61–70 of 90 posts
I wonder how this business man was doing with his teeth, pancreas and kidneys. I also wonder how his control of heroin would hold should he lose his job or his wife. Isn't the danger of such drugs in the things they whisper to your ears when you're beholding the abyss?
> I wonder how this business man was doing with his teeth, pancreas and kidneys. Would uncut, correctly dosed heroin have an effect on those?
i think this quote really sums it up, "I try very hard not to use when I'm miserable, because that's what gets me into trouble." it all depends on your personality. if you can get high and be responsible you can probably cope with using in moderation. unfortunately, i imagine a majority of people are not like that. i know several friends that have very addictive personalities and getting into junk would have ruined t…
>i imagine a majority of people are not like that. The studies cited in the article seem to challenge that assumption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not a fan of marijuana (or any street drug) but it is incredibly hard to mess it up. It has a fantastic 'therapeutic index' - a big fat window between the dosages where it starts having useful effects and those where it starts potentially harming you. (anecdotally I would wonder about impact on lifestyle, but killing yourself with pot would be pretty tough, and expensive) This is a big contrast from serious down…
> killing yourself with pot would be pretty tough, and expensive As far as I know there's not a single death directly caused by the substance yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>i imagine a majority of people are not like that. The studies cited in the article seem to challenge that assumption.
So then the analysis becomes the calculus of whatever benefits there might be as a function of the odds of use 'without serious consequences' whilst considering the potential outliers of serious negative physical and psychological consequences, including death, all the while ignoring the consequences of the realities of the present legal environment, as though disagreeing with the moral rightness of what actually exi…
The article specifically refutes that. It cites studies that show the majority of heroin users are able to use heroin in moderation.
Also you should edit your post to make it a bit easier to read. It's quite long for just one sentence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wonder how this business man was doing with his teeth, pancreas and kidneys. Would uncut, correctly dosed heroin have an effect on those?
Where are you going to find uncut heroin? Are you going to join the Taliban?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So then the analysis becomes the calculus of whatever benefits there might be as a function of the odds of use 'without serious consequences' whilst considering the potential outliers of serious negative physical and psychological consequences, including death, all the while ignoring the consequences of the realities of the present legal environment, as though disagreeing with the moral rightness of what actually exi…
I'm not sure who you are arguing with. OP said this: "if you can get high and be responsible you can probably cope with using in moderation. unfortunately, i imagine a majority of people are not like that." The article specifically refutes that. It cites studies that show the majority of heroin users are able to use heroin in moderation. Also you should edit your post to make it a bit easier to read. It's quite long…
My response is challenging the implicit assumption in the article (and in your reply) that the moderate use of heroin is worthwhile in light of the real risks that are entailed in that use. In other words, is the high really worth the chance of becoming dependent and/or possibly dying from overdose? At what point does that risk become so suboptimal that deciding to go forward with a decision to use for the first time (when the individual cannot know for certain how he or she will react) is considered folly?
And I would try to edit that long sentence, but I cannot figure out a way to break it up without losing the intent. If only there were some symbols I could use to express the same thing mathematically in a way that would be more easily understood . . .
According to this article[0] the street price of a dose of heroin is $10-$25 dollars. However, that street place is suffering 40-50 times inflation[1]. If heroin were relieved of price inflation, a dose would cost between 20 cents and 63 cents. Compare that to cigarettes. I once heard from a foreign cigarette manufacture that the cost of manufacture for a pack of cigarettes if 50 cents. A pack of cigarettes contains…
According to this article[0] the street price of a dose of heroin is $10-$25 dollars. However, that street place is suffering 40-50 times inflation[1]. If heroin were relieved of price inflation, a dose would cost between 20 cents and 63 cents. Compare that to cigarettes. I once heard from a foreign cigarette manufacture that the cost of manufacture for a pack of cigarettes if 50 cents. A pack of cigarettes contains…
Cigarettes are expensive because of local, state, and federal taxes. Heroin is expensive to compensate for the high risk of government punishment at each stage of the manufacturing/retail process.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where are you going to find uncut heroin? Are you going to join the Taliban?
Wasn't planning on it, was just wondering whether uncut H would have those effects or not. If not, then if anything it's an argument in favour of regulation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where are you going to find uncut heroin? Are you going to join the Taliban?
Wasn't planning on it, was just wondering whether uncut H would have those effects or not. If not, then if anything it's an argument in favour of regulation.