Heroin

Saying those are side effects is lacking accountibility for your actions, not all of us are addicts you know. And if you know the right people you can manage a habit on minimum wage and food stamps it's not difficult.

The problem with the purity heroin isn't that it's made overseas, it's the unnecessarily long transit through the black market system. Heroin is manufactured by over qualified, albeit over worked, US-employed chemists stationed in Afghanistan and Mexico.
Within about a decade the states will see the widespread adoption of lenient policies regarding harmless meme drugs like psychedelics. The powers that be are slowly switching from a sneaky and costly underground sub-economy to full integration with the mainstream system. Obsessive amounts of harm reduction will be publicly internalized and dopefeens will be looked down upon as sick will-less puppy dogs rather than as addicts. Heroin, like cocaine, is too stigmatized and profitable to fully legalize any time within the next twenty years.

FYI if you just admit you're an addict you can claim for disability and not have to work minimum wage anymore.

I spent 4 years on suboxone and am now on methadone because when I relapsed last year I couldn't seem to induct myself onto subs again, kept getting too sick and wussing out. Now I have to take the bus to a methadone clinic 6 days a week because the withdrawal is so damn bad-
>Don't fucking tell me there are no bad side effects
There aren't when first starting, I remember sleeping good that whole night and thinking the same damn thing as you, no downside to this shit.

Right, but that didn't ban it. It was commonly prescribed to addicts by doctors until 1920s. Heroin was relatively clean then.

>Why is heroin today sold in powder form when it used to be sold as a dapper liquid? Is it just easier to transport this way?
How fucking obvious is this?

Yes, transporting a dry powder versus a liquid is more convenient and efficient. You are retarded.

>wussing out
That's opiate maintenance therapy for you. One big wuss out.

Unless you have been doing opiates for at least a decade you are giving the pharmacy companies exactly what they want, dependence on their legal opiate when withdrawal and letting the body adjust to the change is a much better long term option.

Opiate maintenance therapy is literally the same as picking up a bag to "get right" except it's legal and your doctor is telling you to do it.

I am OP and your comment hurts.

I, too, thought the question was rather simple and the answer obvious (as you can see from it being included in the question), but I wanted to ask in case there is some chemical reason for this.

Calling me retarded is uncalled for, I think.

Easier to transport for the most part. That's just a result of the drug being illegal. It helps that powder heroin is easy to cut (not that a liquid isn't).

The issues from heroin stem almost entirely from the fact that it's illegal. The fact that people inject it certainly hurts, but very few health issues come from the drug itself. It causes addiction (which isn't necessarily bad) and constipation. That's about it.

I think that it is possible that heroin will be legalized on the outside (barely) of 20 years. We're beginning to see just how shitty prohibition is, so decriminalization is coming soon. Ultimately, heroin will be legalized and the problems it 'causes' will all but disappear.

> Opiate maintenance therapy is literally the same as picking up a bag to "get right" except it's legal and your doctor is telling you to do it.

More or less. the benefit is that you are dealing with a drug of controlled purity and not injecting it (unless you really want to fuck up your arm like that guy on reddit did).

This. Most of it these days is made in SE Asia using stock pots and a wet towel as a nigger-rig reflux chamber.

Hourly reminder that drug prohibition was a mistake

No it wasn't, it succeeded and has accomplished almost everything it set out to.

destroying the inner cities, corrupting law enforcement and ruining millions of lives?

Fuck off, Bernie.

Not an argument

>supports government regulation of recreational drugs
>calls somebody else a socialist

top jej

this really is the dumbest 'smart' board on Veeky Forums

Socialism would be the government nationalizing the illegal drug industry, producing them with taxpayer dollars, and selling them at reduced prices to the public

Authoritarianism =/= Socialism

Unless those goals are creating large organized crime groups and empowering them and imprisoning average people for 'crimes', then yeah it did. Of course, that neglects the fact that the goal was to reduce drug use, and it has totally failed in that regard.

