I used to be for full legalization, then had to deal with one of my employees being on meth.

Being the big soppy that I am, I didn't fire her immediately and tried to help her get out of it.

I figured that showing her some of the joys of life might do, but it didn't.

I got her a new laptop, and she sold it to buy meth. At least she had the creance of formatting it, so eventually I got back the Steam credit.

I got her an electronics kit, and she sold it to buy meth.

I got her a small sailboat (only cost me $400 on craigslist, but I spent quite a few hours getting her seaworthy again) and she crashed it on the first outing after declaring that she had to come back to get a fix.

Eventually I told her to leave when I discovered that she was stealing from the "go to rat shack and grab a bag of resistors" prepaid card.

(Full disclosure: I don't do drugs because my brain chemistry is all over the place already, but am in favor of legalizing weed and shrooms - declaring an organism illegal only takes legitimity away from laws, and there are no hyperconcentration issues that way)

What the heck does this have to do with legalization? Your employee's performance was presumably suffering because of their addiction, and in any event, theft from your employer is grounds for dismissal.

Your employee was not any less addicted due to the criminalization of drugs.

Meth is extremely addictive and should be hard to get a hold of, is all.

If you have a better solution please share it. Getting stoned on weekends is fine, but I got to see the whole "faces of meth" before and after thing in person over a year, and it was not pretty.

Meth is controlled and yet your employee still managed to get it. Obviously criminalizing it doesn't prevent people from having access to it. What it does prevent is quality control.

Did they refuse treatment?

Yes.

I am sure by 'worst' he meant the relation between active dose and lethal dose, which IIRC are not so far apart.

If that is the measure of "worst" then alcohol, tylenol, nutmeg, and dextromethorphan containing cough medicine should be demonized too.

I'm all for Alcohol being less available, Paracetamol isn't my cup of tea either and discourage its use, a search for Nutmeg has brought nothing that seems to be supportive of it being overly dangerous, and a quick google for dextromethorphan also seeems to be inconclusive (wikipedia cites adverse effects in doses up to 75 the usual dose, so unless one can buy it in extra large capsules I don't think it is relevant).

I have a hard time believing that you were serious about the latter two examples, given what I found.

Well there is your problem. You don't actually know anything about the subject and a "quick google" is a poor substitute for actual knowledge.

Nutmeg is a psychoactive substance at the right dose and at around 7-8 times that dose it can be lethal. That is more dangerous than alcohol.

With dextromethorphan the ratio of a dose that gets you high to the dose that kills you is about the same as alcohol.

> Nutmeg is a psychoactive substance at the right dose and at around 7-8 times that dose it can be lethal.

How many people have died of a nutmeg overdose? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11343860 seems to suggest that it's rare.

Fair enough, but that is a very different measure of "worst".

Death from cough syrup overdose is well known and cautioned against in the drug taking community.

> Paracetamol isn't my cup of tea either and discourage its use

Why? When taken at the correct dose it's a safe, effective, pain killer. People do need to be careful to avoid overdose, which means that packets should probably be a bit clearer when they include paracetamol / acetaminophen.

Yes and that's why I said discourage and not something like 'prefer it to be banned'. To me it's a 'take if you think you really can't function without but be careful' kind of case.

I think he probably means "potential for addiction which can have serious implications to ones health"

Overdose potential is largely irrelevant for low-addiction substances.

"Meth" = crystal meth, which is not at all (in its practical properties, not chemically) like the methamphetamine that is available with a prescription (Ritalin and Adderal is what you're referring to). Crystal meth is a lot more addictive, as well as physically damaging, than amphetamines or methamphetamines taken orally.

Likewise, it's disingenuous to compare heroin to morphine or oxycodone, even if they're chemically similar. Look, I'm on your side (the de-criminalisation side) but we need to use real arguments to win our case, not easily debunked or up for debate sophisms that our opponent easily can (and will) turn against us.

Desoxyn is methamphetamine. Adderall is amphetamine, whereas Ritalin is methylphenidate, a completely different drug entirely.

The difference between amphetamine and methamphetamine is largely in the effective dose needed by weight, because the extra methyl group lets the drug cross the blood-brain barrier more easily. It doesn't change the actual receptors it activates or the metabolic process of the drug, however.

The real difference between Adderall and "street meth" has more to do with the means of ingestion (smoked vs oral) than the actual chemical compounds themselves.

"Adderall is amphetamine, whereas Ritalin is methylphenidate, a completely different drug entirely."

