What's new
By:

We're saved! Spice is being outlawed, you know, for the kids.

The term narcotic (pronounced /nɑrˈkɒtɨk/) originally referred medically to any psychoactive compound with sleep-inducing properties. It has since become associated with opioids, commonly morphine and heroin. The term is, today, imprecisely defined and typically has negative connotations[1]. In a legal context, a narcotic drug is simply one that is totally prohibited, or one that is used in violation of strict governmental regulation", such as cocaine and marijuana. From a pharmacological standpoint, it is a vague and ineffectual term [2]. On the other hand, the legal usage of the word does provide a convenient shorthand term, useful in contexts where the legal status of a drug is more pertinent than its pharmacological action.
Contents
[hide]

* 1 History
* 2 See also
* 3 References
* 4 External links

[edit] History

The term "narcotic" is believed to have been coined by the Greek physician Galen to refer to agents that numb or deaden, causing loss of feeling or paralysis. It is based on the Greek word ναρκωσις (narcosis), the term used by Hippocrates for the process of numbing or the numbed state. Galen listed mandrake root, altercus (eclata)[3] seeds, and poppy juice (opium) as the chief examples.[4][5] “Narcotic” is a term derived from the Greek word narke, meaning "stupor." It originally referred to any substance that relieved pain, dulled the senses, or induced sleep[6]. Now, the term is used in a number of ways. Some people define narcotics as substances that bind at opiate receptors (cellular membrane proteins activated by substances like heroin or morphine) while others refer to any illicit substance as a narcotic. From a legal perspective, narcotic refers to opium, opium derivatives, and their semi-synthetic substitutes.[7] Though in U.S. law, due to its numbing properties, cocaine is also considered a narcotic.
Click to expand...

Considering not every state refers to it as a narcotic, I'd say the other definition is the correct one. Opiates.
 
Sirkickyass said:
This is the lesson of the prohibition experiment.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, as far as I know alcohol use actually DID go down substantially during prohibition, and its use went up substantially afterwords. (Or so a college prof told our class once; I haven't researched it myself.) So maybe it's a trade off... do you want more crime and less usage, or less crime and more usage?
 
colton said:
I suspect that marijuana is a narcotic in the sense that irregardless is now a word. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless

If enough people use a term incorrectly for long enough, eventually it becomes accepted.
Click to expand...

Saying marijuana is a narcotic isn't botching the word or the definition, colton. Do you know what the definition for narcotic is?

1. (Medicine / Pharmacology) any of a group of drugs, such as heroin, morphine, and pethidine, that produce numbness and stupor. They are used medicinally to relieve pain but are sometimes also taken for their pleasant effects; prolonged use may cause addiction
2. anything that relieves pain or induces sleep, mental numbness, etc.
3. any illegal drug
Click to expand...

How is marijuana not a narcotic?
 
I smoked about 6 ounces of this stuff last weekend just to give the hype a try. I did not notice any effects at all. I had drank a few beers before smoking this business. It tasted like really ****** schwag to me with less effect. My friend who smoked as much as I had, who has never smoked weed before, said he felt messed up but I think he is just a ***** and pretending.

On a side note the amount of time and money the government puts into stopping people from smoking weed and now potentially into some herb is a joke. It might make more people not do it but its not stopping it and it makes people like me curious about it. The biggest thing it does is drive the price of the product way up, which has way worse effects on society. Keep it away from kids, educate people about its bad effects and let adults make their own decisions. If their decisions harm the public or anyone besides them punish them like no tomorrow.
 
colton said:
On the other hand, as far as I know alcohol use actually DID go down substantially during prohibition, and its use went up substantially afterwords. (Or so a college prof told our class once; I haven't researched it myself.) So maybe it's a trade off... do you want more crime and less usage, or less crime and more usage?
Click to expand...

I'm going to stick with my assertion that usage would not significantly increase. I'm speculating, of course, but so is anyone else who levies an opinion. I think the difference between obtaining alcohol during prohibition, and obtaining marijuana today is substantial. Getting weed is ridiculously easy. Bottles of whiskey couldn't be dealt on any street corner, and shoved into your pants pocket. I believe a lot of folks who otherwise would have imbibed, didn't (during prohibition) simply because of the risk and difficulty. These are almost no obstacle to the pot smoker. Risk is very low. That's why I think that those who would partake, mostly already do.
 
Archie Moses said:
1. (Medicine / Pharmacology) any of a group of drugs, such as heroin, morphine, and pethidine, that produce numbness and stupor. They are used medicinally to relieve pain but are sometimes also taken for their pleasant effects; prolonged use may cause addiction
2. anything that relieves pain or induces sleep, mental numbness, etc.
3. any illegal drug
Click to expand...
How is marijuana not a narcotic?
Click to expand...

You missed my point, Archie. I'm pretty sure that definition 3 is a recent thing, instituted just because people used the word incorrectly. To be specific, I'm nearly certain that when I was in high school biology (we had a unit on drugs) marijuana was specifically NOT in the narcotic category.

On the other hand, I could be wrong. It's happened once or twice. ;-)
 
colton said:
You missed my point, Archie. I'm pretty sure that definition 3 is a recent thing, instituted just because people used the word incorrectly. To be specific, I'm nearly certain that when I was in high school biology (we had a unit on drugs) marijuana was specifically NOT in the narcotic category.

On the other hand, I could be wrong. It's happened once or twice. ;-)
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to know the percentage of English words that are used incorrectly according to their "original" definition then, wouldn't it? I bet we would be surprised.
 
colton said:
You missed my point, Archie. I'm pretty sure that definition 3 is a recent thing, instituted just because people used the word incorrectly. To be specific, I'm nearly certain that when I was in high school biology (we had a unit on drugs) marijuana was specifically NOT in the narcotic category.

On the other hand, I could be wrong. It's happened once or twice. ;-)
Click to expand...

The problem with what you are saying is that Marijuana fits definitions 1, 2 and 3. Marijuana is used medically to relieve pain but are sometimes taken for their pleasant effects.
 
Broncster said:
The problem with what you are saying is that Marijuana fits definitions 1, 2 and 3. Marijuana is used medically to relieve pain but are sometimes taken for their pleasant effects.
Click to expand...

I don't really have as strong of feelings on this as the thread would lead you to believe, but...

What I learned, and what this site at least bears out https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/narcotic, is that medically speaking "narcotics" refer to opium-related compounds. Which marijuana is not.
 
colton said:
On the other hand, as far as I know alcohol use actually DID go down substantially during prohibition, and its use went up substantially afterwords. (Or so a college prof told our class once; I haven't researched it myself.) So maybe it's a trade off... do you want more crime and less usage, or less crime and more usage?
Click to expand...

As a professor think about this: how did your college prof measure the amount of drinking that was occurring during Prohibition? Did he look at receipts?

In any event, my post was really saying the lesson was:

a) Its use was never actually eliminated. In effect the ban only hurt the middle class because there were carve-outs in the enabling legislation that effectively kept hard cider legal (for the poor folks) and rich people had no problem purchasing alcohol at the inflated prices with little fear of detection. This was especially true because "medical liquor" was also exempted (sound familiar?) and priests had no problem with access to alcohol because "sacramental wine" was also exempted;

b) an entire shadow economy grew up under the ban that produced all kinds of violence and fueled organized crime. There's a reason that the Prohibition era is also the golden age of mobsters.


In sum: the lesson of the prohibition era is that banning a substance doesn't neatly eliminate the effect of that substance's existence. Instead you get a substantial discount on the positive effects and introduce a whole extra set of negative ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top