You don't need to be a financially illiterate jew to understand that drug prohibition has been an unmitigated failure.

The only reason the war on drugs is failing is because we don't take it seriously enough. If we started putting drug offenders to death like in Indonesia and Singapore, the drug epidemic would resolve real fast.

>death sentence for ingesting a substance that harms nobody but the user

Hello Comrade Stalin, how was your stroke?

>Socialism would be the government nationalizing the illegal drug industry

that's basically what the FDA is, albeit more circuitously

you need a government license to manufacture and distribute drugs

>harms nobody but the user

Want to know how I know you've never known an addict?

>drug addiction is the only form of addiction

Right, let's ban alcohol and cigarettes, I'm sure that will be a roaring success and reduce the harm those things do to society.

Drug addicts harm others because they can't AFFORD their habit. They can't afford their habit because drugs are EXPENSIVE. Drugs are expensive because drugs are ILLEGAL.

See again.

>2016
>not mainlining heroin
wew lad

>conceding that you have no relevant argument

just because your dad was a coke head that beat you like a dirty old whore doesn't mean that drug prohibition works. if anything, it's proof that it doesn't

Actually, Lenin had the stroke, I don't remember what happened to Stalin.

And this wouldn't happen if it wasn't for drug prohibition. Prohibition makes drugs and drug use more dangerous.

He did and he explained why is wrong.

see

Stalin had a stroke and died in piss-soaked pajamas because his attendants were too afraid to check on him

A fitting end for that absolute vermin

Different user, but if you aren't for alcohol prohibition then I think you're hypocritical for supporting drug prohibition, because I have seen addicts, and I have seen drunks.

Still, I find that prohibition brings more harm than good, particularly because there will still be addicts and information is more useful than taboo.

>Drug war is the only way to help addicts.
>Billions of money invested in prisons, cops, etc couldn't have been used to introduce rehabilitation centres

And what does prohibition fix exactly?

Putting people to death is expensive, placing people in prisons is expensive. There are other ways to battle heavy drug use besides prohibition.

This

What in the world is cheaper than letting a user off himself on his pennies-a-dose drug of choice?

...

>>>facebook

>Putting people to death is expensive
It doesn't have to me. It costs roughly a few dollars more than the trial.

>death penalty
>deterring anyone from taking drugs that are often lethal to begin with

>hi I understand nothing about justice or death penalty

You right. What's with Bolsheviks and strokes?

Not to mention that countries with super strict drug laws still have drug markets.

>Is it true?

Pretty certain that's partly true. It was used to try and ween people off Morphine addiction. As it turns out heroin withdrawal isnt as bad as morphine withdrawal.

I could be wrong, so don't quote me on it.

Because most often it's not 100% clear if somebody did x or not.
Death penalties are expensive because they have to be extra careful not making mistakes and accidentally putting an innocent to death.
And still a lot of innocents get put to death, even in recent memory.

The only way for a death penalty to be cheap if the legal system actually doesn't care about your innocence or not.

>or not
At all*

Distancing the lower class from everybody else by injecting the poor with certain harmful behaviors then running campaigns to further demonize those behaviors, extending the reach of law enforcement to home invasion and murder, and turning millions of non-productive or minimum wage workers into passive money printers. Those were more or less the goals from the start.
>the goal was to reduce drug use
No it wasn't, why would you think that? The initial public goal was supposedly to reduce the impact the drug trade had on Joe Schmoe by any means necessary, the bits about reducing national drug use were just thrown in to get the more trigger-happy citizens to support drug prohibition by playing off the ostensible parallels made between drug addicts and domestic communists.

I wanted to see sweet heroin science in this bitch, not your shitty political arguments. fml

Can i ask what you current/ex drug users are studying? Ill start hopefully this catches. Im an ex opiate pill addict. Have smoked heroin, crack and meth but wasnt addicted to those. Going into masters for ecology

The problem is that you also start enforcing the same bullshit on the middle and upper classes. That's not even considering the collateral damage prohibition causes like creating and empowering organized crime.

