john@proper.UUCP (john) (02/17/86)
Does anybody out there know of any countries where the use of opiates
and/or other drugs for personal or recreational purposes is legal? I'm most
interested in places where there are *no* restrictions, but I'd also like to
hear about places where there are just fewer restrictions than there are in
the U.S.
If you do know of anywhere, do you have any information on things like
rates of addiction, negative effects of drug use on the lives of citizens
(especially as compared to effects in countries where the drugs are illegal),
overall satisfaction with the legal status of drugs, and so forth?
John Bashinski
{dual,amdahl,qantel}!proper!johnmwg@petrus.UUCP (Mark Garrett) (02/19/86)
++ > Does anybody out there know of any countries where the use of opiates > and/or other drugs for personal or recreational purposes is legal? > John Bashinski In India there are holy men (people? - I didn't see any women doing this) who generally wear saffron colored robes and roam around the country in search of enlightenment. They don't own anything and must beg for their food etc. Some of them use optiates (and maybe other drugs) in the process and this is socially accepted. There are also many westerners or former westerners - literally leftover hippies - who have discarded their visas and passports to do the same thing (although I would guess their rate of enlightenment is somewhat lower). It is relatively easy to get drugs there. I don't know if they are technically illegal, but Indian society generally frowns upon drug use among its own people and doesn't care much what the others do. There is one holiday in the winter though, (something to do with colors, I forget the name) which includes the use of bhang, which I've heard is pretty potent stuff. A few years ago some friends of mine were in Agra. When they stopped for a lassi (a drink made from yogert), one of them got the 'special lassi' because it only cost an extra nickel (american). After some time he thought he was getting sun stroke because he was so dizzy. When he went to lie down, the other guy went back to the store to find that the special lassi was special because it has bhang in it. Jim was releived to find out it was only drugs. -Mark Garrett
vsh@pixdoc.UUCP (Steve Harris) (02/19/86)
This week's Boston Globe magazine has an article about Heineken (sp?)
beer in the Netherlands. It comments that hashish and marajuana are
available over the counter and is served in some nightclubs.
In Nepal, hash and grass used to be freely available (legal), but Uncle
Sam pressured the Nepalese to pass a (token) law outlawing such
substences. (As I recall.) I gather they are still very easy to
obtain.
--
Steve Harris | {allegra|ihnp4|cbosgd|ima|genrad|amd|harvard}\
xePIX, Inc. | !wjh12!pixel!pixdoc!vsh
51 Lake Street |
Nashua, NH 03060 | +1 605 881 8791goddard@rochester.UUCP (Nigel Goddard) (02/20/86)
In article <32@pixdoc.UUCP> vsh@pixdoc.UUCP (Steve Harris) writes: >This week's Boston Globe magazine has an article about Heineken (sp?) >beer in the Netherlands. It comments that hashish and marajuana are >available over the counter and is served in some nightclubs. This is true, at least in Amsterdam. As I understand it (I lived there for three years), it is strictly illegal to sell hash or grass, but the city knows it can't stop the trade so it regulates it. If a cafe wants to trade it has to get a licence from the city, which is revoked if any harder drug trading is discovered. There are many cafes all over the central city selling hash and grass, most having these rules: 1. No alcohol 2. No hard drugs 3. No aggravation or violence These places have in my opinion a much more pleasant atmosphere than the bars, being quieter and more relaxed. Typically people are sitting around drinking coffee, talking and listening to the music, and often there is a back room containing a VCR. I think it is legal to be found in possession of small (1/2 ounce ?) amounts of hash or grass, in Amsterdam and maybe other parts of Holland. But the practical effect is that the user and licenced cafes have nothing to worry about, while private traders may have more trouble. Any activity concerning hard drugs is not legal or safe practically. It was the case for a while, and may still be the case, that possession of small amounts of hash/grass was legal in Spain. Legalisation was undertaken by the new Socialist government (whenever that happened). Nigel Goddard -- Internet: goddard@rochester.arpa UUCP: {decvax, allegra, seismo, cmcl2}!rochester!goddard Phone: [USA] (716) 275-5766 School: Department of Computer Science; University of Rochester; Rochester, NY 14627
avinash@ubvax.UUCP (Avinash Marathe) (02/22/86)
