San Francisco Decriminalizes Psychedelics (doubleblindmag.com) 168
San Francisco lawmakers have unanimously approved a measure calling for the decriminalization of psychedelics like psilocybin and ayahuasca. DoubleBlind Mag reports: The Board of Supervisors approved the measure, sponsored by Supervisors Dean Preston (D) and Hillary Ronen (D), on Wednesday. While it doesn't immediately enact changes to criminal justice policy in San Francisco, it urges police to deprioritize psychedelics as "amongst the lowest priority" for enforcement and requests that "City resources not be used for any investigation, detention, arrest, or prosecution arising out of alleged violations of state and federal law regarding the use of Entheogenic Plants listed on the Federally Controlled Substances Schedule 1 list."
Decriminalize Nature San Francisco helped advance the resolution, which also implores city officials to "instruct" its state and federal lobbyists to push for psychedelics decriminalization in California and federally. The whereas section of the measure talks about emerging research that shows entheogenic substances have therapeutic potential to treat a wide range of mental health conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and substance misuse disorder. It further notes that the "state legislature has already started the conversation around the decriminalization of personal possession of small amounts of seven psychedelic substances," in the form of a bill from Sen. Scott Wiener (D) that passed the Senate and several Assembly committees before being significantly scaled back in a final panel and ultimately pulled by the sponsor.
Decriminalize Nature San Francisco helped advance the resolution, which also implores city officials to "instruct" its state and federal lobbyists to push for psychedelics decriminalization in California and federally. The whereas section of the measure talks about emerging research that shows entheogenic substances have therapeutic potential to treat a wide range of mental health conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and substance misuse disorder. It further notes that the "state legislature has already started the conversation around the decriminalization of personal possession of small amounts of seven psychedelic substances," in the form of a bill from Sen. Scott Wiener (D) that passed the Senate and several Assembly committees before being significantly scaled back in a final panel and ultimately pulled by the sponsor.
How about Re-Criminalizing Crime? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't stop people from blatantly robbing stores, breaking in cars, and defecating on the street. What made you think that psychedelics were such a concern that the needed to be intervened in? They may as well have patted themselves on the back and legalized everything, because it's happening anyways.
Re:How about Re-Criminalizing Crime? (Score:4, Interesting)
San Francisco gets a lot of conservative hate for a place so close to being an anarcho-capitalist experiment. SF [neighborhoodscout.com] has about the same crime rate (marginally safer) as Nashville [neighborhoodscout.com]. The main difference is that SF doesn't spend a lot of money keeping impoverished weirdos out of sight or out of town. It is a matter of principles and resource allocation.
If Wallgreens wants to have a store on every block in the Tenderloin, then they will have to pay security guards enough to intervene and stop thefts in progress (stop relying on public resources—police—to run your business). If you don't want shit on the sidewalk, it is probably cheaper to hire sidewalk sweepers than arrest and jail every addict who needs to shit.
These are public policy choices, and hopefully the residents of different cities are happy with the trade-offs of their choice. But don't pretend that Nashville, or Dallas, or your local sinkhole of adequacy are doing things better, because by most objective measures (income, amenities, opportunities, climate, legal medical procedures) they are worse. Plus, you can't legally trip balls there.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
San Francisco gets a lot of conservative hate for a place so close to being an anarcho-capitalist experiment.
San Francisco gets a lot of conservative hate because it's the proving ground for many left wing policies. It's a high tax city, in a high tax state, with possibly the most left wing population in the country. And what do they have so show for all those taxes and left wing government programs? Not much.
That San Francisco has the same violent crime rates as Orlando Florida and Mobile Alabama in itself isn't noteworthy. What makes it noteworthy is that the left keeps pushing for similar policies across the co
Re: (Score:2)
You've misunderstood the subsidy I'm objecting to. I am not an anarcho-capitalist, and am in favor of public spending for police, prosecutors, defenders, judges, and jail . But the videos of people stealing from Walgreens often suggest that the police should patrol in sufficient numbers to deter shoplifters; it doesn't make sense use $125,000 of police power to protect (very generously) $100,000 of Walgreens merchandise.
Re: (Score:3)
You've misunderstood the subsidy I'm objecting to. I am not an anarcho-capitalist, and am in favor of public spending for police, prosecutors, defenders, judges, and jail . But the videos of people stealing from Walgreens often suggest that the police should patrol in sufficient numbers to deter shoplifters; it doesn't make sense use $125,000 of police power to protect (very generously) $100,000 of Walgreens merchandise.
