Swiss cocaine so cheap and widely used they’re considering legalising it

Its harm potential is somewhere in between. To put it in perspective, alcohol is worse than heroin. And like alcohol addicts, your friends should be able to get a clean and safe source to reduce damage, and the help they need without any fear of persecution.

You can't criminalize problems away. It evidently didn't help your friends.

wat
- What is the source of that image? I'm questioning its validity. They have cannabis as more dependency forming and physically harmful than GHB. Unless it means something it doesn't say, like they've weighted the results by how many users there are of each drug or something.
  
  LSD shouldn't even be pictured... I question the validity, as well.
  
  It’s completely bullshit.
  
  I love GHB but it needs to be way higher on dependence. It’s extremely easy to be addicted to. Benzos as well. Benzos are just under heroin in levels of dependency.
  
  Edit: full agree with you, LSD isn’t even on this chart if the chart was real.
  
  I'd argue benzos should be higher than heroin for dependence. You can't cold turkey a bad benzo addiction, but you can with heroin.
  
  Yeah I'm guessing the source data for this chart is "random boomer's feelings".
  
  You should totally question the validity, but I'd pause before dismissing it entirely. It's supposedly based on an opinion survey of psychiatrists and a group of 'independent experts' (footnote incoming) published in the Lancet in 2007. Edit: I said things that weren't true about the Wikimedia image that I have removed - it's based on the table near the bottom of the article.
  
  DOI is 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60464-4
  
  You should ask our friend ANNA if she'S heard people talk about this during her time in the ARCHIVEs.
  
  It's not a completely objective harm/dependence measure, for sure, but the opinions of experts aren't meaningless - it's worth reading the article and judging the authors' claims rather than this image. Though I will say the number of participants seems really low.
  
  On LSD,
  
  the opinion thing should be underlined and considered heavily (particularly in the UK, where rave culture is/was more top of mind than other places and LSD is/was in the mix, albeit I don't think to the same degree as MDMA and other compounds), but also
  
  as crazy as it may sound, dependency can develop in some users. I'd argue it looks VERY different than dependence to other substances (frequency is obviously much lower, given rapid tolerance, and some people may not call once a week or every two weeks dependency*), but it still exists. Given that this is basically an expert opinion poll it's actually placed more or less where I'd expect to see it.
  
  *Though in online discussion groups for folks interested in such compounds, those folks often do call that level of frequency a sign of dependency. Should note I'm talking specifically about macrodoses, not microdosing.
  
  (Footnote) from page 1049: "These experts had experience in one of the many areas of addiction, ranging from chemistry, pharmacology, and forensic science, through psychiatry and other medical specialties, including epidemiology, as well as the legal and police services."
  
  Interesting - linking again, which pulled it from an expert survey in the UK.
  
  I think they were asking for the source because the link you shared is just Wikipedia to a file. I was wondering about the original source of data too.
  
  Edit: full link came out weird like yours. No wonder we were confused.
  
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_(mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg
  
  They end in .svg but load as a page - both yours and mine.
  
  That wasn’t the case for you? Which browser/app?
  
  Sync 👍
  
  The data in the paper is obtained solely from questionnaire results obtained from two groups of people: the first comprised people from the UK national group of consultant psychiatrists who were on the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ register as specialists in addiction, while the second comprised of people with experience in one of the many areas of addiction, ranging from chemistry, pharmacology, and forensic science, through psychiatry and other medical specialties, including epidemiology, as well as the legal and police services; the experts are not named and were chosen by the authors.
- Thanks for the graphic, but many of those are laughably wrong. I guess it depends on their specific definitions. But for example solvents do irreversible damage with every use; meanwhile heroin is a drug available with a prescription (usually just in hospital use) and doesn't do almost any long term damage on its own.
  
  Cocaine is also cardiotoxic at any level
I don't think alcohol is worse than heroin by any means, although the harm that alcohol does is definitely underestimated.

I'd also like to say that I don't necessarily think the use should be criminalized. Putting addicts in jail solves nothing and the justice system should be concentrating on the ones that sell it. Making it legal will just make more addicts, and won't help the ones that currently are.

