Brits: who's staying out longer for a drink then?

[caveman_uk]

i compleatly disagree with the argument that applies both the smoking and alcohol, that the high level of tax that is paid by the consumers of it more than pay for the treatment later in life. this may well be the case, however, if the doctors did not need to treat the patients as a result of their abuses then they would have far far more free time to treat other non-related illnesses.

Where do you stop your 'selection by lifestyle choice' though? Do you refuse to help smokers with cancer because they smoked? Do you refuse surgery on people that had a car crash that drove too fast? Do you refuse to treat Malaria in someone that went on holiday? Do you refuse to give hip replacements to fat people?

As it happens I agree with you. I think regardless of how people came by their illness they should be helped but society should also expect that people learn their lesson... For example in the last example i gave there I think that telling people to loose weight to get a hip replacemnt is a tad unfair if you can't move much because you've got a ****ed hip. Better to say 'yes, we'll do it this time but only once unless you loose some weight.'

I think the balance between rights and responsibilities has got so far out of balance in this country it's mad. It's all about rights rights rights. What about your responsibilities?

 

[caveman_uk]

Speaking of whom, is anyone else sick and tired of seeing his current status as a headline on the BBC news site? Sure, it's a shame that he's dying but the Royal style status bulletins are a little OTT.

May I join the club. I'm getting so tired of it I'm almost at the point of shouting 'Oh just die will you!'

 

[russed]

Speaking of whom, is anyone else sick and tired of seeing his current status as a headline on the BBC news site? Sure, it's a shame that he's dying but the Royal style status bulletins are a little OTT.

yeh i agree, it looks like he has finally reached his end though.

 

[Peterkro]

Does the fact that none died say more about the level of care and supervision that the toxicity of heroin? From a simplistic point of view the control of drug supply by criminals does indeed increase the possibility of overdose and death but to say just because that people on a supervised project didn't OD means that heroin is safe or benign.

Diamorphine is prescribed almost exclusively to terminally ill patients with extreme pain. Usually cancer pateints. Here the fact they will soon die ameliorates concerns over addiction.

As does codeine so are you claiming codiene, morphine and heroin are the same? If they were so equivalent we'd give cancer patients codeine not heroin wouldn't we?

So lovely pure white heroin under highly controlled circumstances is great yet uncontrolled self-destructive addiction to alcohol is bad. Well bugger me that's a shock.

I'm not denying that alcohol abuse is bad nor that alcohol is a harmful substance. Alcohol is an addictive CNS depressant that can cause irrevocable damage when abused. What I object to is your claim that heroin is a perfectly safe and lovely drug and it's only because it's illegal that it causes the damage it does. If it were legal, pure and cheap it would still kill people. People know that too much alcohol is bad for them it doesn't stop some becoming alcoholics. What makes you think that without adequate supervision heroin users would be any different?

And as to the financial cost of alcohol... how much of the cost of a drink is tax? On beer it's about £3.70 of alcohol duty and £1.30 of VAT (total £5) on a £8.99 special offer pack of 24 stubbies of Stella in the supermarkets. Maybe drinkers have paid for the damage their habit has caused. They have paid already for adequate policing and programmes to rehabilitate alcoholics. The fact that doesn't happen is more to do with government prioritities than lack of contributions by drinkers. What have the users of heroin contributed?....oh, that's right, nothing.

Theres obviously some interference between what I'm writing and what your reading,oh well.

 

[Peterkro]

Where do you stop your 'selection by lifestyle choice' though? Do you refuse to help smokers with cancer because they smoked? Do you refuse surgery on people that had a car crash that drove too fast? Do you refuse to treat Malaria in someone that went on holiday? Do you refuse to give hip replacements to fat people?

As it happens I agree with you. I think regardless of how people came by their illness they should be helped but society should also expect that people learn their lesson... For example in the last example i gave there I think that telling people to loose weight to get a hip replacemnt is a tad unfair if you can't move much because you've got a ****ed hip. Better to say 'yes, we'll do it this time but only once unless you loose some weight.'

I think the balance between rights and responsibilities has got so far out of balance in this country it's mad. It's all about rights rights rights. What about your responsibilities?

