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."

Comments

Thanks, Junkies!

[Garridan]

Usually, dumping random chemicals into people is considered unethical. We can't do proper science on pesticides due to strong chemical lobbies, but thanks to our punish-the-sick attitude towards drug addiction, we have a large body of "volunteers" for human trials of unknown chemicals. This is a strong argument for prohibition: "if the illegal drug market goes away, we can't test financially-protected drugs, and non-criminals might get sick!"

Book

[steveb3210]

The original researcher wrote a book on his discovery:

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Frozen-Addicts-William-Langston/dp/0679424652

Re:Book

[diodeus]

I remember in the 70s hearing about the DEA spraying paraquat on fields of weed found in Hawaii as a "tainting" scare tactic. I wonder if there's a connection there too.

Re:Book

[h4rr4r]

The method of ingestion made that pointless.
Most people burn that drug to ingest it.

During Prohibition the government poisoned alcohol. Whoever these folks are who keep coming up with ideas to make something bad worse, they deserve to be in jail.

Re:Book

[Charliemopps]

You mean like how they currently add acetaminophen to most opiates (check out your next codeine prescription) so that if you take too much you'll suffer liver damage? If you can't lead a horse to water, just poison every other source of water in the area and that fucking horse better damn well drink the right water... if not it's the horses fault its pissing blood.

Re:Book

[sjames]

And behind the actually burning part, warm smoke volatilizes the paraquat and carries it into the smoker's lungs unchanged.

And yes, the people who poison the drugs do deserve to do prison time. That includes the stupid tax and licensing laws that make denatured alcohol necessary.

Re:Book

[rwyoder]

You mean like how they currently add acetaminophen to most opiates (check out your next codeine prescription) so that if you take too much you'll suffer liver damage?

Indeed.

"The drug acetaminophen, which is the active ingredient in the popular Tylenol, among others, is widely considered safe when taken correctly. Yet, the pain reliever can lead to liver damage that is often severe or even fatal when taken in doses greater than recommended. The problem is, however, that the margin between a safe dose and a potentially harmful dose is slim. Taken over several days, as little as 25 percent above the maximum daily dose - or just two additional extra strength pills a day - has been reported to cause liver damage, according to the [Food and Drug Administration]. "

Article: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/09/acetaminophen-deaths-cast-shadow-on-popular-pain-reliever.html

Demerol, not heroin.

[DeathGrippe]

MPP is a byproduct of sloppy meperidine synthesis, NOT heroin. Meperidine is "Demerol."

Re:Demerol, not heroin.

[Nyder]

MPP is a byproduct of sloppy meperidine synthesis, NOT heroin. Meperidine is "Demerol."

To be fair, A lot of Demerol addicts turned to heroin since it's cheaper and easier to get. Then if someone produces a "cheaper" Demerol type drug, they would be all over it.

Re:Demerol, not heroin.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Aside from any other effects, prohibition isn't likely to produce either more discriminating or smarter addicts. I'm not in favor of being an opiate junkie but it does make me wonder: what if we said "Fuck it." and replaced all source-local heroin interdiction efforts with cheap synthetics. More junkies? Probably. Total collapse of the syndicates attempting to sell illegal, dubiously pure, product vs. licit, accurately labelled licit opiates? Game over man, game over. I realize that opiate junkies are disgusting creatures, and any money spent hurting them is a wise investment; but how long can we afford to play that game? Prohibition has not broken the backs of cartels. Licit, high quality, goods, (ideally usable, by prescription, by people who are also functional members of society, since they just need to got to CVS, rather than hustle, for drugs), just might be. These aren't fundamentally scarce goods, so the licit stuff, with quality control, sanitation, accurate labelling, and availability through the health system, should crush the illicit variants, which have none of that.

Casualties of the War on Freedom

[ScottCooperDotNet]

Once again the War on Freedom (drugs, terror, etc) spreads its casualties in the strangest ways. The largest danger a heroin addict poses is to himself.

Re:Casualties of the War on Freedom

[DMJC]

But would he have had to mug anyone, if his hit didn't cost him $100/go? if you legalise, the cost drops, the quality increases, and the risk of OD drops dramatically. You also see massive drops in murders, rapes, and theft. Policy should always be evidence, based not based on people's gut-feelings about drug users.

Re:Casualties of the War on Freedom

[femtobyte]

Comparing my statistical chances of being injured or killed by a stabby druggy, to being injured or killed by a car driver under the influence of alcohol or cellphones, I'd say the intensive focus on drug prohibition is highly misplaced. Also, when people have safe and legal access to treatment options (including maintenance drug supply levels for the most unbreakable addictions), they don't need to stab anyone.

Re:Casualties of the War on Freedom

[Hatta]

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.

Re:Casualties of the War on Freedom

[Hatta]

Agreed. Prohibitionists pose a greater danger to society than any drugs or addicts.