No. Methyplphenidate is as different from methamphetamine as methamphetamine is from amphetamine, which is to say that yes they're chemically different, but have similar effects that are different in the margins, like MDMA and 2CB, for example.

"The real difference between Adderall and "street meth" has more to do with the means of ingestion (smoked vs oral) than the actual chemical compounds themselves."

Which is exactly what I said.

In his book "High Price", psychiatry professor Carl Hart says that the difference between street meth and Adderal, or crack and powder cocaine is mostly social class, not pharmacology. One is taken by the poorest people, the other by movie stars or given to soldiers and schoolchildren, but they're the same drugs.

He gave a Google talk in 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdsN_vYZ3w8

Again, "street meth" is the smokable form, which is not like Adderal. It's twisting words to even claim that the rocks you buy on the street are 'the same' as Adderal because they're chemically the same. The argument that Hart makes (which I agree with!) is much more nuanced than what you're insinuating here. The scientific evidence on how dangerous crystal meth is compared to Adderal is unanimous. I honestly don't understand how or why anyone can claim otherwise (and I'm more interested in the 'why' than in the 'how', even).

This is a "street drugs are contaminated" argument and you are correct in that "street" drugs are often contaminated or are of inferior quality. It is an argument against prohibition. I'm not sure where you got the idea that "Crystal meth is a lot more addictive", I'd be interested to learn more if that is in fact the case. Again, no argument that illicit contaminated drugs can harm people, so can contaminated food or water. It is interesting OTOH to consider oxycodone which is abused widely and is available often paired with what would only be considered a contaminant (paracetamol or acetaminophen) if it were a street drug; the contaminant being responsible for most of the acute harm attributable to prescription opiate abuse.

"This is a "street drugs are contaminated" argument"

No it's not. As a matter of fact, both MDMA and amphetamine available in the underground market in Europe the last years are more pure than they ever were.

I'm arguing against prohibition, I guess all the downvoters didn't bother to read past my first sentence. My point was that the GP was trying to say 'oh meth is just as dangerous as other stimulants and you can get it with a prescription' - uh no it's not, and no you can't.

"I'm not sure where you got the idea that "Crystal meth is a lot more addictive", I'd be interested to learn more if that is in fact the case."

It's widely documented (see e.g. http://www.cmaj.ca/content/178/13/1679.full , from which I quote "Apart from the generic risks associated with all forms of methamphetamine, the special public health concern with crystal meth is that this form can cause more overall harm to the public than other forms, because it rapidly achieves a high drug concentration with a correspondingly high potential for drug addiction and other toxicities."; see also the references to that article and everything you will find from there) that smoking methamphetamine causes a much quicker dopamine release, and fading effect, than ingesting or snorting it. This causes a user to want to repeat smoking much faster.

Thanks for the link. At least we now have a specific definition for "crystal meth" (methamphetamine hydrochloride).

>This causes a user to want to repeat smoking much faster.

I didn't see where they made that conclusion. I did see this:

>>Despite much research data from animals in the literature,17 the areas of the human brain and the key neurochemicals that are responsible for the pleasurable effects of methamphetamine and for the transition from drug-liking to drug-craving are still unknown.

>>"Research into the pharmacologic treatment of methamphetamine addiction has largely been limited to studies in animals. Surprisingly, there are very limited data from clinical trials of new therapies to prevent methamphetamine addiction relapse.24,33 Although animal studies are essential to the development of new medications, given the public health importance of this worldwide problem and the existence of potential drug targets, it is obvious that the very slow pace of clinical testing of new therapies in methamphetamine addiction needs to be accelerated. "

As another person pointed out, methamphetamine is sold in the US as Desoxyn.

Morphine is used in the US, but diacetylmorphine (aka heroin) is used in the UK and several other countries.

I'm not being disingenuous...

"meth" is not "methamphetamine". "meth" is specifically "crystal meth", a smokable form of methamphetamine which is (much) more dangerous than other 'forms' of methamphetamine and which is not available legally, on prescription or not, anywhere in the world (well OK I don't know for sure about the entire world, but certainly not in any Western country).

You've said this more than once, but you are completely wrong. 'Crystal' is Methamphetamine HCl. Desoxyn is Methamphetamine HCl. They are exactly, 100% the same chemical.

If your issue is with smoking vs. other methods of ingesting, we can talk - but that doesn't make them 'different drugs' any more than Nodoz is a different drug to Caffeine in coffee - Desoxyn being smokeable too, of course, though I'm not sure who would bother.

You dont have to compare heroin to morphine or oxycodone. As i understands it Heroin is being used clinically in some countries under the name "Diamorphine".