Skip

Rockers against (some...well, one)drugs?
November 22, 2005 3:57 PM   Subscribe

Anarchist rocker and conservative assembly member unite to fight drugs? Well, one drug anyway. He hates it so much he wants it legalized. It shouldn't come as a suprise that Lemmy Kilminster - frontman for Motorhead (legendary Guinness-certified loudest band on earth), former editor of his high school paper, former roadie for Jimi Hendrix, and tinnitus awareness spokesman, would speak out against heroin. "The only drug that I ever saw kill people was heroin. Killed my girlfriend and a lot of my generation. It's the only drug I hate." - Lemmy. But some folks think the nearly 60 year old rocker is not someone "the kids" will listen to.
posted by Smedleyman (38 comments total)

 
More words of wisdom from the Man.

Also the official site!
....and the unofficial site!

Yankee politicians and rockers of course are at odds over drug policy.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:03 PM on November 22, 2005


Lemmy is a God who walks among us as a man.

That said, I can't say he's entirely wrong. I've indulged in my fair share of illegal substances and smack is the one I always left alone. Not worth the aggravation.
posted by jonmc at 4:37 PM on November 22, 2005


The Who is actually the Guiness-certified loudest band on earth.
posted by jonson at 4:39 PM on November 22, 2005


Can the MTV reality show be far behind?
posted by spinoza at 4:45 PM on November 22, 2005


Lets be fair, Lemmy's approach does make more sense than treating marijuana and heroin as equals like many in the US do.

*cracks Schlitz, cranks up "I'm So Bad (I Don't Care)"*
posted by jonmc at 4:46 PM on November 22, 2005


Britain does seem to have a less absolutist and hysterical attitude toward drugs. There's already legal heroin prescription for a limited number of addicts (<500), and I've read about 6-7 articles advocating heroin (& drug) legalization, including from police chiefs & Tory leadership contender (favorite) David Cameron. Even the Economist which published a series of articles urging a drug policy rethink from first principles, is British. Pigs will think they are flying (on acid) before US Congressional leadership propose anything remotely similar. And that's the key obstacle to reform. The global prohibition is US-led. Change must occur there, first.
posted by Gyan at 5:06 PM on November 22, 2005


Lets be fair, Lemmy's approach does make more sense than treating marijuana and heroin as equals like many in the US do.

So we should legalize Heroin and not marijuana? I suppose that would solve most of the marijuana problem, though... Why risk jail over pot when you can get Heroin at Wal-Mart.

It would be great for people with chronic pain, though No more hassles with non-refillable oxcontin or codeine prescriptions and nervous doctors woried about the DEA. just get some OTC low dose Heroin may be habit forming.
posted by delmoi at 5:06 PM on November 22, 2005


So we should legalize Heroin and not marijuana?

I think we should legalize both. Pot should be sold like beer or whiskey, but heroin should be much more tightly regulated. I was more refferring to Lemmy stating the obvious to the public: not all drugs are alike.

Lemmy is speaking, delmoi. You can't escape the Iron Fist.
posted by jonmc at 5:09 PM on November 22, 2005


Lemmy's too loud for the book of records, and could destroy every member of the Who between lunch and teatime.
posted by sluggo at 5:33 PM on November 22, 2005


buddy of mine OD'ed on heroin last week

he was buried friday

good topic...bad timing por moi
posted by timsteil at 5:35 PM on November 22, 2005


Legalize and regulate all drugs... it is only the solution to so many of society's problems.
posted by sophist at 6:01 PM on November 22, 2005


People who think heroin is so bad must be unfamiliar with crack, ice and meth. It's not just the effects on the user either: people are unlikely to go on enraged violent rampages while stoned on smack. Jonesing junkies are sick and weak, the adequately-dosed are calm and sleepy, and heroin overdose makes one even less likely to hurt anybody else. That's why I say that as a public health problem heroin is second- rate.

Then too, more people regularly died from using alcohol and tobacco than from heroin even before the HIV epidemic.

My condolences to those who've lost people to smack, though. That other drugs are worse probably doesn't help your pain much.
posted by davy at 6:18 PM on November 22, 2005


People who think heroin is so bad must be unfamiliar with crack, ice and meth.

davy, my man, you are aware that the name of Lemmy's band is a British slang term for "speedfreak," based on Lemmy's fondness for amphetamines?

That said, the drugs you mentioned are bad news, too, I'll concede.
posted by jonmc at 6:24 PM on November 22, 2005


"The AM, who chairs the school funding committee, admitted his knowledge of Motorhead was limited to their biggest hit, Ace of Spades."

Who knew?
posted by Ironmouth at 6:52 PM on November 22, 2005


People who think heroin is so bad must be unfamiliar with crack, ice and meth

And people who say that can't have known many smackheads!

