Slashdot Mirror
How Heroin Addicts Helped Scientists Link Pesticides and Parkinson's
carmendrahl writes "Exposure to certain pesticides, including rotenone and paraquat, has been associated with a higher incidence of Parkinson's disease in population studies. But how did scientists come to think of a link between Parkinson's disease and pesticides in the first place? The answer involves the 1980s drug underworld, where criminals were synthesizing modified versions of illegal drugs such as heroin to stay one step ahead of the law. One molecule in some designer heroin cocktails, 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine (MPTP), breaks down in the human body into 1-methyl-4-phenylpyridinium (MPP+), a nerve cell killer. Heroin addicts exposed to this molecule got Parkinson's-like symptoms. As for the connection to pesticides, MPP+ is a weed killer that was used in the 70s. It also closely resembles the structure of the pesticide paraquat. The saga, therefore, put scientists on high alert to the possibility that pesticides might play a role in developing Parkinson's."
The original researcher wrote a book on his discovery:
http://www.amazon.com/Case-Frozen-Addicts-William-Langston/dp/0679424652
MPP is a byproduct of sloppy meperidine synthesis, NOT heroin. Meperidine is "Demerol."
The only reason a heroin addict might steal and do whatever is because he can't get his fix legally. Opiates can be produced for pennies a dose. It's a lot cheaper for society to maintain addicts on opiates than it is to imprison them, or to deal with the costs incurred by addicts getting an illegal fix. As a bonus, when they don't have to spend all their effort in getting drugs, they can actually take advantage of their tolerance and become productive members of society, holding down a job, going to school, and paying taxes just like everyone else. Heroin and morphine maintenance programs have proven this, but have been shut down for political reasons.
What's the best thing an opiate addict could do? Found Johns Hopkins Hospital.
here's quote from the wiki page you linked:
William Stewart Halsted (September 23, 1852 – September 7, 1922) was an American surgeon who emphasized strict aseptic technique during surgical procedures, was an early champion of newly discovered anesthetics, and introduced several new operations, including the radical mastectomy for breast cancer. Along with William Osler (Professor of Medicine), Howard Atwood Kelly (Professor of Gynecology) and William H. Welch (Professor of Pathology), Halsted was one of the "Big Four" founding professors at the Johns Hopkins Hospital.[1] Throughout his professional life, he was addicted to cocaine and later also to morphine,[2] which were not illegal during his time.
Notice that the drugs he was addicted to wasn't illegal at the time? So he could get it from a pharmacy or mail order no problem. He didn't have to deal with the stigmas of being a drug addict in this modern world.
So no offense, but a crappy argument on your part. Jump to the 2000's with us and try for a better example.
Be seeing you...
Criminal occupations, according to all actual economic studies, are generally not high paying. Sure, there are a few rich guys on top (like every industry); though, even they are hardly rich compared to the "legit" oligarchy. Despite Hollywood portrayals that every criminal swaggers about in a life of luxury and fast cars and diamond-studded-gold-bling-everything, crime actually pays a lot less than minimum wage for the overwhelming majority of participants.
Providing jobs stops crime. High crime levels pop up in areas with extreme unemployment, and is a symptom of the rot of America's Capitalist system. If the money spent on prisons and police for hunting down druggies were put into hiring people to patch potholes and clean up parks and re-paint schools, there'd be pretty much no one heading into criminal trades. But, paying money to poor people to work isn't nearly as profitable to the rich as getting paid to lock them up (while benefitting from propaganda against the "naturally criminal" poor to slash other social welfare programs).