Your calculation is too simplistic. The societal costs of crime are much higher than the value of the stolen goods. A Walgreen adds value (better health, higher property prices) to the surrounding society. This value is lost if it is forced to shut down due to theft.
Re: How about Re-Criminalizing Crime? (Score:2)
If Walgreens shuts down, it will be because it's a marginal store in a marginal neighborhood, making marginal profits.
Crime is only an excuse. If the store was solvent, they'd just hire security. Shutting down because of crime just means they ran the numbers and they are not even profitable enough to hire a couple security guards.
If you can't afford to run your store properly, it should go out of business and make way for someone with a better business model.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: How about Re-Criminalizing Crime? (Score:2)
If a public area has a high incudence of crime -- or feces -- customers won't show up at the store regardless of security.
Re: How about Re-Criminalizing Crime? (Score:2)
Right. Which is why you need to hire security and maintenance personnel to keep your block clean and safe.
Re: (Score:3)
So, again, they should be paying twice for these services? Once via taxes meant to fund police, street sweeps, public health officials, and once to do it themselves because the high taxes still don't secure the basic services that the city is supposed to be providing?
Perhaps Walgreens should stop paying city taxes since their taxes are not being used to provide the services that are promised by government, and instead use that money to find the services that the city isn't providing anymore.
Re: How about Re-Criminalizing Crime? (Score:2)
If a burglar breaks into your house with a gun, you have only yourself and your security system to defend yourself. Cops can't be everywhere. It doesn't mean you're paying twice. It means you have layered security. If your property isn't important, then one layer is probably fine for many people. Businesses need to decide whether they want that extra layer.
Re:How about Re-Criminalizing Crime? (Score:5, Insightful)
> But the videos of people stealing from Walgreens often suggest that the police should patrol in sufficient numbers to deter shoplifters; it doesn't make sense use $125,000 of police power to protect (very generously) $100,000 of Walgreens merchandise.
But here's the thing: being permissive of "low-level" crimes like shoplifting leads to the increase in "higher-level" crimes like assault, drug-dealing, etc. This is pretty much an established fact as far as criminal justice is concerned.
Petty shoplifting doesn't happen in a vacuum. It feeds into a systemic establishment of law-breaking. The shoplifter is selling stolen property, using the proceeds for things like drugs, or even things like acquiring weapons so he can steel higher-value items. Now the police are dealing with home invasions and turf wars because they wanted to go easy on shoplifters. How is that a good use of public resources?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Nor, as it happens, does this term, "anarcho-capitalism", you keep tossing around. It is an oxymoron. You cannot have those two things at once. Realistically, you cannot have
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have never seen anywhere in the world that has so much police as I have in USA. It is surprising to me that the store needs to hire security guards and that it is on the stores to ensure safety with their own "police" force.
Re: How about Re-Criminalizing Crime? (Score:2)
Any major U.S. city I've been in, private security is the dominant approach. My apartment building has security guards. The club downstairs has its own security. The speakeasy next to it has its own security. The hostel across the street has its own security.
Cops are escalatory. They absolutely are not expected to prevent crime. For that, you should own a gun or hire someone that does.
Re: How about Re-Criminalizing Crime? (Score:2)
Maybe, but Detroit is like that too, and I don't think most people think of Detroiters as privileged.
It has more to do with urban living than with affluence. If I travel 10 miles into the suburbs to a much wealthier neighborhood, no one has security. But if I travel 3 miles to the poor side of town where violent crime is more prevalent, they all have security.
Re: (Score:2)
My privilege is showing? Oh, thank Christ. I thought I'd lost it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: How about Re-Criminalizing Crime? (Score:2)
I suspect that San Francisco and Nashville base their crime statistics on different standards. As do most big, blue state cities. In Seattle, having heroin in your pocket is not probable cause of a crime. Because who knows? That junkies rig might have jumped in there on its own. So, not a crime.
Re: How about Re-Criminalizing Crime? (Score:2)
Re: How about Re-Criminalizing Crime? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, shit is gross and crime is bad. I'm not arguing with that. But if you think any government anywhere promises to protect you or your property, then no wonder SF's honesty rubs your the wrong way.