Re:Casualties of the War on Freedom

[SleazyRidr]

How is it a crappy argument? The point is that if they weren't illegal people could take drugs and still do great things: like Dr. Halsted did. If you want an example of someone who's taken drugs in the 2000s and done something good with their lives, I could point you to one of many musicians, or come back to the argument that making their addiction illegal is holding them down.

Re:Casualties of the War on Freedom

[TheCarp]

> so what's the point of talking about how it would be if drugs are legal when there is little chance in hell of that
> happening any time soon?

Well couple of reasons.

1. If we don't talk about it, then the only people talking about it are the prohibitionists; and its NEVER going to happen.
2. I don't actually think its possible to say how long a change could take. I firmly believe that just weeks or months before something like this happens, the general perception could still be that it will never happen.
3. Pot will likely be legal in a few years. This is huge for all drugs.

Now I want to elaborate on point 3.

There are more pot users than the next 3 major street drugs COMBINED. There just are not that many junkies and coke heads, and tweekers and the police need pot busts in between the other ones to justify their programs and keep the money flowing. The majority of drug enforcement has been pot, is pot, and will continue to be pot until its legalized. Once that happens, its going to be a rough couple of years for dealers of anything else but, they are going to have trouble justifying it.

Only by talking about it, and what a failure the drug war is across the board can we get support for changing it. I have hope that marijuana will be a gateway drug.... the gateway out of the drug war.

Re:Casualties of the War on Freedom

[Nidi62]

You also see massive drops in murders, rapes, and theft.

So all those gang members, dealers, pushers, and manufacturers, who can currently make thousands of tax free dollars a week will suddenly stop what they are doing and get legitimate jobs, or continue to make drugs that now sell for 1/10 the price? It is more likely that things would get more violent, as these people get into the few remaining highly lucrative illicit business such as human trafficking and prostitution. Murders, thefts, and the like will become more common as the people who used to be involved in the drug trade compete for what little bit is left.

Re:Casualties of the War on Freedom

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Also (in the specific case of opiates) anti-overdose medication is available. It isn't fun (it more or less kicks you from 'high' to 'withdrawal' within a couple of minutes; but it's relatively cheap, easy to administer, and effective. It's also blatantly unrecreational(since its only purpose is to absolutely crater a heroin high) and thus not subject to any sensible abuse. Anyone who is against that is more or less motivated by distaste for druggies, rather than any sort of harm-minimization policy.

Re:Casualties of the War on Freedom

[TheCarp]

Actually i think the majority of people against drugs are not hypocrites. See , to me, being a hypocrite would imply that you actually spent any time whatsoever to consider and evaluate the position and made some conscious decision.

It is really only hypocrisy when you factor in that everything they know is wrong. Most people have every reason to believe that prohibition lowers addiction rates, for example. Its not true, but if it were, few people could really argue that isn't a good thing, in and of itself. Of course it is; barring any unintended effect right?

but still... even if it doesn't do that, it helps keep addicts away from normal people, and since addicts are dangerous and unscrupulous, thats good right? It is flawed and untrue on several levels. However, I understand why people who haven't spent much time on the subject believe that its true.

A lot of people just have never considered these things, have never seen the clear parallels between Prohibition and the drug war. Not so many know about medical alcohol, the horrors of poisoned hooch, or the trouble with drunk kids.

They don't see what the addicts see. The whole subculture is hidden from them. Not all of it is bad, but it has some terrible elements. It provides a fertile ground for some of the worst psychopaths. Every small time addict slinging product is like fresh carrion for these maggots. I am just a pot head, been smoking for almost 20 years now. In that time, I have seen some choice things. (less now of course its practically legal here, been a civil fine for possession for a bit now...and I am getting older, less social flux, better judge of character)

- I met a loudmouth prick junkie who liked to play tough guy, who later mugged a friend of mine for his pot at knife point.... on two separate occasions.
- Several dealers (at least 4) of mine have been robbed, a couple at gun point
- One was setup to be robbed; smashed his car window and grabbed his bag while he was talking to "new customer"
- There was the brutal murder of a dealer only 2 hops removed from my circle of friends.

Its not just a matter of high drug prices pushing desperate people to crime, that is definitely a real problem shown in several places, but.... it also provides a fertile ground for psychopaths who thrive on having a population that can't call the police for protection. Just look at the numbers for drug users and dealers...millions of people. A highly fertile ground for a psychopath to extort and steal with impunity.

Hell if he is real scum, he can become a CI and get paid to find new targets. Another friend of mine had a CI in his apartment, pretending to be his friend, got raided later. The warrant claimed he had large amounts of coke and weapons. The guy could have gotten killed in the raid by jumpy cops with claims like that.... he was lucky they caught him on his way home. All that was in the house was pot and money.

I don't know about some other people, but, I think a world where psychopaths who want to rob people have to worry about their victims calling the police, and where high value targets are not afraid to use video cameras to protect themselves is a far preferable world to one where they are allowed to operate with impunity on a population of people with, what could rightly be called in many extreme cases, a medical issue.

Re:Casualties of the War on Freedom

[femtobyte]

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).