Wasted quads.

You clearly have no idea how prohibition works.

Drug use ONLY harms the user. Rove otherwise.

>B-but what about drunk driving and alcoholism?

There's a gene for that. It's not the drugs fault. It's people being stupid.

>B-but what about opium dens?

So? Let them do what they want. Natural selection.

>B-but what about drug users who go insane and steal and sell their kids for their fix?

They were assholes without drugs to begin with.

>B-but muh secondhand smoke!

government meme.

I currently do psychs only and am four years into my math degree

Right, I agree on that. It's actually true of most drugs. Example big bad Meth is not much different from Adderall in purity.

It's enforced on middle class citizens to set examples and to let them know that while they're less vulnerable to the laws than the broke or homeless, they aren't exempt.
The rich are hardly targeted at all, what are you talking about? When they are, it's only to fluff up the annual budget by confiscating assets under the guise of "drug money".
>creating and empowering organized crime.
Which in divides and criminalizes lower class citizens uninvolved with gang activity even more than they otherwise would be and helps stuff prisons.
>You clearly have no idea how prohibition works.
enlighten me desu

>drugs are made illegal
>drugs are now less safe due to lack of care involved in street dealing/making. Most of the insanity from users (including meth) is either genetic or from the impure drugs fucking them up.
>drug prices skyrocket making it easier for addicts to go nuts and break into houses so they can take money and can afford said drugs
>taboo of drug use makes it less safe because people do not go to the authorities or admit use, so by can overdose far easier
>organized mafia groups and Mexican drug cartels become extraordinarily powerful.

Personally I think shutting down American Pain was a bad idea. All of their customers turned to heroin. If it wasn't shut down by the Feds they could still be alive today.

>implying stuffing prisons is a good thing

What the hell is wrong with you? The only reason this even happens is to feed a system that relies on other's pain and misery, mainly to fuel wars.

yes these things happen, but what you're not considering is the millions of us who are depressed and trapped in empty meaningless lives and yet still go on just because the amount of social investment to acquire heroin is far too much and alcohol really doesnt make things feel better, but if CVS sold over the counter opiates without the social stigma, risk of being robbed/assaulted or threat of incarceration would try it in a heartbeat

>but if CVS sold over the counter opiates without the social stigma, risk of being robbed/assaulted or threat of incarceration would try it in a heartbeat

And? Why is this a problem? The drugs are cheaper and safer now as a result. Most people will be better off. It'll be like alcohol: most people do it, only some have problems in relation to the total population of users.

>oh no i just dropped my fragile bottle of fucking liquid fucking heroin and it fucking shattered all over my god damn floor.

powder is easier to transport.

>Most people will be better off. It'll be like alcohol: most people do it, only some have problems in relation to the total population of users.
But that's wrong you fucking retard.

You're not accounting for availability.

Most people do not have any access to heroin. It's a hard drug that requires dealing with serious criminals to acquire.

Yes prohibition on weed/alcohol does not necessarily reduce the number of users but these are both socially acceptable in general and relatively easy to produce, the fact is any high school student or person under 35 with a social life can find weed if they try, and the vast majority cannot find heroin. Oh, and you're too obtuse to acknowledge this fact but marijuana is not physically addictive and alcohol is far less physically addictive than heroin. So people trying it a few times and not really developing a habit is a lot less likely, as it is now you pretty much have to be a drug using criminal to even try it.

Literally the only people who would be better off are criminals who are already addicted to heroin. At the cost of millions of people becoming drug addicts. You can pretend this isn't an issue all you want but it's so fucking obvious to everyone who has dealt with drug users in their life that it's never going to be considered as a realistic policy.

Oh, my bad. Shareholders and executives in pharmaceutical companies would be better off too. You know, what with the billions of dollars of profits a year from selling newfound junkies their fix.