Liver patients(with several diseases[Best paid privately for his and wasn't drinking at the time he had the transplant does this not tell you how dangerous alcohol is,a very rich man with access to the best treatment in the world couldn't beat it and there are many others suffering the same fate without his resources]) who are still drinking will be refused treatment,not because they are mean but because its pointless.As on the news yesterday one Health Authority is indeed refusing hip replacements for obese people and defending it by saying it happens allover anyway we are just being upfront about it.The swiss project supplies pharmacuetical heroin to addicts as well as clean needles etc plus regular checkups the rest is up to the addicts themselves.Incidently the age of addicts is rising both in Holland and Switzerland,yet dropping in the UK funny that.And whilst codiene is also produced from the opium poppy it is a different alkaloid from heroin/morphine and in its self is a major drug of abuse more dangerous than heroin.

 

[caveman_uk]

And whilst codiene is also produced from the opium poppy it is a different alkaloid from heroin/morphine

Codeine is monomethylated morphine and heroin is diacetylated morphine so you are wrong. Both are converted to morphine in-vivo as both deacetylation and demethylation are relatively facile processes within the body. In fact the properties of the morphine alkaloids is one of the classic case studies in drug structure-activity relationships. So claiming one drug is a dangerous drug of abuse yet not seeing heroin as one is seeing the latter in a rather benevolent light.

As a PhD qualified medicinal chemist with over 12 years experience in the drug industry, that has worked on the design and optimisation of a number of compounds for use in human healthcare, I happen to know a little more about chemical structure and drug design than you probably do.

I'm not claiming alcohol is anything other than it is. You on the otherhand seem rather keen to portray heroin as the poor, misrepresented drug that would be safe if only it were legalised. Why is that?

Edit: for spelling

 

[Blue Velvet]

Phew... after all that, a late drink is completely on the cards.

 

[Peterkro]

Codeine is monomethylated morphine and heroin is diacetylated morphine so you are wrong. Both are converted to morphine in-vivo as both deacetylation and demethylation are relatively facile processes within the body. In fact the properties of the morphine alkaloids is one of the classic case studies in drug structure-activity relationships. So claiming one drug is a dangerous drug of abuse yet not seeing heroin as one is seeing the latter in a rather benevolent light.

As a PhD qualified medicinal chemist with over 12 years experience in the drug industry, that has worked on the design and optimisation of a number of compounds for use in human healthcare, I happen to know a little more about chemical structure and drug design than you probably do.

I'm not claiming alcohol is anything other than it is. You on the otherhand seem rather keen to portray heroin as the poor, misrepresented drug that would be safe if only it were legalised. Why is that?

Edit: for spelling

Again your reading into my posts things that are not there I was merely saying Heroin compared to alcohol is a relatively benign drug.I did not say that street Heroin was not the cause of major problems,I am saying that in the UK problems caused by Heroin(the street stuff ) is relatively minor compared to alcohol.As to your chemistry knowledge I bow to that,I can't be arsed looking up the structure of various opiate,though I do know the effect of codiene on the body is considerable different than that of Heroin/Morphine.I'm bowing out of this as its probably annoying people.

I can't be bothered answering your other questions as your first not understanding what I writing and second your not thinking about the relative damage done by both drugs but are regurgitating whats in the rule book,its wrong.And for the final time I am NOT suggesting the legalisation of any drugs except where it is medically supervised pharma quality heroin and is prescribed to long term heroin users.I find it hard to believe as a chemist you don't know that there are very few problems with long term use of heroin/morphine other than OD or physical addiction which if you ask people in the field they will tell you is not as bad as alcohol withdrawal,people die relatively often with alcohol rarely with Heroin.Finally I'm sure your aware that (%wise) more people give up heroin than tabacco.The answers are in the evidence not in the attitude.
P.S. Diamorphine is used in a wide range of medical treatments not just end stage cancer,I myself have had it for Ultraviolet flash damage and very effective it was too strangely enough I didn't become addicted,and other little useful tools include Cocaine commonly used in eye and nose surgery,that last bit is not a joke again I've had it (St Thomas's) for vein cauterisation,living a long time does have its use.

 

[jimN]

As it happens you'll do well to find diamorphine being used anywhere in the nhs at present due to the ongoing shortages (caveman should be able to back me up on that one). If we are going to go on about how benign drugs are then why not point out that alcohol is fairly benign IN MODERATION which seems to be what your posts neglect to mention. In fact the cardiovascular benefits are well known and widely publicised. However, in excess it is harmful. Heroin brings on addiction even in small amounts and developing tolerance means that escalating dosages are used - over time this puts you at increased risk of overdose and the risks of respiratory suppression and death that this involves. Cocaine is a very dangerous drug that can cause sudden death and is used topically in medicine in a controlled environment in small doses.