In article <27@petrus.UUCP> mwg@petrus.UUCP (Mark Garrett) writes: >++ >(something to do with colors, I forget the name) which includes the use >of bhang, which I've heard is pretty potent stuff. > >-Mark Garrett "Bhang" is nothing but leaves of the marijuana plant ground into a paste. It is consumed either straight in the form of small balls or mixed in drinks (milk, buttermilk, etc). Yes it is potent. Avinash Marathe {ihnp4,allegra,decwrl}!amd!ubvax!avinash
tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (02/27/86)
In article <156@proper.UUCP> john@proper.UUCP (john) writes: > > Does anybody out there know of any countries where the use of opiates >and/or other drugs for personal or recreational purposes is legal? I'm most >interested in places where there are *no* restrictions, but I'd also like to >hear about places where there are just fewer restrictions than there are in >the U.S. > > If you do know of anywhere, do you have any information on things like >rates of addiction, negative effects of drug use on the lives of citizens >(especially as compared to effects in countries where the drugs are illegal), >overall satisfaction with the legal status of drugs, and so forth? > > John Bashinski > {dual,amdahl,qantel}!proper!john This may not be exactly the information you are looking for, but ... I had an Indian girlfriend a few years ago. When we were in India, they would stock up on all kinds of legal over the counter drugs which aren't available in the USA, and bring suitcases full of the stuff back here (don't ask me why customs let them get away with it. I watched as the suitcases went through inspection.) There are all kinds of things you can get there that aren't available here. I remember one drug called "Baralgin" or something like that (made by Hoffmann-LaRouche, I seem to recall) that was really potent for getting rid of headaches. My girlfriend was dependent on (probably addicted to) the stuff. Anyway, I think there are lots of drugs available in other countries that aren't available here, but it would be an enormous amount of work to find out about them.
tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (02/27/86)
>> Does anybody out there know of any countries where the use of opiates >> and/or other drugs for personal or recreational purposes is legal? >> John Bashinski > >In India there are holy men (people? - I didn't see any women doing this) >who generally wear saffron colored robes and roam around the country in >search of enlightenment. They don't own anything and must beg for their >food etc. Some of them use optiates (and maybe other drugs) in the process >and this is socially accepted. There are also many westerners or former >westerners - literally leftover hippies - who have discarded their >visas and passports to do the same thing (although I would guess their >rate of enlightenment is somewhat lower). It is relatively easy to get >drugs there. I don't know if they are technically illegal, but Indian >society generally frowns upon drug use among its own people and doesn't >care much what the others do. There is one holiday in the winter though, >(something to do with colors, I forget the name) which includes the use >of bhang, which I've heard is pretty potent stuff. > >A few years ago some friends of mine were in Agra. When they stopped >for a lassi (a drink made from yogert), one of them got the 'special >lassi' because it only cost an extra nickel (american). After some time >he thought he was getting sun stroke because he was so dizzy. When he >went to lie down, the other guy went back to the store to find that the >special lassi was special because it has bhang in it. Jim was releived to >find out it was only drugs. > >-Mark Garrett That reminded me: there are a couple drugs that seem to be widely used in India that I tried when I was there. One is betel nut, I think. After dinner they pass a box of this stuff around, and everyone takes some. Supposedly it is for digestion only, but I got stoned from it. Also they sell some stuff wrapped in a green leaf on the street (maybe its betel leaf). I tried some once and it was quite potent. Really made my head ring. The Indian coffee is probably the strongest drug of all :-)
ken@rochester.UUCP (Ipse dixit) (02/28/86)
>Anyway, I think there are lots of drugs available in other >countries that aren't available here, but it would be an >enormous amount of work to find out about them. (-: Including Tylenol cyanide? :-) Sorry, couldn't resist. Can we go back to arguing about char sets? I think this stuff doesn't belong in net.internat. Ken -- UUCP: ..!{allegra,decvax,seismo}!rochester!ken ARPA: ken@rochester.arpa Snail: Comp. of Disp. Sci., U. of Roch., NY 14627. Voice: Ken!
daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards) (02/28/86)
In article <12057@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Tom Tedrick) writes: >In article <156@proper.UUCP> john@proper.UUCP (john) writes: >> >> Does anybody out there know of any countries where the use of opiates >>and/or other drugs for personal or recreational purposes is legal? I'm most >>interested in places where there are *no* restrictions, but I'd also like to >>hear about places where there are just fewer restrictions than there are in >>the U.S. >> John Bashinski > >I had an Indian girlfriend a few years ago. When we were in India, >they would stock up on all kinds of legal over the counter drugs >which aren't available in the USA, and bring suitcases full of >the stuff back here (don't ask me why customs let them get away >with it. I watched as the suitcases went through inspection.) >There are all kinds of things you can get there that aren't >available here. I remember one drug called "Baralgin" or >something like that (made by Hoffmann-LaRouche, I seem to >recall) that was really potent for getting rid of headaches. >My girlfriend was dependent on (probably addicted to) the >stuff. > >Anyway, I think there are lots of drugs available in other >countries that aren't available here, but it would be an >enormous amount of work to find out about them. This is getting off the track of the original posting, but one of my pet peeves is the fact that penicillin is not available over the counter (or any effective antibiotic, that I know of). Is this due to pressure from the A.M.A., to force people to see their doctors, or what? It seems rid- iculous to have to go to the doctor and pay a small fortune, when you already know what's wrong with you and what you need to fix it. I'm lucky, because if I ever decide I need some, I live close enough to Mexico to go down there and get it over the counter. Of course, one must be careful of all the penicillin addicts laying around in the alleys there. (heavy sarcasm) Dave "Gee, Doc!" Richards .
dyer@spdcc.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (03/01/86)
In article <915@felix.UUCP>, daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards) writes: > This is getting off the track of the original posting, but one of my pet > peeves is the fact that penicillin is not available over the counter (or > any effective antibiotic, that I know of). Is this due to pressure from > the A.M.A., to force people to see their doctors, or what? It seems rid- > iculous to have to go to the doctor and pay a small fortune, when you > already know what's wrong with you and what you need to fix it. > I'm lucky, because if I ever decide I need some, I live close enough to > Mexico to go down there and get it over the counter. Of course, one > must be careful of all the penicillin addicts laying around in the > alleys there. (heavy sarcasm) Penicillin and other antibiotics are not made available for sale over the counter because there is precisely NO medical benefit which would result from it, and because there is a great potential for harm, both to the individual who takes such drugs indiscriminately, and to the public health. You've heard the canard "a doctor who treats himself has a fool for a patient", well, this guy isn't even a DOCTOR--(heavy sarcasm)--what does that make HIS patient!? A couple of points to back up these assertions: - Indiscriminate use of antibiotics when they aren't indicated contributes to the development of strains of bacteria resistant to antibiotics, which then may become a real clinical problem in the population. This is already a problem with current levels of antibiotic use--imagine the magnitude if such drugs were available over the counter. - Antibiotics are not harmless substances. Simply through their ability to disrupt the population of normal bacterial flora, they can encourage the growth of harmful microorganisms which were previously held in check. Several vitamins and cofactors needed in human metabolism are synthesized by microbes which can be wiped out, at least temporarily, by antibiotic therapy. Finally, you must realize that antibiotics are toxic by their very nature, after all, that is how they work. Only very rarely is the mechanism of action of an antibiotic totally selective for microorganisms and harmless to the patient. The decision to embark on antibiotic therapy comes from a consideration of the condition of the patient, an identification of the organisms involved and their susceptibility to the antibiotic, a clinical judgement as to whether or not antibiotics would effect the course of the condition, and an assessment of the possible side effects relative to the seriousness of the patient's condition. Here are just a few side-effects that can occur from therapeutic doses of a number of antibiotics: anaphylactic shock, deafness, kidney damage, liver damage, jaundice and aplastic anemia, just to name a few. What would you like to tell the mother in Tiujuana when the antibiotic she bought for her children's colds has left them permanently impaired, if not dead? Don't you think that the pharmaceutical companies make the most of exploiting such uneducated people in such unregulated areas? I doubt that Richards wonders about any of these things when he swings down to Mexico after waking up with a scratchy throat. - Finally, antibiotics are not useful against viral infections, which covers a large majority of the typical "I'm not feeling well" visits that are payed to a doctor or clinic. Were antibiotics available over the counter, the misuse in cases like these would be unbelievable. If there's anything less flattering than flaming, it's flaming when the flamer doesn't know a flaming thing. -- Steve Dyer dyer@harvard.HARVARD.EDU {bbncca,bbnccv,harvard}!spdcc!dyer
werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) (03/02/86)
