• TheBlackLounge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    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.

      • YarHarSuperstar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

          • Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            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.

            • djdadi@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              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.

            • Obi@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Yeah I’m guessing the source data for this chart is “random boomer’s feelings”.

          • Cracks_InTheWalls@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            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,

            1. 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

            2. 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.”

      • djdadi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        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

    • Grimy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      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.