Admittedly, I have no knowledge of meth addicts, but heroin is, well, really fucking awful. And I've definitely seen people on smack go on the rampage, albeit in combination with other drugs/booze.

As for legalisation, my head says it's a bloody good idea, but having had problems with drugs myself, and having seen a lot of friends have problems with them, I have a horrible feeling that making them even slightly more acceptable or accessible is a bad thing. (Say no to drugs... or you might end up with a Daily Mail reader's attitude to them.)
posted by jack_mo at 6:52 PM on November 22, 2005


jack_mo: I don't think Lemmy, or anyone here is advocating putting smack on the shelf next to the Starburst at the corner store, merely making them available to the already addicted to avoid all the byproducts of addiction (like criminal activity to obtain money to support the habit, dope cut with god knows what, dirty needles, etc)
posted by jonmc at 6:56 PM on November 22, 2005


I remember reading somewhere about a study involving 100 heroin addicts. For 10 years, they were supplied with their needed dosage of pure heroin. For the 10 years this study was carried out, none of the subjects exhibited any signs of physical health outside the norm for non-users in their same statistical positions. I believe that all of them died within 5 years of the termination of the study. If someone knows what I'm talking about, I'd love to see a link -- I'd like to read it again.

From all that I have read, the problem with most drugs isn't neccessarily what they do, it's the byproducts they are cut with in order to increase yields for the dealers. Most, if not all users, are capable of dosing themselves without fear of overdose, as long as the potency of their supply is known. After-all, a junkie wants to get high and enjoy it, not die.

I am in favour of legalising all drugs. Technically, we've already set precendent with alcohol and tobacco; two very harmful substances that are readily available worldwide.

The day I learned you could get high off of nutmeg was the day that criminalising drugs made no sense to me anymore.
posted by Dark Messiah at 7:19 PM on November 22, 2005


The main reason I don't like the regulations on hard drugs is I can't get a decent first aid kit together.
My first aid kit needs morophine(or equal) pain killers.
As well as cocaine for topical numbing.
As awll as several Percoset or Dilated for long term pain.
And some Soma's or beladonna derivitive for a muscle relaxant.
Asprin and Advil don't cut it.

Why does America hate America's Pain
posted by Balisong at 7:23 PM on November 22, 2005


You ever try to get high off nutmeg, Dark Messiah? There's a reason no one bothered to make it illegal. Seriously, I'd rather sniff glue.
posted by Jawn at 7:25 PM on November 22, 2005


Same goes for morning glory seeds.
posted by Balisong at 7:28 PM on November 22, 2005


I have known junkies and speed freaks, and I've done both drugs myself. That personal experience is why I say "uppers" are worse.

As an example here's a quick quiz: based on my comment history, would you rather have me in your home stoned on smack or wired on crank? That is, would you rather worry I'll fall off my chair and bang my head -- or leap over the table and bang yours?

It's easier to defend someone's right to hurt themselves than to assert a right to hurt others, is where I'm coming from. That said, if I had to choose which drug to legalize I'd pick heroin easily, even if speed is more my speed.
posted by davy at 7:55 PM on November 22, 2005


And oh, I don't get that sniffing glue thing. I've tried a few kinds, and of those at least I didn't get blinding headaches from Elmer's.
posted by davy at 7:57 PM on November 22, 2005


Drugs aren't going to be legalized anytime soon. Illegal drugs are the fossil fuels that keep the global economic engine running at full tilt boogie.
posted by stenseng at 8:07 PM on November 22, 2005


would you rather have me in your home stoned on smack or wired on crank?
posted by davy at 7:55 PM PST on November 22 [!]


Depends, are you suplying?
If not, Just stoned is easiest to tolerate.
posted by Balisong at 8:13 PM on November 22, 2005


People who think heroin is so bad must be unfamiliar with crack, ice and meth. It's not just the effects on the user either: people are unlikely to go on enraged violent rampages while stoned on smack.

Well, ice and meth are the same thing, and crack is no different chemically then cocaine other then it can be smoked. How many super-models do you see going on violent rampages?

Meth? I donno, obviously it can give you the energy to do that sort of thing, as well as messing up your head. The interesting thing is that it's very popular in Japan. It's one of the most commonly used drugs over there, and it's never been a big problem. But who knows.

Oh well.
posted by delmoi at 8:56 PM on November 22, 2005


As an example here's a quick quiz: based on my comment history, would you rather have me in your home stoned on smack or wired on crank? That is, would you rather worry I'll fall off my chair and bang my head -- or leap over the table and bang yours?

Well, you really don't sound like the person I'd want to get high with (Some people just can't handle their drugs) :P
posted by delmoi at 8:58 PM on November 22, 2005


Cocaine, even if cooked up and cracked up at home is still a whole different drug than the type you take up your nose..
Just sayin'.
posted by Balisong at 9:01 PM on November 22, 2005


Heroin: Lou Reed, William Burroughs, Iggy Pop, Charlie Parker.
Amphetamines: Judy Garland, Lenny Bruce, and Adolph Hitler.