As for Best paying for things privately. To the best of my knowledge having prictae health care can not get you a transplant any quicker because organs can not be bought and sold in this country as benevolent donation is not allowed except from relatives in the case of kidney transplants. He must have managed to get to the top of te transplant list and a matched liver came up. The fact that he relapsed does demonstrate the strength of his illness, namely addiction. A problem that is just as rife amongst opiate users.

Finally, the use of diamorphine and morphine in pain control is not supposed to promote addiction because of the indication for its use - the relief of pain. Obviously this applies more to acute administration rather than chronic pain. Cigarettes, alcohol and other recreational drugs are all dangerous but it is much harder to legislate against establish vices than it is to prevent new ones from entering the mainstream so arguing that we should be allowed to abuse other substances because we are already allowed to drink/smoke is a flawed argument. If you're so keen to shorten your life whilst having mind altering experiences why not jump off a cliff, i'm sure it'll give you quite a rush on the way down - just remember to pay the tax first!

 

[barevouse]

I would like to point out the fact that even though 24 hour drinking is on the table the goverment ar trying to stop drunken violence on public transportation so if this happens you will have to walk home, however the fact lies this will encourage drink driving. Binge drinkers will also be running a mock and drink related deaths will rise dramatically special with my generation of boozers( i like a few but being drunk is stupid) sothe fact is that i will only get worse with the nw laws being put into play

 

[0098386]

Speaking of whom, is anyone else sick and tired of seeing his current status as a headline on the BBC news site? Sure, it's a shame that he's dying but the Royal style status bulletins are a little OTT.

Damn you all I wanted to sound cool and say "... and with all this we have people like George Best".

its true though. he got that liver transplant and f***ed it right up. It really sickens me that somebody more responsible and more needy probably died waiting for a transplant too. all this blabbing on about mr. Best has just passed me by now. every other week he's in hospital for something. for somebody who abused their body I just dont care anymore.

I believe alcohol is dangerous. Most people say otherwise because they're drinkers themselves. take me, I got attacked in the street one night by a drunken gang. because yea! Drinking is so k3wl! Its dangerous, it kills, its down right sad that people need it to have a good time, it messes up SO many people. and for what? so socialites can have a quick shag?

I'm sorry im so narrow minded on this subject. but i've been on the wrong side of a drunk a few times in the past so i can damn well have a strong opinion.

 

[russed]

I would like to point out the fact that even though 24 hour drinking is on the table the goverment ar trying to stop drunken violence on public transportation so if this happens you will have to walk home, however the fact lies this will encourage drink driving. Binge drinkers will also be running a mock and drink related deaths will rise dramatically special with my generation of boozers( i like a few but being drunk is stupid) sothe fact is that i will only get worse with the nw laws being put into play

you will find that the idea to ban DRINKING on public transport was mentioned for about 2 days before the government back tracked. nothing was mentioned about stopping drunk people going on public transport, though i'm sure bus drivers etc have stopped people getting onto their bus if people are clearly gone/violent - at their discression. so please do not say that the government are stopping people getting on pulic transport if under the influence. i do not beleive that drink driving will increase, the situation has been hammered home for a good 10 years or so now and rightly so, and i do beleive the latest figures show that the incident rate is reaching a plateau.

you say that you dislike getting drunk, yet the line after you say that implementing the 24 hour drinking will make you get worse, isnt that a contradiction?

 

[russed]

Where do you stop your 'selection by lifestyle choice' though? Do you refuse to help smokers with cancer because they smoked? Do you refuse surgery on people that had a car crash that drove too fast? Do you refuse to treat Malaria in someone that went on holiday? Do you refuse to give hip replacements to fat people?

As it happens I agree with you. I think regardless of how people came by their illness they should be helped but society should also expect that people learn their lesson... For example in the last example i gave there I think that telling people to loose weight to get a hip replacemnt is a tad unfair if you can't move much because you've got a ****ed hip. Better to say 'yes, we'll do it this time but only once unless you loose some weight.'

I think the balance between rights and responsibilities has got so far out of balance in this country it's mad. It's all about rights rights rights. What about your responsibilities?

i acree compleatly with what you say there. it is obviously going to be a tricky line to take but im sure that someone who is more qualified to know the cause/effect link between illnesses etc will be more suitable to define the cut off point.

however, people should in the cases of illnesses linked to smoking, drinking, being obease should definatly be given the 'one help then they are on their own' treatment or pay for it out of their own pocket and do not get to jump the line. say the malaria example that is extreme as it could be likened to someone who sits in a room with air conditioning and then gets the disease that its possible to get from stagnant air (im sure you know what i mean!). there i believe is a cut off between activly knowing you could potentially damage your body and the other case where there is the chance that you could possibly be incident to another event e.g. catching a virus etc.

people do need to be more responsible for there actions and the blame culture needs eradicating. i have never seen something so stupid as someone sueing mcdonalds for making them fat - its not as if they grab you and push the food down your throat.