Former I.V. heroin user here, 6 years clean. Even though I got clean in part because the drugs I was doing were illegal, and even though I would be affected if heroin were legalized, I support legalization.

Look, it's not a one sided issue, there are obviously pros and cons. I just believe that that the harm done would be less overall if it were legalized (and heavily regulated).

i liek mdma

>be federal government
>foster dangerous culture of illicit drugs and exaggerate it to the people
>manufacture and control drugs coming into and moving around the states almost exclusively
>hold the black market on a short leash so you maintain the power to turn suburbs into slums and slums into "social projects", which are glorified prison camps
>repeat outward expansion and encourage pharmaceutical companies to be even more heavyhanded with prescriptions to criminalize almost everybody in the world in one way or another
>fund public enemy groups to both draw attention away from secretive going-ons and to criminalize even more certain social groups
>???
>world domination
I wasn't implying that, I was saying that mass incarceration due to drug prohibition wasn't a "mistake". It wasn't a mistake on behalf of citizens because they never had a lot of say in the matter, it wasn't a mistake for the many contributing politicians, law enforcement workers, or jail owners who spearheaded modern prohibition because they all outright profited from it.
fuck outta here

sorry junkie friends phenethylamines are just my personal jam

I don't get it, are you saying this is a good thing? All of what you described has ruined untold number of lives.

Christ, man, come on. No, I'm not saying it was a good thing. I'm saying that it shouldn't be thought of as anybody's "mistake" because the connotations of that term strongly imply regret, accidental causation, or the mis-allocation of internal power. "Failure" is a pretty huge stretch too, but even that's more fitting. Drug prohibition is a personal affront to the individual freedoms the United States were founded upon and it's an intentional and total assault on the nation's people. I'm entering the most hackneyed phrase contest with the underlying point behind everything I've said, "the war on drugs was actually a war on people".
That's not a radical notion though, it's practically common sense. Partial decriminalization is coming soon as drug corps and politicians have finally backed a strong enough pro-drug culture through years of supposedly campaigning against it that legally selling drugs to the public for recreation is finally becoming more profitable than oppressing them and locking those same people in prisons.

>Most people do not have any access to heroin. It's a hard drug that requires dealing with serious criminals to acquire.

And if it is legalized and distributed in a professional manner, serious criminals will be out of the equation. Pharmaceutical companies and pill mills could easily create a much safer form of heroin.

>the fact is any high school student or person under 35 with a social life can find weed if they try, and the vast majority cannot find heroin.
>you pretty much have to be a drug using criminal to even try it.

This is hilarious. You really know nothing about the people using without your notice. Heroin is a white middle class drug. Especially in pill form.

People sell this to others in their community all the time, especially if they are chronic pain sufferers. You should research before spouting such BS. Branding drug users who want relief or a heightened experience as criminals is a regressive thought process.

>Oh, and you're too obtuse to acknowledge this fact but marijuana is not physically addictive and alcohol is far less physically addictive than heroin.

Marijuana is certainly habit forming and for some that's a bad thing. Does that mean that drugs should be banned or criminalized? No. All that does is make things worse. Alcohol has ruined tons of lives regardless and yet it's legal and most people are strong enough to handle Moderation with alcohol.

>At the cost of millions of people becoming drug addicts.

Other countries that legalized drugs show a spike in use, and then over the years the use decreases considerably.

>Oh, my bad. Shareholders and executives in pharmaceutical companies would be better off too. You know, what with the billions of dollars of profits a year from selling newfound junkies their fix.

That's actually a good thing and promotes business. The only bad thing here is that they often raise the price. As a result people turn to illegal street drugs that are more dangerous due to prohibition.

>guys get life in prison for a few kilos of coke
>we don't take it seriously enough

>What's with Bolsheviks and strokes?
Heavy smoking

I've yet to hear about a true recreational heroin user without addiction. And even if and when I do, that person would weigh little against the untold masses of addicts. Heroin's dangers are overwhelmingly obvious.