Certain antibiotics (like PenicillinV, which is orally active) are available over the counter in Europe, where it is frequently misused, and where the incidence of Penicillin-resistant strains of common pathogens is much higher than in the United States. Of course in the US, the most common use of antibiotics is to add it to cattle feed, and several epidemics of meat contaminated with resistant Salmonella have recently been described. Many doctors wish that this use too, would be curtailed. Steve Dyer was right on the mark when he described the various pitfalls of making antibiotics freely available. They are only useful in treating diseases caused by sensitive bacterial organisms - no more. Most sore throats are caused by viruses - and antibiotics are worse than useless in these cases. -- Craig Werner !philabs!aecom!werner I'll also entertain gifts,knick-knacks,offers of money, & proposals of marriage
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (03/04/86)
In article <915@felix.UUCP> daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards) writes: >This is getting off the track of the original posting, but one of my pet >peeves is the fact that penicillin is not available over the counter (or >any effective antibiotic, that I know of). Is this due to pressure from >the A.M.A., to force people to see their doctors, or what? It seems rid- >iculous to have to go to the doctor and pay a small fortune, when you >already know what's wrong with you and what you need to fix it. The argument I've heard advanced for this is that one can develop resistence to antibiotics if used regularly, and doctors claim that, if people who didn't know what they were doing used it on relatively harmless problems (or ones with other solutions), the penicillin will be ineffective if something serious comes up. As a fer-instance, penicillin is actually useful in treating acne. I can just imagine teenagers buying lots of penicillin to treat their facial problems, and then, if they get VD or something else, be forced to use less effective treatments. Considering the (in)ability of many people in this country to rationally weigh personal appearance against personal harm, not to mention the bucks to be made in selling effective acne medicine, I would suspect that this would prove to be a large problem. The question really is whether the gov't ought to protect you from this sort of self-stupidity. Ken Arnold
jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) (03/04/86)
> Certain antibiotics (like PenicillinV, which is orally active) are > available over the counter in Europe, where it is frequently misused, and > where the incidence of Penicillin-resistant strains of common pathogens > is much higher than in the United States. > Of course in the US, the most common use of antibiotics is to add it > to cattle feed, and several epidemics of meat contaminated with resistant > Salmonella have recently been described. Many doctors wish that this use too, > would be curtailed. Americans are far too antibiotic-happy as it is to allow OTC sales. More and more people want to go to the doctor and get a pill for a quick fix, and even seem disappointed when they don't. The fewer antibiotics you take, the better off you are, since when you *really* need them, they will be most effective. As Craig points out above, we are already getting anitibiotics in our diet by eating meat (beef, pork, chicken, lamb). Animals which have small amounts of antibiotics added to their feed gain weight faster and can go to market sooner. Because there are NO CONTROLS on how much antibiotics a farmer can buy or how he administers them, you have no idea what you are getting in your meat. (There is an excellent book out by Orville Schnell on this subject, tho I forget the title). If there are farmers in your area who guarantee antibiotic and hormone-free meat, you should patronise them, and avoid eating alot of supermarket meat. -- jcpatilla ..{seismo,allegra}!umcp-cs!aplcen!osiris!jcp Look for beauty in all things; let the fountains of delight refresh your heart.
dyer@spdcc.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (03/05/86)
With the small amounts of antibiotics found in meat and poultry when
they are used as a feed supplement, I'd think the concern about exposure
to trace amounts of the chemicals is more aesthetically than clinically
important. Not that having any of that stuff in your food is *good*,
but the clear and present danger comes from the development of resistant
strains of bacteria which can also infect humans, as in the case of an
outbreak of Salmonella food poisoning which was traced to an antibiotic-
resistant strain found in farm animals. What's worse, the genes for
antibiotic resistance are found on extra-nuclear packets of DNA called
plasmids, many of which can be passed via conjugation (single-cell sex,
if you will) to other non-resistant bacteria, when then also become
resistant without every having been exposed to the original drug.
Finally, it looks as if these plasmids tend to remain in a bacterial
population once established; that is, there are clear evolutionary
pressures for the ability to receive a plasmid coding for resistance,
but little genetic overhead in continuing to carry it.
--
Steve Dyer
dyer@harvard.HARVARD.EDU
{bbncca,bbnccv,harvard}!spdcc!dyerbrett@ucla-cs.UUCP (03/05/86)
Ken Arnold sounds right.
There are some other considerations. Choice of
pennicilian (synthetic?, etc.) which may be better for
certain afflictions than others ie. acne vs VD. The choice
of Tetrocycline vs Amoxacillian vs. Erythromycin comes
to mind (sorry about the spelling). Would you know which
to choose? Also, consideration of allergic reactions and
the specific choice of length of administration and
dosage can best be guided by the physician knowing the
patient.
