Can't have fun, but you're free to die (natural drugs)

Great Debates
1

It has always struck me as a profound irony that we are not allowed to grow, for example, psylocibin mushrooms in some shady area on our property but we are free to grow any number of plants which are lethal or otherwise poisonous. I can surround myself in poisonous berry-producing plants which I must instruct my child to not eat, but cannot grow some marijuana on my property.

The thread title is inflammatory; I highly doubt anyone had it in their mind to ban “fun” when they outlawed drugs; but, in many ways I am a consequentialist, and that is how this appears to me in the end.

Drugs that would be legalized should natural drugs be allowed: psylocibin ('shrooms), mescaline (peyote), marijuana (duh), the soon-to-be illegal Salvia Divinorum… offhand I cannot think of any others. But also consider that cocaine is derived from plant material, as is heroin, LSD (from ergot’s production of lysergic amides—compounds which do find use in more than just LSD), MDA and MDMA (can) be based off of plant oils, TMA-2, DMT (off of one of the most common grasses in North America!), and quite surely most drugs of choice. Most of these drugs are or otherwise can be produced (almost) directly from plant material. In the case of the psychadelic methamphetamines (MDA and MDMA, for example) the process involves a synthesis with a compound that isn’t (to my knowledge) found naturally, so this still provides a sort of checkpoint for the production of these drugs (ha! Not if Uncle Fester stays alive, Eris bless his chaotic soul). LSD requires similar non-natural compounds for production, and I wouldn’t doubt that most others do, too.

But let’s return to the natural drugs: peyote, 'shrooms, marijuana, Salvia Divinorum. Should we include Belladonna in there? Well, it is possible to enter an altered state there, but it is also possible to die quite easily from this member of the nightshade family. Phalaris grass. Probably others that I don’t know about.

So I have two points here. One: can we reasonably expect to eradicate plants whose features lend themselves to people having fun? Won’t these become a protected species in this way, with some always guarding the strain against encroaching legislators and their strong-armed DEA buddies? And two: how is it right to legislate nature? I mean, isn’t that what we’ve done here when most land is owned and no one may own these plants? Is Congress right to force extiction here?

2

One point that you didn’t seem to touch on; if you munch on foxglove leaves (at least those of Digitalis Purpurea), you will shortly be dead, poor you; if you ingest mind-altering substances, your behaviour can change in a way that may result in harm to innocent bystanders; poor them.

3

I think you are confusing the issue by the your phrasing of the question. Let’s rephrase it by saying, “can we reasonably expect to eradicate plants whose features lend themselves to people breaking the law?” I’d say, “yes, we can.” Putting aside whether drugs should be legal or not, if one looks at these naturally occurring drugs as a society health concern, then eradicating them seems perfectly reasonable.

Sure, we do it all the time. Look at small pox. Or most other diseases for that matter. And nobody is crying over the poisoning of mosquito larva homes.

4

Your logic is faulty. The reason you are not allowed to grow mind altering drugs is not because they are dangerous in and of themselves. AFAIK it is because the substance they produce is illegal…if that makes sense. You also might want to compare statistics for crime and health related issues caused by drugs vs accidental ingestion of poisonous plants.

Another thing…just because a drug is “natural” does not make it any more or less safe than manufactured drugs. Hemlock is natural but it will kill you just as dead as something manufactured by the DuPont Chemical Company. Pfizor makes some pretty cool stuff that helps a lot of people.

As for legislating nature, that is done all the time. And the whales and spotted owls are pretty happy about it.

5

Dr. Lao,

I didn’t ask if the attempt would be reasonable (which is merely the question: should we outlaw drugs?) but if it was reasonable to expect this to succeed. I suppose this asks the corrolary question: we have done this; is it succeeding in your opinion?

msmith

No, it doesn’t. If you mean those substances are illegal because of the consequences we may or may not expect from them, then clearly my logic is not faulty at all. Hemlock is not a lynchpin of commerce, and its affect on the human system is rather clear (far more clear than the cost of legalizing hallucinogens or other drugs that may be found naturally). So let’s kill it?

I agree; I hope you didn’t think otherwise. Hence, well, my entire point about natural poisons which are perfectly legal. :wink:

6

erislover , please respond to Mangetout 's point of being harmful to the user vs. harmful to innocent others.

As far as I know, its not illegal to ride your motorcycle at 150mph on your private race track, but it is illegal to ride your cycle 150mph on public streets.

7

I am not familiar with how successful the extermination programs of any specific drug-producing plant have been, but speaking generally I think mankind is quite capable of eradicating species of plants and animals.

8

I think that is very unreasonable to expect that the government would be able to eradicate a species that is actively being cultivated by a large number of people. This is not like trying to eradicate smallpox which the vast, vast majority of people are against. Small pox you may note has not been eradicated despite an extremely successful program of vaccination and public health policy in almost every country in the world. Even Polio, which I don’t think has any value as a biological weapon, has not been eradicated.

9

The thing is toxic plants aren’t just dangerous to the grower. They can be dangerous to the pets and children of those living around them and they can be used for illegal means (namely to poison someone else).

If plants that can be used in one illegal way (drug producing ones) are illegal why aren’t those that can be used in another, and I’d say worse, illegal way (ones that can be murderous weapons) also illegal?

10

But it is illegal to do drugs in the privacy of your own home. I don’t think anyone is arguing that airline pilots should be able to drop acid on those long, boring, trans-oceanic flights. (By “drugs” I of course mean controlled substances, but not alcohol. Alcohol is legal. Alcohol also leads to all sorts of antisocial behavior and crime and death.)

