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

Great Debates
21

Well, Mangetout, I think that depends on what your perspective is.

The drug debate can take many forms. One of these forms is to look at existing legal drugs and make a comparison. You say we have alcohol because of tradition; I ask: why is that tradition so strong? Why did the prohibition fail? And I ask: what makes us expect to eradicate plants that people will actively keep alive even in the face of the DEA, local police, et al?

I ask: if the pretext of these drugs being illegal is because of their danger, then let us look toward other plants that pose a threat, let’s look at other plants that are dangerous.

I want to think that our society’s laws are right in their banning of these substances. So I’m asking for justification.

22

(I apologize if this multiposts; the servers are being erratic.)

There is no justification, though.

The War On Some Drugs is a revenue suck and increases the crime rate – a revenue suck not only because of the enforcement expenses and the cost of keeping criminals in jail on mandatory drug charges, but because regulation and taxation of such things would be a revenue source in a different world – and increases the crime rate not only because peaceable users and carriers are rendered criminal by these statutes, but because there will be demand, and where there is demand there will be supply, and under the current system of laws, most of the people who are willing to provide that supply are criminals.

Never mind that in the absence of regulation, a lot of street drugs are cut with substances that let the dealers sell more of them through dilution, and those substances are often directly harmful to the users, leading to collateral damage through poisoning and other such things that stresses the medical system. Never mind that the pricing on black market drugs can be exorbitant, meaning that more people need to get more money for their fix, money that’s drained out of the legitimate economy and sometimes gotten by theft.

Never mind that the medical uses of various “controlled substances” are being avoided in research and fought in the law-rooms, because these things having an actual beneficial usage would call into question the black-and-white “drugs bad” attitude. Never mind the destructiveness it inflicts on religious traditions that use substances they consider sacred, but which are considered illegal.

Never mind that the DARE program lies to children about the effects of various substances, and several well-informed parents have had to give their children more information about the drugs in question than they wanted to do, in order to debunk the false rhetoric. Never mind that once people catch on that the propaganda is false, they’re entirely likely to stop paying much attention even to the true parts, as they know all about the Government That Cried Wolf. Never mind that prohibition makes drugs, like sex, an act of thoughtless rebellion among people looking for something forbidden to do, and may well discourage them from seeking out and evaluating information.

And never mind that, in all of its inconsistencies and the like, the government has no more legitimate interest in what’s growing in its citizens’ gardens than what’s going on in its citizens’ bedrooms. There are laws against doing harm; there are special cases for those who do harm under the influence of chemistry. That and good information that lets people make sane, reasonable choices about what they do and do not want to partake of strike me as being sufficient and correct.

Prohibition didn’t work when it was alcohol. Why should anyone believe it would work for other things?

23

The intoxicants mentioned in the OP are already an inextricable part of our culture. Whether the authorities choose to recognise this or not is irrelevant. These “joys and pains” are already here and are, in fact, so abundant that it is arguable that the joys and pains associated with them will not be radically increased with legalisation.

P.S. - I am writing this while high. Please excuse any spelling, grammar or syntax errors. I do not vouch for the legibility or clarity of this post.

24

I wanna add one fun little factoid to Erislover’s post:

The psilocybe genus of fungi contains a set of mushrooms that induce mild euphoria and hallucinations in their imbibers. Within a species, every individual mushroom has a predictable amount of psilocin, the hallucinogenic agent, expressed as a percentage of the mushroom’s dry weight. Although there are poisonings associated with psilocybe mushrooms, they tend to be when users inadvertantly eat toxic lookalike mushrooms instead (or decide that they’re Jesus and that they should eat the Sacred Destroying Cap mushroom they find in the woods). I don’t believe there have been documented cases in which people have been fatally poisoned by psilocybe mushrooms. Many people regularly use psilocybe mushrooms.

Amanita Muscaria, those red mushrooms with white spots you see in Alice in Wonderland, are not true hallucinogens. They contain a set of toxins that cause paranoia, distortions in perception of space and time, and (peculiarly) a desire to physically lash out at one’s surroundings. The amount of these toxins varies wildly from one mushroom to another. People have died from eating an especially potent specimen of Amanita Muscaria. Although Siberian shamans used A. Muscaria for ceremonial purposes, its use quickly died out once alcohol became available up North. One mycologist reports that he’s never met a person who tried A. Muscaria twice: its effects are extremely unpleasant.

Both mushrooms grow wild and prolific in the United States.

If you bend down and pluck a psilocybe mushroom from your yard, you may fact ten or more years in prison for possession of a Schedule 1 narcotic.

Possession and ingestion of Amanita muscaria, on the other hand, is perfectly legal.

Whee Drug War!
Daniel

PS I’m remembering the details of these mushrooms from a college mycology class; if you need me to, I’ll go find cites to these facts & post them here.

25

Because the news media is filled with stories about raging pot-heads who go on violent killing sprees or armed robberies? Because marijuana users frequently start fights in bars after they’ve “smoked a little too much”?

The worst a pot-head is going to do is leave a whole mess of cheesy-poofs on your couch and mumble about making him leave when all he wants to do is burn-out.

