Drug War Disaster

[Zylka]

Sorry.. I just lost a looooong ass response and am a 5 minute drive away from strangling someone to death. I'll try to respond tommorrow

[Berzerker]

OUCH! That happens to me and I keep telling myself to copy my response before posting it but I still occasionally forget and lose it all.

[stevechafin]

William S. Burroughs sez...

"It seems to me that drugs are one of the ideal power devices. The so-called drug problem is a pretext—thin, and getting thinner—to extend police power over areas of actual or potential opposition. In Western countries, opposition is concentrated in the 18-to-25 age group. So, make more drug laws, publicize all drug news, and good percentage of the opposition is criminal by definition.

According to an article in Life magazine (July 24, 1967) as many as ten million Americans have tried marijuana at least once, and the number of users is increasing rapidly. Of course, they can’t put ten million people in jail—that would be coming too far out into the open. If there’s one thing Western authorities don’t want to do, it’s come out into the open with what they’re doing. But they can keep young people under continual threat of police search or action, at the same time divert rebellion into the dead-end channels of addiction and criminality.

Authority in the West has never been more threatened than it is right now, and after the manner of its parasitic species reacts with hysterical rage…The official opposition to drugs is, as I have indicated in the last question, ambiguous: they condemn drugs as a danger to authority, but are drugs a real danger to the state?
How dangerous is the tripper? Idle, perhaps, but the state is not in need of workers; on the contrary. Are trippers riot material?

I suggest that that official opposition to drugs is a sham, that all the policies of the American Narcotics Department—and other countries who follow these policies, as England now is slavishly following the bad example of America, like a latter-day banana republic—are deliberately designed to spread the use of drugs, and the consequent unwise laws against the use of drugs. Thus youth is deliberately led into these dead-end channels.

This elementary chess move puts potential opposition in a concentration camp of criminality, weakened by the effects of such murderous drugs as methedrine—(there is absolutely no excuse for the manufacture of any variation of the benzedrine formula)—lulled into unwholesome states of love and oneness with the all and acceptance of everything by LSD, hooked on heroin, which, when illegal, takes up all the addict’s time and makes him quite harmless. In short, drugs are an excellent method of state control; but this can never be uncovered by legalization, which they will fight all the way."

(The Job, "Academy 23," p. 127-8; 134-5)

[stevechafin]

Originally posted by Berzerker

The only times I heard of PCP "rage" was when cops werre trying to put someone in a cage.

So you're a mindreader? I was given PCP without my knowledge and all it did was make me lie down until it wore off.

Then you're lucky this didn't happen to you:

Rapper Charged with Murder After Human Flesh Found In Stomach

http://www.bet.com/articles/0,,c3gb2980-3641,00.html

[Berzerker]

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), PCP is a white powdery drug that generally causes abusers to become disturbed, delusional, violent, paranoid and fearful when it is sniffed, smoked, or eaten.

Notice the word "abusers"? Even if we accepted Nida's claims (LOL), why would I be "lucky"? PCP is basicly nothing more than horse tranquilizer, and I can attest to that effect. The PCP caused me to lie down and wait for it to wear off, not jump up and run around killing people. No, there was no "luck" involved, just a person under a heavy sedative. Was Dahmer a PCP addict? No, he seems to have been a sober person, yet he ate people. Would NIDA tell us sobriety causes cannibalism?

Of course, they can’t put ten million people in jail—that would be coming too far out into the open.

Yup, I would want every murderer, rapist, and robber to be in jail, but that isn't possible with drug users. Not only are law enforcement resources diverted away from catching the murderers, rapists, and robbers to catch the drug users (I feel so much safer), what other jailable offense cannot even be enforced with the goal of jailing all violaters? You can't imprison 30 million people, and support for the drug war would wane if we could and did.

[Dr Strangelove]

I once worked at a third world hospital where we had to use Ketamine (PCP) as our general anesthetic whenever our anesthesiologist was unavailable. At those times we posted extra security in the recovery room because most patients coming out of Ketamine anestheisia would be delerious and agitated.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Zylka -

Strangelove -

You can't read the Constitution and reach your own conclusion? You need the politicians who are ignoring the Constitution to tell you if they're ignoring the Constitution?

I rather have them tell me what to think than you.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Berzerker
[
The only times I heard of PCP "rage" was when cops werre trying to put someone in a cage.

So you're a mindreader? I was given PCP without my knowledge and all it did was make me lie down until it wore off.

I've seen PCP rage numerous times myself.

I once had a pregnant woman who was addicted to PCP. She'd be brought into the ER by relatives whom she had been beating on and threatening to kill. When she came out of it in the morning she wouldn't remember a thing.

The amnestic property is one of the reasons that Ketamine makes a good anesthetic. Surgeons, vet and human, like for their patients to forget about the procedure. It's the recovery room staff that objects to its use in humans.

The gas anesthetics like halothane don't have the amnestic effect. That's why we give Valium as a pre-op medication.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Nope, the SCOTUS has never said slavery was unconstitutional. But David Floyd exposed the flaw with your argument, and you, by your own admission, would have supported slavery if the SCOTUS said it was constitutional.

Sure it has, now that it has the 14th Amendment to back it up!
When and where did DF expose the flaw in my arguement?
Nope, I just said that I don't accept you as an authority in interpreting the Constitution! You get an amendment to the Constitution prohibiting the federal government's right to regulate the drug trade and then I'll listen to you. Until that time I must recognize that legal minds much more astute than yours have argued this issue before the highest courts in the land and found that the Federal government has this right.
This last election was a major blow to the druggie lobby. Tough luck.

