Willow wrote:

In terms of overall safety Sherlock would be unlikely to be buying street drugs; he would have no real difficulty in obtaining a supply of pharmaceutically produced diamorphine, aka heroin, and naloxone to reverse it if things went wrong. Human responses to opiates vary immensely, which is why hospitals have large supplies of naloxone on hand should patients respond badly to, for example, postoperative analgesia. 

Thanks, that's a great addition for my headcanon . I was actually not really thinking about the immediate risk but more about how addictive both of them were, I know heroin is extremely addictive and opium isn't exactly easy to use casually either but I don't know to what extent they differ and whether to what extent it is related to the way it's used. I know there's a connection, and it probably centres around how strongly it acts on the dopamine system as that's what produces the craving that is at heart of physical addiction (and not pleasure/withdrawal, which is what many people think). For example, it is possible for some people to use cocaine casually, but by my knowledge it's impossible to use cristal meth casually. But maybe they didn't really work this out. 

Willow wrote:

Molly's reaction in asserting that Sherlock is endangering his mind is somewhat weird if Sherlock was using opiates. There are a lot of drugs which mess up the mind more thoroughly than that group. Perhaps they were going for the stereotyped instant flash of recognition in the crack house so they could get onto the interesting stuff, but of course the scene sets us up for the shooting and the recognition that pain will kill unless it can be controlled.

I love the way in which Moffat sets up all of these connections between the scenes, it really is virtuoso stuff
 

Maybe opiates are not the most dangerous drug for the brain, but a heroin addiction will still mess up your life and in that way stil destroy the gift.
I loved that scene where he loses control over the pain, and I agree that's what kills him but I don't see how that is connected to the Molly scene. Could you explain that? 

silverblaze wrote:

Willow wrote:

In terms of overall safety Sherlock would be unlikely to be buying street drugs; he would have no real difficulty in obtaining a supply of pharmaceutically produced diamorphine, aka heroin, and naloxone to reverse it if things went wrong. Human responses to opiates vary immensely, which is why hospitals have large supplies of naloxone on hand should patients respond badly to, for example, postoperative analgesia. 

Thanks, that's a great addition for my headcanon . I was actually not really thinking about the immediate risk but more about how addictive both of them were, I know heroin is extremely addictive and opium isn't exactly easy to use casually either but I don't know to what extent they differ and whether to what extent it is related to the way it's used. I know there's a connection, and it probably centres around how strongly it acts on the dopamine system as that's what produces the craving that is at heart of physical addiction (and not pleasure/withdrawal, which is what many people think). For example, it is possible for some people to use cocaine casually, but by my knowledge it's impossible to use cristal meth casually. But maybe they didn't really work this out. 

Willow wrote:

Molly's reaction in asserting that Sherlock is endangering his mind is somewhat weird if Sherlock was using opiates. There are a lot of drugs which mess up the mind more thoroughly than that group. Perhaps they were going for the stereotyped instant flash of recognition in the crack house so they could get onto the interesting stuff, but of course the scene sets us up for the shooting and the recognition that pain will kill unless it can be controlled.

I love the way in which Moffat sets up all of these connections between the scenes, it really is virtuoso stuff
 

Maybe opiates are not the most dangerous drug for the brain, but a heroin addiction will still mess up your life and in that way stil destroy the gift.
I loved that scene where he loses control over the pain, and I agree that's what kills him but I don't see how that is connected to the Molly scene. Could you explain that? 

 
If you compare the two Molly scenes, one at the hospital and one in his head, there are a number of repetitions and links; for example, Molly slaps Sherlock hard in the face in both scenes. In their first scene he's using an opiate, probably heroin, and Molly is telling him he mustn't do that because it will destroy his mind. The Molly in his head when he is dying is telling him that it is the absence of heroin which is killing him; uncontrolled pain will destroy him absolutely.  Same drug, same Sherlock, but completely different results.

So we have a mirror image of Molly, which fits, I suppose, with the mirror physically behind him in CAM's office which Mycroft uses to prod him into realising that the bullet hasn't gone through him, and he should therefore fall backwards.

Going back to your earlier points: The basis of opiate addiction is still not very well understood; some people will become addicted very easily whilst others can take it or leave it, in much the same way that some people will go into massive respiratory failure on small doses whilst others have no respiratory problems with high doses. There are all sorts of biochemical reactions going on with specific results; one of the most central is that if you are in a great deal of pain diamorphine doesn't make you feel good. It makes you not in absolute agony but it doesn't make you feel good.  The making you feel good bit happens when someone who is not in pain uses opiates, and even then it's a bit hit and miss; not everybody gets pleasurable sensations.