Taking Erythromycin (as an example) for
too long can cause an itching called "fungus overgrowth".
By having the physician choose the length of administration,
and not permitting refills, this can be avoided.
[Most of the synthetic stuff (perhaps all) should not be used at
the same time as sunbathing, or w/any liquor. These can
be expressed on a warning label or by your pharmacy, of course.]
P.S. I believe it's common to dispense penicill. w/o an office
visit.
--
Brett Fleisch
University of California Los Angeles
LOCUS Research Group
3804-f Boelter Hall
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: (213) 825-2756, (213) 474-5317
brett@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
{...sdcrdcf, ihnp4, trwspp, ucbvax}!ucla-cs!brett
-------------------------------------------------------------------------speaker@ttidcb.UUCP (Kenneth Speaker) (03/05/86)
In article <783@ucsfcgl.UUCP> arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold) writes: >In article <915@felix.UUCP> daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards) writes: >>This is getting off the track of the original posting, but one of my pet >>peeves is the fact that penicillin is not available over the counter (or >>any effective antibiotic, that I know of). Is this due to pressure from >>the A.M.A., to force people to see their doctors, or what? It seems rid- >>iculous to have to go to the doctor and pay a small fortune, when you >>already know what's wrong with you and what you need to fix it. > >The argument I've heard advanced for this is that one can develop >resistence to antibiotics if used regularly, and doctors claim that, if >people who didn't know what they were doing used it on relatively >harmless problems (or ones with other solutions), the penicillin will >be ineffective if something serious comes up. > >As a fer-instance, penicillin is actually useful in treating acne. I >can just imagine teenagers buying lots of penicillin to treat their >facial problems, and then, if they get VD or something else, be forced >to use less effective treatments. Considering the (in)ability of many >people in this country to rationally weigh personal appearance against >personal harm, not to mention the bucks to be made in selling effective >acne medicine, I would suspect that this would prove to be a large >problem. > >The question really is whether the gov't ought to protect you from this >sort of self-stupidity. > > Ken Arnold Actually the question is not if the government should protect you from yourself, but whether they should protect ME from you. If you (the generic) take an antibiotic routinely, you create numerous PCN resistant strains of bacteria which you then proceed to spread around through your effluvia, such as urine, feces, respiratory aerosols, even sweat. If I get infected with your resistant bacteria, PCN is no longer useful to ME. I really don't give a hoot's ass if you wish to cause yourself harm, but when you threaten me, I do. --Kne
kludge@gitpyr.UUCP (Scott Dorsey) (03/07/86)
In article <915@felix.UUCP> daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards) writes: >This is getting off the track of the original posting, but one of my pet >peeves is the fact that penicillin is not available over the counter (or >any effective antibiotic, that I know of). Is this due to pressure from >the A.M.A., to force people to see their doctors, or what? It seems rid- >iculous to have to go to the doctor and pay a small fortune, when you >already know what's wrong with you and what you need to fix it. Seems to me that the last time I saw people dosing themselves with penicillin without a doctor's orders was a while back, about the time that Vietnam Rose came out. During the war, many soldiers doctored themselves up with (mostly black market) enormous amounts of penicillin to prevent VD. Organisms adapt, as organisms do, and penicillin resistant bacteria were selected for. The disease was brought back to the states (it was actually a gonorrhea varient, to be specific), and has been everyone's headache since. Too much of a good thing isn't good, and someone out there wants to protect us from ourselves. That's what laws are for. ------- Disclaimer: Everything I say is probably a trademark of someone. But don't worry, I probably don't know what I'm talking about. Scott Dorsey Kaptain_kludge ICS Programming Lab, Rich 110, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!kludge USnail: Box 36681, Atlanta GA. 30332
ka@hropus.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) (03/08/86)
Kenneth Speaker is right: using antibiotics tends to create resistent strains of bacteria which can then infect anyone. A year or two ago there was a proposal to allow licensed pharmacists to prescribe anti- biotics; that may have had some merit. A real problem with the controls on the use of antibiotics is that they don't apply to animals. Kenneth Almquist ihnp4!houxm!hropus!ka (official name) ihnp4!opus!ka (shorter path)
janea@homxb.UUCP (J.ASMUTH) (03/09/86)
Or is it that widespread use of antibiotics encourages resistant strains of bacteria to develop more quickly? If this is the case, the less used, the longer it will be effective for all of us.