Just sayin'.

(Also first Godwin itt)
posted by moift at 9:30 PM on November 22, 2005


Well, ice and meth are the same thing, and crack is no different chemically then cocaine other then it can be smoked

Not only is crack different chemically from cocaine, (one is cocaine base, the other is a hydrochloride salt), the actual effects are very different as well -- due primarily to the rapidity of onset, intensity of effect and extremely short duration of action.

This leads to very extreme highs, followed rapidly by equally extreme crashes, accompanied by similarly extreme cravings. The difference in effect of the two substances can be measured in things like relative plasma levels, and how they differ over time.

While this is somewhat confounded by the fact that some crack users are able to exert relatively high levels of control over their use, and some cocaine hydrochloride snorters lose the plot immediately, the differences between the two drugs are fairly evident if you look at the various aggregate differences larger populations of cocaine snorters and crack smokers.

To summarize: what balisong and davy said.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 12:54 AM on November 23, 2005


don't think Lemmy, or anyone here is advocating putting smack on the shelf next to the Starburst at the corner store, merely making them available to the already addicted to avoid all the byproducts of addiction

Oh, for sure, I was speaking more generally - weed being a good example of a drug that people seem to see as completely harmless and would be happy to legalise in a free and easy way, despite the fact that it can have a serious effect on people's lives. Not comapared to a crack habit, obviously, but I've known plenty of folk who were partial to an evening spliff (or, you know, several) develop pretty severe depression, one of whom is still in a mental hospital ten years after he flipped out (this was doubtless bubbling under anyway, but the gear didn't exactly help).

Also, I don't know where people get the idea that smackheads just loll about in a stupor. I've seen people do heroin and promptly go batshit insane: smashing places up, breaking into neighbours houses and terrorising them for a laugh, generally being scary loons. Maybe there's a difference between smoking/snorting and injecting?
posted by jack_mo at 3:51 AM on November 23, 2005


Chazz: Who'd win in a wrestling match, Lemmy or God?

Rex: Wrong, dickhead, trick question. Lemmy is god.

posted by thanotopsis at 5:13 AM on November 23, 2005


I agree that a smack-head is usually pretty well-behaved, compared to a meth-head...when high. When not high, all addicts behave badly. On old boyfriend of mine OD'd on heroin 9 years ago last month. "I'm upping the dosage" were the last words he would write before falling into a stupor from which he never awoke.
posted by apis mellifera at 8:00 AM on November 23, 2005


"buddy of mine OD'ed on heroin last week
he was buried friday - posted by timsteil "

Sorry to hear that man. I have a few friends who got into some of that. It’s hard watching someone do that to themselves. Even when you do everything you can, it might not be enough.

For me it got to the point where I threatened to (and probably would have) killed anyone who sold drugs to a buddy of mine. So he moved away. What can you do.

Hopefully folks will listen to Lemmy. I mean if a guy like that whos lived that kind of life goes “Heroin? No f’ing way”. I don’t know though. What’s happening now, in the U.S. anyway, isn’t working.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:58 AM on November 23, 2005


Howzabout opium? Howzabout poppy tea? I'm especially curious about trying the latter...
posted by five fresh fish at 12:11 PM on November 23, 2005


Anarchist rocker

Please define "anarchist"
posted by poweredbybeard at 2:04 PM on November 23, 2005


Also, I don't know where people get the idea that smackheads just loll about in a stupor. I've seen people do heroin and promptly go batshit insane: smashing places up, breaking into neighbours houses and terrorising them for a laugh, generally being scary loons. Maybe there's a difference between smoking/snorting and injecting?
posted by jack_mo at 3:51 AM PST on November 23


... probably from experience with it .....
when using the word "promptly," like "prompty after a hit" you'd be wrong.

but sure ,,, yes ,,,, when you're jonesing or going into withdrawal and you'll flip out if you can't get another hit and will do anything to get one ....

besides the instantaneous rush you get from injecting and the radically decreased come-up time, there's really no difference b/w injecting or insufflating ... injecting is much more efficient use of ... but it's the same drug with the same chemistry in the brain.
posted by 11235813 at 2:08 PM on November 23, 2005


“Please define "anarchist" ”- posted by poweredbybeard

Lemmy self-defines.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:41 PM on November 23, 2005


when using the word "promptly," like "prompty after a hit" you'd be wrong.

Er, no - I wasn't making the above up. Said folk smoked some heroin, then went bonkers as described. Not the only time I've seen that kind of behaviour, either. Must be down to combination with lots of other drugs and booze, I suppose...
posted by jack_mo at 10:17 AM on November 24, 2005


« Older Abu Ali guilty of terror plot   |   No Need To Speed Up... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post