It's also harder to stop abusing something if it's sold in every city legally. Dealers go to jail and their numbers can be deleted.

Decriminalization but making the sale highly illegal while offering free rehab to the ones that need it is the way forward imo.

My friend's brother just died of heroin overdose a few weeks ago and I just couldn't help but feel for him. How many dark alleys did he have to go to to get his high? How many sketchy people were involved? Did he have access to clean needles? He overdosed alone, and likely felt subhuman due to being relegated to the fringes of society just to get his high.

Legalization would not have kept him from getting high, but it certainly would have enabled him access to clean drugs from a safe place, clean needles, and possibly made him viewed as someone who enjoyed getting high and not a piece of shit addict. He had a problem and it being illegal only made it worse for him.

Legalize it all. He was an adult, it's his body. He can do what he wants with it, it's nobody's place to tell anyone what you can or cannot consume. He loved getting high on heroin and I don't see a problem with that.

He was an adult, it's his body

This seems to be widely questioned view as of lately 😞
I'm very sorry for your friend's loss, and appreciate your empathy and desire to see less stigmatization for people who choose to use drugs.

Yeah there is no safe amount of cocaine to do. There is also no safe amount of alcohol to do. At least if shit is legalised people can decide to use cocaine or not with informed consent and can be sure they are actually getting pure cocaine.

I had a friends cousin die from using cocaine but it was because they had bought it off a street dealer and it was tainted with fentanyl. They just wanted to have a little extra fun on a night out on vacation. They'd be alive and well if cocaine was legal.

Prohibition doesn't work. It just adds suffering and stigma to addiction. One of the biggest factors to addiction is isolation something that criminalizing health issues greatly contributes to.

If there's no safe amount of alcohol to do, there's no safe amount of weed to do.
- Nonsense. Alcohol is a carcinogen, every part of your body it touches has an increased risk of developing cancer. It is directly neurotoxic. It damages the liver and stomache. A bottle of it can kill you. Stopping taking it can kill you.
  
  Weed taken orally is physically very safe. It can still be habit forming and there are other unwanted side effects but to act like it is physically comaparable to alcohol is silly.
  
  I say there's no safe amount of cocaine because it is directly cardiotoxic and has been known to cause heart defects in healthy young men at moderate doses.
  
  I don't think ant drug should be illegal I just think people should be aware of the dangers of substances so they can make an informed decision.
  
  You're very confident, at least. I'll give you that.
  
  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24118193/
  
  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6793471/
  
  "We hypothesize that THC neurotoxicity is attributable to activation of the prostanoid synthesis pathway and generation of free radicals by cyclooxygenase.", would make THC, by definition, a carcinogen.
  
  I also agree with your last statement completely. My issue is that everyone touts weed like it's God's greatest gift to mankind, and it very clearly is not. Stoners are easily identifiable by their inability to think clearly and quickly even when sober for stints. Weed absolutely affects the brain.
  
  But shouting it's safety from the heavens is not at all responsible, simply because not enough research has gone into the substance. Even CBD is a neurotoxin, albeit with some observed neuro-protective properties: https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/how-the-brain-protects-itself-from-the-negative-effects-of-cbd/#:~:text=However%2C when CBD was applied,50%25 of the neurons died.
  
  If those neuro-protective properties failed in other parts of the brain for reasons of age, mice brains being significantly different, medications, or health conditions, the results would be devastating.
  
  Stoners are easily identifiable by their inability to think clearly and quickly even when sober for stints.
  
  Sounds like just another dumb opinion.
  
  Way to only respond to that.
  
  And that's not a dumb opinion, it's something I've noticed from multiple close friends becoming heavy users, and then stopping use because they couldn't think clearly. If you had read the articles, it's actually from THC's neurotoxic effects on the hippocampus.
  
  Sounds like a you problem for selecting dumb asses for friends.
  
  Ok, good to know. I also try to make sure people understand weed is addictive and has withdrawal symptoms and all that. You were the one who brought weed up originally though. And there is still no doubt that cocaine and alcohol are more dangerous than weed.
  
