Ask Lemmy

I really do. It's terrible. I acknowledge that there is a public nuisance and safety aspect that they bring to the community because of addiction and why people on the other side get frustrated by it, but nobody goes out in life and thinks "I'll be a homeless drug addict, that's the way to live". It's a product of multiple factors, poverty, etc. And it's absolutely terrible to try and get clean off substances, especially when you have no home to go to when you're done.

This is what happens when you have conservative governments. They're absolutely fine letting these poor people rot.

Interesting about buprenorphin in Finland, I had never heard of it. Is it a recent thing there?

Depends on how you define recent I think, but in most senses of the word, no, not that recent.

We had a bit of a heroin problem in the 90's apparently (I wasn't yet in any sort of drug rings as a kid so wouldn't know myself) and the legend is that actual organised crime in Finland got fed up with heroin and the decided it won't be sold in Finland anymore. There still is heroin definitely but it's genuinely fucking rare, especially compared to weed, speed, lsd, etc.

An definitely subutex, which is the buprenorphin. It's only a partial agonist and there's narcan in it as well, so it's impossible/extremely hard to od on it fatally.

In France they cost like 1e a pill here you can sell them for 80. Then you see oxys being sold sometimes, they go for about 1e/mg, so if you buy a mild 10mg it's a tenner but an 80mg pill would be 80e.

The bupre junkies do get nasty though in health and share needles and all that is still a risk for them, but they won't accidentally od unlike someone shooting up heroin or fentanyl

Some of them made movie about their life. Then like 6 years later the "protagonist" of that movie was found dead hanging by an extension cord somewhere in Thailand. Suicide or drug debt no-one knows.

If you don't like seeing people actually inject themselves, with all the "reversing" as well (idk what the term is in English, but junkies sometimes draw back on the needle, so blood shoots back to the syringe and then push again, to flush every little bit of the drug from the syringe).

Reindeerspotting - Escape from Santaland 2010

This documentary tells the story of Jani, a 19-year-old drug addict living on social welfare among with his friends. Tired of his life in a remote city in Rovaniemi, he decides to travel by train to various parts of Europe ...

I'm actually pretty pissed off that people are trying to take fentanyl off the market completely. It needs to be a highly controlled substance but to take it away from the burn ICUs and hospice units is wildly inhumane.

I think they're actually worse than the cartels. Are the cartels more violent and scary? For sure. Do they pull off heinous crimes? Yeah.

But...

Do they have to, in order to stay in business? Yes. Did Purdue Pharma have to? Not in the slightest.

What I mean by that is that Purdue made all it's money at least somewhat legally. A doctor who took bribes from them and pushed Oxycontin knowing it wasn't actually as legit — as in "doesn't cause addiction", pushing the medication to pretty much whoever from teenagers to grandparents, unsuspecting people in need of medical advice — is arguably of poorer moral character than a dealer selling cocaine to people who know they're buying cocaine.

And what I mean by the cartels having no choice is that whilst I definitely don't agree with the violence, I can understand that without it, they'd have practically no control over the trade. If however, they were given the option of actually doing it legally, I think they might give up the violence. Or at least the trade would shift away from it, because it would mean that legit cocaine traders would have the justice system and law on their side. Currently it doesn't mean much in South-America I think, because the cartels are just so big, powerful and violent. But with time.

Responsible people should even be allowed to use those drugs. But like with alcohol, there should be products which aren't just as pure as they can get. Like I compared earlier, buprenorphin is to hard cider as fentanyl is to moonshine.

It's very different having a few beers which are 5% alc than downing a glass of moonshine. Same with so called "hard drugs". I wouldn't fuck with opiates too much, but with the proper regulation, I think even those should be allowed, and if they were, they'd eat the legal market of poisons away. Ask yourself, when's the last time you had a chance to buy illegally made alcohol? It's not too often that that happens. But illegally made class A drugs? Can get them about anywhere in the world.

And especially for drugs like cocaine, milder versions would be fantastic, as people could still have plenty, just wouldn't get as affected. Like how you wouldnt' really be able to kill yourself by drinking 4% beer. It's just incredibly hard to get an alcohol poisoning from that because how mild it is. But with wine, it's possible yet unlikely, but with something like 40% vodka/whisky/rum, it's almost probable if you don't know how much you should drink and you're a teenager or something and with moonshine it's almost inevitable if you actually force yourself to drink the stuff.

So for cocaine I'd say something which is perhaps a bit stronger than just coca leaves, or equivalent, but nowhere near pure face-numbing cocaine.

Bring back real Coke! Original recipe! (Coca-Cola Company is btw the largest legal producer of cocaine in the world, they still make it during the process but just sell it off to... 'pharmaceutical companies', or that's what I've heard.)

edit sorry for the essay I just saw your reply after taking a half an ambien so I rambled a bit