[Graag]

Rather than wade into the whole drug prohibitionism debate (which would mean spending the next hour typing), I'll take up a couple of points on PCP. Besides, I largely agree with Berzerker from past experience on the drugs debate.

First off, Dr Strangleove

I once worked at a third world hospital where we had to use Ketamine (PCP) as our general anesthetic whenever our anesthesiologist was unavailable. At those times we posted extra security in the recovery room because most patients coming out of Ketamine anestheisia would be delerious and agitated.

Ketamine is certainly not PCP (it was first synthesied to replace PCP), though it is of course similar. Moreover it was, for a while, widely used as an anesthetic in the west, with no need for extra security. It's abandonment in clinical use was in fact due to a small percentage of patients remembering having hullucinatory and out-of-body experiances (which were noticably described almost uniformly as enjoyable or neutral - not unpleasant).
I'm not denying your experiances with it's use in patients, I think maybe diazepam was used to sedate patients coming off Ket in the west. But security was not needed or used.

I've seen PCP rage numerous times myself.

I once had a pregnant woman who was addicted to PCP. She'd be brought into the ER by relatives whom she had been beating on and threatening to kill. When she came out of it in the morning she wouldn't remember a thing.

Yup, people can be nasty on drugs. People can be nasty on booze. People can be nasty sober.

Conclusion: people can be nasty.

It is not the drug that makes people nasty, it just provides an excuse. A drug does not change the user's mind or personality, just their perceptions.

I know a number of people who have used Ket, some regularly, and have used it myself. In a small dose it produces a state oddly similar to extreme drunkeness. A larger dose produces unconciousness and the trip of a lifetime. I know no-one who has gone into a rage on Ket, though I know many many people who have gone into a rage on booze.

To sum up: drug-related violence is caused by the user's desire for violence. Anyone who does not desire violence will not become violent, whichever drug they use.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Graag

To sum up: drug-related violence is caused by the user's desire for violence. Anyone who does not desire violence will not become violent, whichever drug they use.

While in general I agree with your "garbage in = garbage out" theory of psychology, I have to disagree that this is the only means that someone can become violent. You can be really out there hallucinating and this lack of perspective can make you violent when you are really as peaceful as can be when you aren't mistaking the Emergency Room personnel for giant snakes. Like dreams, hallucinations can be nasty or scary etc. , and like in a dream your reactions can be surprisingly violent.

[Graag]

Like dreams, hallucinations can be nasty or scary etc. , and like in a dream your reactions can be surprisingly violent.

I tend to believe violence in dreams or drug-induced states stems from a subconcious propensity for violence, so the individual user or dreamer may act violently though they have given no previous indication that they have these tendancies. But it remains that it is the person that is violent, no drug causes a person to be violent.
If the ER personnel appear to be giant snakes and you feel threatened by that it's because you have a subconcious tendancy to be violent and afraid of people. A calm, at peace, person simply could not have such a nasty trip, or would see friendly giant snakes, perhaps giving them a foot massage.

[Sikander]

Again I disagree. It doesn't take an inherently violent person to defend themselves out of pure fear, nor are scary dreams or hallucinations solely the province of the insecure or the paranoid. Even healthy little girls sometimes dream of scary monsters.

[Graag]

Good point. Perhaps then a little violence is healthy, as is a little insecurity and paranoia. But nevertheless I think in the vast majority of instances of drug users becoming violent, it is because the user is a naturally violent person. Ultimately, anyone liable to be violent on illegal drugs is just as liable to be violent whilst drunk.
Instances of non-violent people being violent on drugs are rare, and, I would suggest a release of pent-up subconcious violence, which would have happened whether the person took drugs or not. Perhaps if a usually non-violent person hadn't had the opportunity to be violent through drugs they would have ended up releasing the violent energy in a different and more destructive manner.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Graag
First off, Dr Strangleove



Ketamine is certainly not PCP (it was first synthesied to replace PCP), though it is of course similar. Moreover it was, for a while, widely used as an anesthetic in the west, with no need for extra security. It's abandonment in clinical use was in fact due to a small percentage of patients remembering having hullucinatory and out-of-body experiances (which were noticably described almost uniformly as enjoyable or neutral - not unpleasant).
I'm not denying your experiances with it's use in patients, I think maybe diazepam was used to sedate patients coming off Ket in the west. But security was not needed or used.

The biochemistry of Ketamine and PCP are virtually identical. Ketamine was designed as a replacement for PCP that did not depress respiratory drive.
I don't have figures for the percentage of Ketamine users demonstrating agitation. Studies have shown about 35% of PCP users become violent.
Diazepam is commonly used as pre-op medication for general anesthesia because even with gas anesthetics some people actually remember their operation. Yes it has an added benefit when used with Ketamine of reducing the post-op agitation and increasing the amnestic effect. Though Ketamine and Diazepem individually have relatively little effect on respiratory drive together they can suppress breathing. Since you need daizepem as an adjunct to Ketamine it's rather self-defeating to use Ketamine anyway if you're just going to have to give something that causes respiratory depression so that you can use a drug that was designed precisely to prevent that side effect.

You "think maybe"? I'll go you one better. I know from experience that additional nursing support is needed to deal with agitated post-op patients when Ketamine is used. At the hosp[ital where I worked they said that in their experience about 25% required restraint in post-op. This hospital could not use diazepam as an adjunct because they were using Ketamine when they had no anesthesiologist to intubate the patient and monitor respiratory activity.