  Weed can also cause cancer. In fact, it's worse in terms of that.
  
  Source?
  
  I mean smoking anything will cause cancer but there's no reason to think weed taken orally isn't one of the most safe chemicals we have.
  
  We can name the chemical to make sure we don't think about smoking it. For example, I wouldn't say this for THC. But weed is usually smoked.
  
  There's actually evidence to the contrary, but weed as a whole hadn't really been studied enough to say with certainty: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24118193/ & https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6793471/
  
  Sure, but what chemicals do we have that are safer? Pretty much all of our over the counter drugs will fuck you up long term if taken regularly, and lots of them are acutely dangerous.
- Yes... from the perspective themelm argues. Any drug/substance can throw you in a downward spiral if you dont have a reason for living, meaning in your life.
  
  Not the perspective I was arguing. I was arguing that people should be allowed to make informed decisions about what they want to put in their body and that criminalizing drug use doesn't help anyone but criminal drug gangs.
  
  I was agreeing with you... In the part that criminalization increases social isolation... It was just a remark towards @Sweetpeaches69, who tries reductio-ad-absurdum, which for weed (like any substance) has negative effects on the body, and mind (and in it's specific case the mixture of the two - brain).
  
  I was mostly trying to tell about the biggest impact of weed I can see (and so I write) is the use during difficult times in life (nobody became an addict out of a fulfilling and good life, fairly sure it is a saying even in English?) can exacerbate life problems.
  
  OK, I think i see what you're getting at.
  
  Oh I was talking direct physical safety. Both alcohol and cocaine are dangerous and physically damaging to the heart brain and others in typical doses. I was saying we don't outlaw drugs based on danger and we never have.

Yes but they aren't legalizing it because it's fun and safe they are legalizing it because jailing people over drugs does not help them and there is no point in filling your jails with such a high percentage of your population.

then why not decriminalize instead of legalize?
- What difference does it make when the outcome is the same?
  
  I'd say legalization is actually better in this case, as you can provide licenses to pharmaceutical manufacturers subject to QA regulations, lab accreditations, etc. Decriminalization just means that guy with 1:1 cocaine:fentanyl is probably getting a ticket rather than arrested.
  
  [Was going to put a 'doesn't help when the guy overdoses' comment here, but thinking about it now people do overdose (and die) on just cocaine too. One of the factors that make this a different conversation than cannabis. Don't know the thresholds for overdose re: just coke, though]
  
  And yet another factor is that cocaine is cardiotoxic. You're literally killing your heart with every use.
- Regulation and the obliteration of the illegal drug trade which directly harms millions in the pursuit of profit.
  
  It should however, (and I cannot stress this enough) be privatized. This would be a fucking nightmare and simply move the profit motive causing the harm to another source

I wish it was legal in unrefined quantities. I don't want a crazy addition, but maybe I'd like a tea with some extra kick now and then.

I don't think that would be a good idea. We want it to be refined so it's high purity and safe (or as safe as it can be).

If anything I would suggest the opposite -- make it legal when refined, and have a government agency certify they meet a certain quality. You'd want to encourage people to take the refined version, which has known composition and materials. The unrefined street product would be illegal, but the only "punishment" would be confiscation. No jail time, except perhaps for manufacturers who are knowingly getting people sick with their product.
- See its traditional use in leaf form. It's way less potent and it's a lot easier to tell if something is wrong with a leaf than if someone cut something into a powder post inspection.
  
  Potency with coke is a real problem. It's TOO good. And we get it refined in large part because of our silly policing policies around it. It's silly to be policing a leaf the way we do when there's coffee beans lining our shelves.

I agree with you. I know a lot of people who are cocaine addicts and their addiction makes them all incredibly unreliable. They stay up partying until 7am then crash for 12 hours the day of a big event. I've also known people who died due to tainted cocaine. It's not a safe drug by any means. I'm all for decriminalization and treating it like a health issue, but it should not be taken lightly.

I know people who do a bunch of dumb things that are bad for their lives - and only their lives - but they don’t become a criminal in the process.
- They aren't criminal by any means, it just makes them really shitty people to be around :/