 

[Peterkro]

O.K. just a couple of points first:

Narcotics themselves cause little direct physical damage apart from some problems occurring because of persistent constipation and reduced sex drive.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~apfdfy/Heroin.htm

Second if you read post 19 in this thread you'll see I agreed with extended drinking hours and of course Alcohol is O.K. in small amounts.I don't know about shortages of diamorphine in the NHS but if its true someone needs to be fired if their strongest analgesic is in short supply they have many patients on it and in some cases morphine will not do.Sometimes I wonder about human beings,to semi-quote some dead nazi "if you repeat a lie often enough people will believe it.Pure heroin is a relatively benign drug,it causes major health and criminal damage because its unavailable to most addicts in its pure form.People die from street heroin because it contains a wide variety of other substances,OD's happen because the strength of street heroin varies wildly.If as I said pure heroin was available to addicts in its pure form with medical supervision it would help people live a productive and usfeful life,as the Swiss and Dutch programs prove and as was the case in the UK until the media killed the idea in the early 70's.I hope someone above was not suggesting I would want to use narcotics because if that is so it is stupid beyond belief.I have noticed that if you challenge peoples predijuces they will go to any lengths to try and hang onto them.The demonisation of Heroin(pure) as many people want to have prescribed to addicts has left us with the abomination that is methadone.I agree that legalising drugs is not the way forward(except for cannabis maybe)But as far as I'm aware all those drugs mentioned were freely available and caused very few problems until the insane prohibition period in the US.The fact that I support a well established treatment program for addicts turns me into one guilty by association I guess.

Incidently Victoria and one of the nineteenth century Pope's were enthusiatic imbibbers of cocaine elixer.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4466750.stm to do with alcohol abuse not Vic and Noddy.

 

[jimN]

I don't know about shortages of diamorphine in the NHS but if its true someone needs to be fired if their strongest analgesic is in short supply they have many patients on it and in some cases morphine will not do.

There was a problem with quality of drug from on eof the major suppliers and as a consequence there's only one supplier at present (i believe). This has been on going for over a year. More often than not morphine will do and diamorph is being rationed for those patients with the greatest need, generally those requiring paliative care.

 

[Peterkro]

There was a problem with quality of drug from on eof the major suppliers and as a consequence there's only one supplier at present (i believe). This has been on going for over a year. More often than not morphine will do and diamorph is being rationed for those patients with the greatest need, generally those requiring paliative care.

Thanks for that.

 

[beatle888]

Theres obviously some interference between what I'm writing and what your reading,oh well.

stupid conversation.

 

[redeye be]

Just to let you guys know i just returned from a night out. On my walk back home (public transport stops at around 12:00 am) all bars were still open, nice and comfy atmosphere, no fighting.
Maybe the Brits are just used to drinking to fast because of the early closing time. It's 2:20 now and i really should go to bed. 'Night all.

 

[caveman_uk]

stupid conversation.

Thank you for your insightful comment.

 

[i.Feature]

Just wanted to jump in with my thoughts...

I'm currently living in Montreal, QC... Grew up in Toronto, ON... So my whole adult life i've been able to drink past 12:00... I have been to the UK many times and always found it a bit jarring when i was out a a pub with friends and we were having a great conversation and good times and then all of a sudden we had to pack up and continue else where... I think giving places the option to stay open later is a great thing...

As for the binge drinking i think thats more of an age thing and less of an alcohol availability thing... When i was in college i did it, so did most people i know and alot of you probably did too... If bars closed at 7pm you and i still would have found a way to do it...

Now someone pointed out why not police who you serve drinks to... well my brother owns a sports bar/pub in toronto and they "reserve the right to refuse" and exercise this right quite often... with good training and judgement barkeeps can be a valuable asset... for the most part they get no trouble when refusing someone... and if someone protests too much they are asked to leave... that simple...

Anyways tonite i'll be going out... likely only till 2am as i'm heading back to Toronto for the weekend... and that will be a bit jarring to me as here in Montreal places are open till 3am...

I'll raise a pint to you all tonite...

 

[Peterkro]

Sorry to resurect this long dead thread,I stumbled on this article in TheAge that fairly clearly sets out my view on the demonisation of heroin:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opini...1137553654293.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2

 

[Nermal]

Closed by request.