11

Of course here in the UK there’s also the possibility of burden on the state if said drugs make you ill or unemployable (I’m sure we could have a completely separate debate about the pitfalls of public healthcare/welfare); in the cases of alcohol and tobacco, the government extracts revenue which may or may not go towards funding healthcare/welfare; they wouldn’t be able to do this with anything that you grew for yourself.

12

In a conversation comparing possibly socially damaging drugs to drugs of known lethality? Um, I think The Tim has the resolution you seek.

Mangetout, “in the cases of alcohol and tobacco, the government extracts revenue which may or may not go towards funding healthcare/welfare; they wouldn’t be able to do this with anything that you grew for yourself.” I doubt that if 'shrooms were legal that everyone would be growing them in their backyard. Beer drinkers don’t brew their own beer (en masse) and smokers don’t grow their own tobacco, you know?

13

But there’s a circular argument there. The illegal activities that these plants lend themselves to is the possession of those very plants. Granted, there are other crimes that can emanate out of drug use, such as DUI, or dealing, but IMO these crimes are either the result of irresponsible consumption, or consequent to the illegality of the drugs themselves.

14

Heavens yes! So you should never ever take any illegal drugs, because they might alter your behavior in a way that may make you reckless or violent. Stick to good old legal alcohol instead. Nobody ever became reckless or violent from imbibing alcohol, noooooo…

15

Yes, that was exactly what I was implying when I modified erislover’s original question. What is circular about that?

16

I don’t agree with the “we can’t legislate nature” concept, as, well, what the hell are we legislating if it isn’t nature? However, I would take issue with the conjecture that mind-altering substances are illegal due to potential harm to others. I believe its more of an attempt to protect people from themselves. That is, the government believes that allowing people to dabble in these chemicals will result in addiction and all the problems that come with it. The fact that someone who’s high might cause a car accident is certainly a factor, but I don’t believe its the factor.

That said, I do like the rhetoric of the OP. Who the hell are these people to tell you you can’t consume plant matter that exists all over the world? It’s got a nice ring to it, but it certainly won’t hold up in court…unfortunately.

17

I suppose,erislover, that your concerns may well boil down to a matter of commerce. If an herbal substance has a “buzz” factor, it becomes desirable, commands a price, and is brought into the forum of business regultion.I think there’s a subterranean history of mind-altering plants and their era of popularity among human beings, and the effects on human culture. Ergot (similar to LSD), psylicybin,cannabis, opium, cocaine and peyote figure prominently throughout history as effective mind-altering substances. From my reading, though, they were used on special occasions, and the experience was treated as a sacred event. Perhaps that’s idealistic, though; folks have probably always got a buzz when there was one.

So, why is alcohol legal, when it has such a proven track record of damage? Perhaps it’s the nature of the Buzz. Alcohol is a depressant, and tends to anesthetize one at the end of a long modern work day. How appropriate! Other herbal mind-alterants don’t fit so neatly into the modern industrial equation, and may even cause the user to have odd thoughts.

Back to my original point; those odd thoughts/feelings make people want more, and then fall into the market desire. Alcohol and nicotine seem manageable, because they allow people to go with the current flow; are amenable to the nature of current societal needs. As to yer OP, the dangerous plants containing toxic alkaloids don’t have the pleasurable effect of the plants in question, so aren’t very valuable on the market. Basically, they ain’t worth the trouble with the powers that be.

18

A big difference between mind-altering substances and lethal substances is that there are far more of the latter in the world. Many of them have other valuable uses. A bottle of Tylenol or a cup of bleach can easily kill you. So why specifically target toxic plants when we are surrounded by toxic substances already?

19

scr4, I would contend that hallucinogens do have valuable uses, at least religiously speaking. Even today there is still research being done on the therapeutic use of LSD in treating alcoholosim, with (IIRC) some mixed success. Hallucinogenic plants have been used in previous times for dubiously “expanding consciousness”, and indeed many users of hallucinogens (that I have known personally) used them to have a kind of fun that includes the aspect of trying to realize things that escape us in what we could call normal states, or for their ability to allow the contruction of a pseudo-reality in words and concepts (literally “tripping”)—extending the suspension of disbelief, I think says it best, for it is not that one actually thinks that the wall is warping (for example).

In the case of Salvia mentioned in the OP there is a report by users of an anti-depressent affect when taken in doses smaller than would cause hallucinations. This effect has never been studied under conditions favorable to a scientific finding, and why should it be when we already have anti-depressents that can cause nausea, headaches, shakes, and other assorted side-effects? The potential for abuse? Of course this would lead nowhere quickly.

Which is not to say it does have a documentable anti-depressant effect, I do not know personally and, again, it hasn’t been studied. Come next congress that potential to study will be (most likely) drastically limited.

Yes, bleach has standard household uses. So do comedy movies. I’ve been scared shitless by both drug-induced states and movies/ books/ video games. Much of my life, quite frankly, consists in escapism through entertainment. I think we’ve built (as a society) a way of life around it that I’ve been happy to partake in.

But let’s say I take your comment about valuable uses to heart; what would it take for you to consider that mushrooms would have valuable uses? I mean, what would you consider a valuable use? —That it is utilized for something besides fun (a la my OP’s implication)?

elelle

I don’t know. But even at that, we have no “special uses” for these drugs; even entertainment is out of the question.

20

We’re stuck with alcohol by tradition; if it were a newly-dicovered substance, there’s no way it would be legal; so we have the joys and pains of alcohol use (trouble is the pain isn’t necessarily experienced by those that use the stuff). The solution to this is to add another intoxicant to the mix and a new set of joys and pains?