Despite the shit on the corner, 8th and Mission is safer than Phoenix or Butte. Yet I doubt you'd accuse the police forces there of being mafiosos who fail to deliver protection because 1) they would kick your ass 2) you feel safe because rich and poor alike are prevented from shitting on the sidewalk and screaming at the pigeons. In those places, law is used to enforce the "order" of social hierarchy.
I'm not saying SF's solution is great, but they are erring on the side of less government, and the ostensibly "small government" cheerleaders think it is like The Purge with a sex faire because marginal people are allowed to make them feel uncomfortable.
Re: (Score:3)
FWIW there isn't any shit on the corner of 8th and Mission (unless you count the PG&E building, which certainly makes that kind of impression).
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, that's what's listed as base equipment on the window sticker, but what's actually under the hood might be something very different. Forgive me, I am traversing the nightmare of unexpectedly required car shopping in the 2022 market :(
More seriously, these lofty ideals and stated purposes are nice, and some members of some governments might even truly believe in them. But humans being what they are (and without sufficient access to peace inducing mushrooms, according to McKenna), they will often say o
Re: (Score:2)
I too was surprised by the upmodding at this hour. I address the Walgreens issue below. I no longer live in SF, but I doubt they've hired shit-sweepers, but I suspect it is the least expensive solution (certainly cheaper than arresting and incarcerating all of the addicts and mentally ill).
Imagine trying to run San Francisco like Irvine, those are the trade-offs I'm talking about.
Re: How about Re-Criminalizing Crime? (Score:2)
If a jewelry store put all its shit out on tables on the sidewalk every morning, it would not be the police's responsibility to keep their inventory secure.
Cops aren't there to prevent crime. They are there to investigate crimes that already occurred. And frankly they aren't going to expend precious resources to track down merchandise of such small value that it doesn't meet your insurance deductible.
You pay property taxes for the land and infrastructure. If that land and infrastructure provides you with on
Re: (Score:2)
That's apparently what the cops in Uvalde believed.
Re: (Score:2)
Cops aren't there to prevent crime. They are there to investigate crimes that already occurred. And frankly they aren't going to expend precious resources to track down merchandise of such small value that it doesn't meet your insurance deductible.
Actually, I think the average take for one of these hit-and-run robberies is somewhere just south of $900. And they might happen more than once per day, in some cases. The reason for this is that if the robbers can keep the amount right under this value, the crime is only a misdemeanor. That's California law, it has nothing to do with San Francisco. And if you don't think criminals are smart enough to add up the value of the stuff they're stealing, consider the difference between spending a weekend in the c
Re: (Score:2)
Do you perhaps mean "To Protect and Serve"?
https://www.findlaw.com/legalb... [findlaw.com]
The police have no duty to stop a crime in progress. They are there to investigate and arrest after the crime has been committed. Not that I agree with it, but that is the current state of the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't those businesses paying taxes for these public resources? Walgreens will probably be fine, but what about smaller businesses that can't afford security guards? This is the first time where I am defending a big corporation since police and firefighters tends to be part of, you know, infrastructure of a city.
I think you are missing something. The Walgreens issue has been a much-discussed topic. Many Walgreens stores in SF have closed. Walgreens claims this is due to an epidemic of shoplifting. But some evidence suggests otherwise, like the fact that there's a COVID epidemic and everybody started shopping online, and the fact that there was a Walgreeens store on just about every block downtown (not really an exaggeration). As for whether they are paying taxes to fund police, of course they are—but I pay ta
Re: (Score:2)
Walgreens also bought most (Maybe all?) of San Francisco's old Rite Aid locations even though the acquisition for the whole chain fell through. That led to some comical situations like two Walgreens across the street from each other, sometimes at intersections where the other Walgreens was just a crosswalk away. I think they were trying out the Starbucks business model... though in that case, there used to be an intersection in the FiDi where there was a Starbucks on three of four corners of that intersec
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If you're going to San Francisco
Be sure to wear some flowers in your hair
If you're going to San Francisco
You're gonna meet some gentle people there
For those who come to San Francisco
Summertime will be a love-in there
In the streets of San Francisco
Gentle people with flowers in their hair
All across the nation such a strange vibration
People in motion
There's a whole generation with a new explanation
People in motion people in motion
For those who come to San Francisco
Be sure to wear some flowers in your hair
If yo
Re:How about Re-Criminalizing Crime? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't stop people from blatantly robbing stores, breaking in cars, and defecating on the street. What made you think that psychedelics were such a concern that the needed to be intervened in? They may as well have patted themselves on the back and legalized everything, because it's happening anyways.
