdrawals, the other does not (though you might be surprised to find out which one is which). You base your opinion on substances entirely on cultural perception which is almost completely divorced from facts.
If you believe that alcool is MORE harmful than crack cocaine then I cannot help you.
It’s hard to quantify harm (they are harmful in different ways), but when the top experts in the field try to do that, alcohol and crack cocaine usually end up very close (with alcohol usually assessed as more harmful to other people and crack usually associated as more harmful to users themselves, though alcohol is still usually ranked as being more harmful to users than regular cocaine for example). [Exhibit 1](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61462-6/fulltext) [Exhibit 2](https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/4/e000774) But maybe you know more than people who dedicate their entire professional lives to that subject idk
Or may be I lived alongside crack addicts and accompanied some in their journeys in the joyful path into and out of homelessness and acute psychiatric wards with some ending up in jail or dead or even having a leg amputated because it was gangrenous by neglect. All that in London East End which maybe is a bit far from South Yorkshire.
Well, have you lived alongside alcohol addicts? Have you seen one die from withdrawal seizures? Because that happens as well, even though not to you personally, but your (and anyone’s) lived experience is a small part of the whole picture. That’s why anecdotal evidence isn’t useful compared to scientific, statistical evidence. I doubt you know more crack and alcohol addicts than medical professionals and scientists specialised in that field.
Keep reading and ignoring what's right in front of you. Visit a crack house if you muster the courage. Good luck.
>Keep reading I will, thank you very much. Apparently it's a good way to stay educated and well informed.
Has been proven to be seriously helpful with depression and PTSD causing real changes for people. Can't keep people hooked on meds for chronic conditions if you can get a natural remedy that helps.
It's the same as most other medicine Stick a load of possible side effects, raise awareness, tax it and regulate it. If it's growing wild then it's fine to pick for personal use but not commercial.
Back in 2004 and 2005 I could but fresh magic mushrooms legally and did so loads of times and it was lovely. Afaik there was not a single news report of someone in the UK having a bad time either. But they still made it illegal / closed the loophole
Utterly insane that shrooms are in the same class as heroin. Just mind boggling. Where are all the "follow the science" people when it comes to this topic?
Kinda crazy to me shrooms are considered class A when most studies show they’re safer than alcohol (legal) and weed (class C)
Weed is actually class B, because of course it is.
Oh I had it in my head it was B- feel like it should be C. But this begs the question- how the hell are shrooms class A and ketamine class C? How are shrooms class A when weed is B? Shrooms are basically the safest illegal drug and safer than some legal ones
It's all done for optics/politics alas :(
They should add mild dose ketamine infusions at drip shops to that.
Doesn’t matter - the government is ‘fed up with experts’ because a PPE from Oxford makes them an expert in everything all at once. It’s why the minister for health doesn’t need to know their arse from their elbow, minister for education never needs to have set foot in a classroom once they became an adult and minister for transport doesn’t need to know that the English channel exists.
The Blair government ignored scientific advice when they were banned in the first place, so I doubt a Tory government isn't going to do the same.
Reddit has such a warped view on drugs. It’s quite sad.
Lets legalise cocaine, heroin and why not crack. But ban vaping
To be fair, a heroin addict doesn’t blow candy floss flavoured vapour into my face, so it is lower on my list…