But I do like the way in which Moffat makes the point that something can be both bad and good; it all depends on the circumstances. And of course, Molly got a couple of great scenes, which also provided a counterpart to Mary; Sherlock still trusted Molly absolutely even though he'd just been shot by someone he had trusted .

Lights and mirrors, I love their use in Sherlock.

Jacco111 wrote:

Holmes uses cocaine to simulate the feeling he gets when he is working on a crime.

Is that fanon? In the canon we find, for example, this quote in the aftermath of a successful case:

“The division seems rather unfair," I [John Watson] remarked. "You have done all the work in this business. I get a wife out of it, Jones gets the credit, pray what remains for you?"
"For me," said Sherlock Holmes, "there still remains the cocaine-bottle." And he stretched his long white hand up for it.”

silverblaze wrote:

Criosdan wrote:

Opium and heroin are related. It is an opioid.

Thanks, I did know that. But even drugs from the same chemical class can have quite different effects on the body, also much dependent on the dosage and the efficacy. I'm not an expert but as far as I remember, both of them are GABA agonists, much like benzodiazepines, but what makes them so dangerous is of course the effect on the dopamine system. I suspected that heroin might be a stronger dopamine agonist than opium, but on reflection it might just be the way it's taken and the dosage. Opium is mostly smoked and heroin mostly injected, so the effect of heroin would be stronger. 
 

Opium is a dried out sap from the poppy. It's not particularly pure. The active ingredient of intrest in it is morphine (it also contains codeine and few other alkaloids). In the opium there is a lot of other inactive stuff and morphine accounts for only around 12% of weight.

Heroin is pure diamorhine. Nothing added. (Speaking about pharmaceutical grade stuff, god only knows what is added to the street drugs). Morphine and diamorphine are essentialy the same thing, diamprhine being more potent. So the active ingredient in opium and heroine is pretty much the same, the difference is in purity, concentration and potency. You need to take much more opium to get the same effect as from heroine but if you smoke enough you will get there.

Most users of heroin in UK smoke it. A proportion will progress to injecting as they build up tolerance. It's rare (and quite a stupid thing to do) to start straight off on IV. Opium is almost impossible to take by injection as it dissolves very poorly. It's also not something that is sold widely this days in the UK.

Last edited by belis (January 21, 2014 9:13 am)

Sherlock has a very strong mind.
And no drug I know is immediately addictive. There is always an exaggeration when it comes to drugs while legal drugs no less dangergous. (But it's not the proper place to discuss drug politics. Sorry)

 

Oh, so addiction wasn't the biggest risk then, if he was using heroin.

They surely missed another opportunity. John could have been the one staring into his eyes and slapping him. 

Quite clear Sherlock was taking something.
I like they aren't scared to face this issue..was a big part of canon.

I just really hope we aren't heading for a the-seven-percent-solution type pastiche with a trippy paranoid Sherlock chasing all over the place for a fake Moriarty......

"But I love how BC plays it by slightly changing Sherlock's way of speaking, body movements and more emotional reactions; very subtly, but enough for us to realise that something is a bit wrong.

For example, when he slams Mycroft against a wall.   That was very subtle.

Last edited by tonnaree (January 21, 2014 4:16 pm)

Willow wrote:

I agree that Molly was outraged, and I entirely sympathise with her, but she's not an anaesthetist or a physician; if she wanted to know if Sherlock had recently taken heroin all she had to do was look at his eyes. His pupils would have been constricted; it's really noticeable to anyone who knows what they are looking for.

Presumably the writers wanted to extend the scene so we had the stuff about urine samples, but I think it would have been great fun if Molly had done the diagnosis simply by staring into his eyes. It would have made the subsequent slaps even more dramatic

Looking for pupil's constriction is not the best way to asertain drug use for a number of reason. First of all we asume it's heroine but it could be concaine, amphetamine, benzos or any combination of those. Secondly heroine has short half life and the pupil constriction is only present for around 4 hours. It's easy to miss that window. Finally it's dose dependant. For someone who developed a degree of tolerance they need to take quite a large dose to develop pupils that are obviously small.

If present pin point pupils are a pretty reliable confirmation of opioid use. However absence of the sign doesn't exclude it. That's why we spend a lot of time and money on urinary drug screens.