The lawmakers had already done that for themselves. What Americans call "campaign contributions", fully legal, is what people call "bribes" and "corruption" everywhere else.
For the common criminals, well, it may take longer.
Re: How about Re-Criminalizing Crime? (Score:2)
Seeing as psychedelics are known effective treatments for depression and addiction, it seems like a no-brainer if you're concerned about people on the street pooping.
Re: (Score:3)
Take that a step further, opiods are known to cause constipation. Make heroin legal to stop street shitting!
Re: (Score:2)
I think its a strategy - maybe if the druggies are tripping enough they'll eat some of the shit.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't stop people from blatantly robbing stores, breaking in cars, and defecating on the street. What made you think that psychedelics were such a concern that the needed to be intervened in? They may as well have patted themselves on the back and legalized everything, because it's happening anyways.
But that requires doing something about appalling poverty.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't stop people from blatantly robbing stores, breaking in cars, and defecating on the street.
This is like a take from 7 years ago that is completely unaware of the programs San Francisco has taken to solve the problems you mention. Including literally building homes for homeless people, hiring homeless outreach workers (who can be seen on the streets actually helping homeless people), hiring guards where needed, installing public bathrooms at key locations, etc. Some of these things have been mentioned on Slashdot.
Seriously, you need to update your knowledge before ranting like an angry politician.
Re: (Score:2)
You should visit SF sometime. You will find that it is nothing like what Faux News tells you to expect.
Re: How about Re-Criminalizing Crime? (Score:2)
Isn't that what the story is about? They diverted resources to more important matters.
Good News! (Score:5, Insightful)
Another stab in the heart of conservative control.
Re: (Score:2)
He means the drug war.
Re: (Score:2)
^This.
It is still a federal (read conservative) crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
> It is still a federal (read conservative) crime.
I mean, technically Congress has no such power (hence the Prohibition amendment) so it's an illegal statute which the people and states have a duty to ignore.
Except when you do people with guns show up to kill you, and SCOTUS loves Law Enforcement more than the Constitution.
The last thing we want is people demanding world peace!
Plenty of high people wandering around already... (Score:2)
Been like that since the invention of cities. I talked to an SF cop about four years ago. The cop said, without hesitation, that everybody is on something. Making it legal will do nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
If you don't think this will change anything, then why do you care so much?
Well, golly! (Score:2)
Isn't THIS going to make San Fran so much more charming... where once there were feces and syringes, we can look forward to people who think they can fly.
Society cannot possibly be improved by ever-increasing numbers of people destroying parts of their brains for amusement... and good governments are not established to help people destroy themselves. Toxic governments, on the other hand, often encourage people to distract and/or destroy themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, of course, to prevent people from harming themselves, we must lock them up in prisons. It's so obvious!
What a hateful display of dipshittery. Go lick more boots.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, of course, to prevent people from harming themselves, we must lock them up in prisons. It's so obvious!
Well, that is the Newsom plan. No doubt having this DINO as governor is emboldening the other shitheels.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"we can look forward to people who think they can fly."
An old trope, and complete horseshit. The kind of anecdote alluded to in the 60s by the right.
Besides, to quote somebody who's name I cannot recall, "People on LSD aren't that far gone. If they suspect they might be able to fly, they'll probably start on the ground."
Groovy baby! (Score:4, Informative)
Enjoy your trip, San Francisco!
Was this a reasonable use of time? (Score:3)
I don't think psylocibin should be criminalized either, but the city is falling apart around them and all they can think to do is make show-votes about doing nothing! Are they taking incompetence to the point of pathology, or is systemic collapse their intention?
In other news... (Score:2)
The City of San Francisco has adopted the biohazard symbol as its new seal.
Fake headline (Score:2)
They didn't decriminalize anything. They just asked someone else to do so. Furthermore, all crime in SF has been decriminalized anyway, de facto if not de jure.
Users Should Have a Drug Permit (Score:2)
Ecstasy/MDMA Should Be Decriminalized, Too. (Score:2)
And next⦠(Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm all in favor. If there's real follow through, I predict a lot of places that aren't SF will get decidedly less stabby after dark.
Given your handle, you first. Read some of your posts, you have GOT to be on something.