>Heroin is a white middle class drug. Especially in pill form.
>People sell this to others in their community all the time, especially if they are chronic pain sufferers.
>morphine and heroin is totally the same thing :^)

>most people are strong enough to handle Moderation with alcohol
and alcohol is nowhere near the same ballpark as heroin when it comes to the user feedback loop
back when opium was legal in china roughly 10% of the population was addicted, everything between mildly to severly, to it
and that's only opium, which is still not as potent and strong as heroin

you're severly underestimating the addictive qualities of heroin and are hiding yourself behind the succesful legalization of weed
guess what, drugs are far more complex than "one is legal and the other one is illegal"

Dissociatives a shit.

>Veeky Forums is now a place for junkies and ex junkies

>Same reason you don't buy sacks of powdered asprin and bang back lines of it today.
Bad example.
Now don't you feel retarded.

The Japanese smokes only and don't have that problem.

It's likely diet or something else.

pleb
people have been saying U-47700 is simply too caustic for the standard ROAs. O-DT seems to be the choice RC opiate but there aren't many people selling it.

>Veeky Forums is now a place for judgmental straight edge people

>This guy

a single outlier invalidates a theory amirite?

>If you're not smoking crack you're a bible-licking, starched shirt pussyhole straight edge

enjoy your minus 20 IQ points, brainlet junkies

It's not an outlier, it's an entire population, plus several other population that aren't the U.S.

>America's epidemiology is all that matters

Japanese Americans don't have the same protection from smoking due to the American lifestyle. The lifestyle/diet/alcohol intake plays a gigantic factor.

yeah but among countries it's an outlier most other countries follow the trend.

To be honest, morphine was more like what I expected heroin to be than heroin. They say that the heroin rush is better, but it was actually not that great when I tried it. With a similar strength dose of morphine, I had a rush better than IV cocaine.

Are you memeing me?
There were more than a dozen people I knew when I was in grad school that were heroin addicts, and the only reason that I knew was because I was close to them. You can function without any problems on opiates, unless you take enough to nod out on.
Similarly, you probably don't realize how many amphetamine addicts might be in your classes, since it is often difficult to tell.

>Japan
>Greece
>Italy
>France

Not all countries do, obviously.

And if Japan is so unique then there's obviously an important reason that could make smokers across the world healthier and far less likely to develop anything bad.

fightantismokertyranny.blogspot.com/2009/06/japanese-smoking-paradox.html?m=1

let's keep the banter to a minimum, fellow Veeky Forumsentists

We have IMPORTANT PRODUCTIVITIES to be conducting

except legal system is a business

>And still a lot of innocents get put to death, even in recent memory

Wait, who? All I remember are a few black people wrongly put to death within the last ten years or so.

WHERE CAN ONE GET QUALITY MORPHINE?
>perfect suicide drug
>perfect drug drug

The best example is that methamphetamine is given by prescription to treat ADHD, Obesity, or narcolepsy under the trade name desoxyn.

Never before have I seen a more misinformed post. Just for starters, there is no difference between hard drugs and soft drugs. It's a meaningless distinction to justify soft drug use (and also to demonize those that use heroin/meth).

Rather be an ex-junky any fucking day thank you.

>feel heroin tar
>it's hard, can harly snap it with my fingers
>feel marijuana
>it squeezes easily under my fingers

dummy

I read shit like this and wonder how the hell anyone can say methodone treatment is a good thing in any way, shape or form. Trading one addiction for another is beyond ludicrous.

This is coming from an addiction therapist and former addict, btw.

He means in terms of use, not texture. He probably knows what he's talking about, unlike you.

Anything can be abused depending on the user.

>Anything can be abused depending on the user
>implying the likelihood of establishing an abuse pattern is constant across the range of drugs