Re:Let's send all the drug addicts to SF! (Score:5, Informative)
Psychedelics aren't addictive. That's sorta the whole point. If a substance isn't addictive and doesn't appear to cause harm, then why should it be illegal?
Authoritarians predicted the sky would fall when dope was legalized. That didn't happen. Usage stayed about the same, but now dope in California is sold by taxpaying businesses instead of criminal cartels.
Re: (Score:2)
While I'm very much in favor of decriminalization of anything that doesn't cause physical harm to people, psychedelics may have a harmful side if taken by unsuspecting people who have no idea what they're about to get into. As weird as this may sound to some, I'd actually recommend something like a "driver's license" for these things, that you should have a pretty good idea what you're getting into, that you should know how to consume them safely and how to create a safe environment for yourself before you
Re: (Score:3)
Authoritarians predicted the sky would fall when dope was legalized. That didn't happen. Usage stayed about the same, but now dope in California is sold by taxpaying businesses instead of criminal cartels.
Correct, look at Canada. Every town has a weed store now. You know what happened? Absolutely nothing. I don't smoke but the occasional edible really improves my mood and well being.
Re: (Score:2)
Psychedelics aren't addictive. That's sorta the whole point. If a substance isn't addictive and doesn't appear to cause harm, then why should it be illegal?
While psychedelics arent addictive they can certainly cause harm. For starters, shrooms are poisonous and you can OD on them. After that there's what is does to your brain. I don't know if you've ever met someone who has done too much acid in their life time but their mental functionality can be significantly impaired and you can often tell just by talking to them. Then after that there's the psychological trauma that can happen in the context of a bad trip.
I have a pretty decent amount of experience with p
Re: (Score:2)
"For starters, shrooms are poisonous and you can OD on them.
I suppose it depends what you mean by OD. Shrooms have extremely low toxicity. You're far more likely to seek treatment at a hospital for anxiety than for an actual physical need. Deaths from ingesting shrooms are incredibly rare, and are usually identified as misidentification.
"After that there's what is does to your brain. I don't know if you've ever met someone who has done too much acid in their life time..."
There's not a lot of data on long-
Re: (Score:2)
I'll allow shrooms arent that toxic although they do pose some hazards. On the other hand you're addressing the issue I mentioned with acid by talking about shrooms again?
From my own experience, people who did a "lot" of acid usually went in to it with those characteristics baked in beforehand. Did they become burnouts by doing lots of acid, or did they do a lot of acid because they were burnouts in progress? Chicken - egg.
Going off my own in talking to these people the long term effects of a regular acid habit are decidedly not awesome. The permanent trailers on everything alone is not a fun way to have reality presented to you every single day for the rest of your life and that is an extremely well established outcome from taking too much acid regularly.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, yes - you are correct. I referenced shrooms when discussing long term effects, but the same is true for lsd. Very little long term study information is available. We can thank schedule 1 classification for that.
I've never heard anybody claim permanent, lifetime trailers, and a quick search fails to tell me that it's a well-established outcome. I found references to re-experiencing hallucinations periodically, but nothing like you describe.
Re: (Score:2)
Hallucinogen persisting perception disorder, I've never heard of it happening with anything other than LSD but it's definitely a thing for that drug. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].
There is also the issue of flashbacks that you mention but this is its own distinctive symptom of excessive use.
Re: (Score:2)
>For starters, shrooms are poisonous and you can OD on them.
The LD50 (lethal dose for 50% of the population) for psilocybin cubensis being consumed by a 150lbs person is 3015g (over 6 lbs!)
>While I've massively enjoyed my own experiences with them there's a sizable portion of the public I don't think should be messing with them.
So you think the "bar" for psychedelic use should be the willingness to become a criminal? That doesn't seem very rational. I would guess there is a higher portion of people
Re:Let's send all the drug addicts to SF! (Score:5, Insightful)
You are making the common assumption that legalization leads to more drug consumption. That is contradicted by evidence. Legalization makes little difference.
SF had problems with drugs long before dope was legalized. There is no evidence that legalization has made things worse, and some things, including tax revenues, have improved.
If drugs are no big deal are you pushing the Chinese government to legalize them, too?
I am a white native-born American citizen. I lived in the SF Bay Area for 20 years. I also lived in Shanghai off-and-on for many years. I currently live and work in Quezon City, Philippines.
I believe that marijuana and most psychedelics should be legal everywhere. Legalization is not a panacea, but it is an improvement.
I personally use no drugs, not even caffeine.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of cause and effect assumptions here. Testing positive for marijuana at the scene of traffic is connecting two data points that may not be causally connected. Even when you introduce the third point, overall traffic deaths, you still cannot make any claims as to causality. Especially considering how long marijuana is detectable in blood, which can be up to 2 days, and 30 days for urine.
Re: (Score:2)
>traffic deaths where the driver tests positive for marijuana have increase 109% since legalization in 2013
That does not say how they tested. People test positive in urine for 30 days, in blood and hair for longer. So yeah.
>Actually, the evidence shows it does lead to substantially more consumption.
In adults. Which is quite alright, if people should be able to alter their consciousness, isn't it? In the same paper you took this from we also find this:
"Youth marijuana use decreased 14 percent"
Whic
Re: (Score:2)
While pot use has increased, I'd like to see evidence that drug use has increased. I suspect many people are shifting alcohol use to pot which is probably a win for society. While alcohol has been legal for a long time, it's worse than many illegal drugs.
Also more serious drug use might also go down as a result
You didn't read your first link. (Score:3)
“Yet, the increases in cannabis use during this time period were as fast, or faster, in states where cannabis use is prohibited by law, relative to states that had legalized for recreational use by 2017"
So kinda the opposite of what you said.
Re: (Score:2)
You're speaking from the position of the worst kind of ignorance - willful.
Emergency rooms and rehab centers are full of people with problems from all sorts of drugs. Psilocybin isn't one of them. Nobody is on skid row because the mushrooms took their toll.
Some Canadian jurisdictions - most notably Vancouver - have already enacted these policies. Some shops openly sell mushrooms, and many B.C.-based sites operate mail order businesses.
Go on. Ask me how I know. :)
Re: Let's send all the drug addicts to SF! (Score:2)
In a Libertarian society the owners would eject the druggy bums. Try again.
Re: Let's send all the drug addicts to SF! (Score:2)
The sky is definitely falling on that city
That's not the sky. It's an iron pipe some junkie hit you with for your wallet.
Psychedelics are used to treat addiction among... (Score:2)
...other things like treating PTSD.
It's 2022. There is zero excuse for having an uninformed opinion about psychedelics. Why did you spout off without a clue?
If your identity is your politics you're no better than Pelosi.
Re: (Score:3)
Amphetamines in general aren't addictive either.
Horse-fucking-shit, dude.
That's flat out bullshit. Amphetamines (and methamphetamine) are highly addictive. Having see a sister, my best friend in my 20s (who was rolling WITH my sister), and my best employee at work (go figure) go through amphetamine addiction (only 2 of them lost their teeth in the process- yay) I don't even need to google to call you full of shit. Since there are several therapeutic formulations of amphetamines, I have no doubt that their addiction potential is small in therapeutic dose
Re: I'm trying to imagine an "acid addict" (Score:2)
What makes you think that a prescription implies a low addiction liability?
Have you been paying attention to the news lately?
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think that a prescription implies a low addiction liability?
I never said a prescription, as in, any unqualified prescription. We were specifically talking about amphetamines- prescription wise, that means adderall.
Why do I think prescription amphetamines have a low addiction risk? Because of a factoid I read while researching the topic when my nephew was put on the shit. People who have been on adderall for a long time are less likely to end up as [illicit] drug users.
So yes, I've been paying attention to the news. Apparently better than you, because I know the
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't gotten addicted yet. And I bet that therapeutic dosages of them are quite safe, too.
I did go through a period where I'd save up some for a rainy day and get high as fuck, and I can see how that gets addictive. Fortunately, I didn't really develop any kind of drug-seeking behavior, so when I ran out, I ran out.
I suspect nearly all cases of opioid addiction come from abuse- whether out of desperation (too
Re: (Score:2)
Why do I think prescription amphetamines have a low addiction risk? Because of a factoid I read while researching the topic when my nephew was put on the shit.
Adderall is on Schedule II specifically because it is itself addictive, and that addiction is easily transferred to other uppers. It's not the root of the amphetamine addiction crisis, though — that's military use. My father, who was a Marine ATC in the Korean war, came back addicted to uppers as a result of all the drugs they pushed on him to keep him awake while doing excessively long shifts. Thereafter he got hooked on first nasal spray, and then actual meth when he got hooked up with a nutbag chic
Re: (Score:2)
Adderall is contraindicated in people with a history of drug abuse because it has a high addiction liability.
It has therapeutic uses (and lobbyists), so it can still be prescribed. But make no mistake--it is addictive and those people who become addicted have a good chance of problems with Adderall.
I worked in a factory in Alabama where it seemed damn near every tradesperson onsite was on pills.
Prescription pills. Amphetamine pills just like your nephew. These folks were too geeked up to do any useful w
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody takes acid daily.
If you took enough LSD to hallucinate yesterday, decide that that was fun, and do the same amount today, you won't even get high from it.
Generally, you have to wait about two weeks between doses to get the full effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. Some drugs - and most hallucinogens - have a built in limiter. LSD and mushrooms aren't useful if you want to get messed up daily.
Re: I'm trying to imagine an "acid addict" (Score:2)
It's called drug tolerance. And it's what drives a lot of users to accumulate a lot of cash in order to acquire the increasing amounts needed. The acquisition of which cause a lot of high risk but high profit crime.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you understand what the poster meant.
It doesn't actually matter in a practical sense how much you try to ingest on day 2. It's not going to fly except very weakly. Your receptors need time to replenish, and that which is not bound, is pissed away.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not going to fly except very weakly.
It doesn't matter. Addicts will do anything to chase the high. Even if it doesn't work very well.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah - we're back to the fact that actual addiction to LSD or psilocybin is practically unheard of. Day 2 tolerance to these things isn't something that sneaks up over time. It happens immediately.
Nobody bankrupts themselves chasing a high from these things. It doesn't work, and it's immediately clear it doesn't work.
Re: (Score:2)
Ever seen an addict scream, throw a fit and go into convulsions when the cops confiscate their acid? I have. I'm going to go ahead and call that addictive behavior.
Even if it takes some time for the last dose to wear off, spending one's time waiting to get high again and maybe using other drugs in the meantime (LSD users frequently use multiple drugs) rather than doing something constructive with their lives. I'm going to go ahead and call that addictive behavior.
Well... it's a bit more complicated than that. (Score:4, Interesting)
Amphetamines are highly psychologically addictive. But... they are not physically addictive. Alcohol, opioids, and benzos are physically addictive. Cocaine and meth are not. However, that is clearly not the whole story.
The psychological addiction manifests in ways that seem physical, but are temporary and pass without threat. Nobody dies when withdrawing from cocaine. They sometimes do die getting off pain meds or booze.
And nobody - and I mean nobody - dies from LSD or psilocybin ingestion.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
Just as a followup from the link above... (Score:4, Informative)
"There have been no documented human deaths from an LSD overdose. Eight individuals who accidentally consumed a very high dose of LSD intranasally (mistaking it for cocaine) had plasma levels of 1000–7000 g per 100 mL blood plasma and suffered from comatose states, hyperthermia, vomiting, light gastric bleeding, and respiratory problems. However, all survived with hospital treatment and without residual effects [56]."
1000-7000 g per 100mL of blood plasma... imagine that, given that an average "hit" is about 80g total. A dramatically overly simplified calc: At 2500g per 100ml * 30 (average 3 litres plasma) = 75,000g, divided by 80g per hit = 937.5 hits.
So over 900 hits all at once, and still nobody died. The brain can only process so much, the rest is pissed away.
Re: (Score:3)
Amphetamines can be physically addictive. Chronic exposure destroys dopamine receptors.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/b... [nih.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
It's more a threat to the income of certain pharmacy corporations. Have you noticed how substances suddenly become illegal when their patents begin to expire and the next gen batch is ready?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is pretty much the response I would expect from someone who puts ideology before practicality.
Kind of like thinking a wall people can climb over with their bare hands and costs billions of dollars to build and then billions more to maintain will actually make a meaningful dent in illegal immigration relative to the outrageous sums payed out..
Re:Oink oink (Score:5, Insightful)
This is pretty much the response I would expect from a drug addict
Since we know that Nixon's war on drugs was engaged specifically for the purpose of attacking liberals, your response is what a thinking person who observes historical fact would expect from a GOP bootlicker.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you want to try and stop purple eating shrooms?
You have to spend tax money to try and stop it and more to deal with the fallout, and it still doesn't work. If you don't try to stop it, you can charge a sin tax on sales.