Fact is, used responsibly, there is no harm in recreational drug use. The key thing here is “responsibly”. There are a whole number of legal things that used irresponsibly “may result in harm to innocent bystanders” – Lets see… cars, alcohol, .223 hunting rifles…

26

Quite my point; there are already a number of things that when used irresponsibly may result in harm to innocent bystanders; do we need another one?

(although I take your point about marijuana; it is concievable that if it were in more widespread use we could actually see a reduction in adolescent crime).

27

I understand what you’re saying, but where would you personally draw the line? I hate getting into slippery slope type debates, but the human capacity to cause others harm is immense.

I mean, you can’t ban cars, guns, steak knives, scalding hot coffee. In my mind, promoting responsible use of “potentially damaging” things is far better than outlawing them. What I want to do to my body within the confines of my own home should ultimately be my business. If I smoke marijuana or snort cocaine or drop esctasy in my house, that effects nobody but me. I have no problem with Laws being passed that are similar to “Drunk and Disorderly” or DUI with regards to drugs, once I take my habit into the public domain it no longer concerns only me.

28

I don’t really see why our reluctance or inability to ban cars, knives and hot coffee inescapably leads us to conclude that we should permit totally different things that might be dangerous.

29

Because the context of the ban is that these are dangerous. Specifically, they are dangerous when used irresponsibly.

30

Mmmm, but intoxication or altered state of mind is hardly the ideal precursor to responsible behaviour.

31

The point is that it is not a “precursor” to anything. It is what you make of it.

My theory on irresponsibility with intoxicants is that people want to act irresponsibly, and so get intoxicated so they have a face-saving “out” when they strip or say silly things or whatever. Of course, judgment is impaired, I won’t say otherwise. But then, you know that coming into the experience, meaning you have to irresponsibly behave irresponsible; or, you have to be irresponsiblye before you even take the drug by not preparing for the experience (designated drivers, in the hallucinogenic world, are often called “sitters” because they stop you from doing something stupid).

I’m not asking to drink while driving or trip at work; but I am asking your state to not prosecute me when I do things in the privacy of my own home.

32

…because they sit there and stop you from doing something stupid.

33

I find that view a little simplistic; people seek intoxication for all kinds of reasons and can end up doing the most unintentional and regrettable things, not just through induced irresponsibility, but through general loss of capacity; damage can be done (to third parties, property etc) that is irreversible and that the law would (try to) prosecute the perpetrator is of little comfort to the victims.

I completely agree that insofar as it does not affect anyone other than yourself, you should be free to do what you will, but how can that be enabled without generally increasing the probability of harm to others (by persons with less self control than yourself)?

34

But banning stuff under this sort of reasoning is a real slippery slope, don’t you think?

You’re right. I shouldn’t have presented that as a complete dissertation of “why people seek intoxiaction.” People do seek intoxiaction for all sorts of reasons. Personal therapy, fun, feelings of […], and so on.

Damage can be done to third parties… well, this is another reason why the comparison to legal but poisonous plants is justified. But now we say, “Hey, erl, sure these plants are dangerous, but they aren’t used in a way that makes them so, so why outlaw them?” OK, my dialectic foil has a great point. But now we return here: there is no way naturally-occuring intoxicants can be used responsibly?

If I proposed this law to the House of Mangetout, would it pass?

That people are allowed to possess these plants or (inclusive) fungi in any quantity on their own property. Companies may not actively cultivate them, and if found they have (x days) to dispose of them. These plants (or fungi) may not be sold for any price, though they may be given away, and must be transported by the owner. No shipping, exporting, etc… they must be on the person (or in their vehicle, as the case may be). All public intoxication results in [some fine and/or jail term and/or probation, etc].

35

It’s a really tricky issue (and made no simpler by the fact that alcohol is legal and in widespread use) - there’s nothing I would like more than for people to be able to get high in such a way as nobody (but themselves, perhaps, perhaps not) could ever get harmed, but (it is my perhaps biased opinion that) for every thoughtful, responsible person like yourself, there are a quantity of selfish assholes who don’t care, but the law would not prevent them from having the means to lose control of themselves, nor would it prevent the consequences.

Arguably the law does not prevent them at the moment (although it tries to), as any idiot can get hold of drugs.

I agree, it’s a slippery slope and I’ve not yet found a position which I can comfortably hold.

Your proposal seems quite a reasonable one.

36

If it was my dictatorship alcohol would be the same way (though it could be sold and manufactured by companies. Distillation is a tad dangerous in itself.). No bars, no public consumption or intoxication, etc. I would really, really like stiff penalties for public usage, even more strict than some of the most strict DUI laws now. I simply cannot abide by that behavior in a public setting; like you, I see all too well that it can too easily lead to harmful circumstances.

The longer-term issues of use… well, hmm. This is tough. I mean, yeah, long-term use of drugs can lead to physical and psychological harm for parties related to the user who were not willing participants in the decision to use (abuse, in this case). In the case of drugs, yeah, we’d like more people to use them responsibly. But how can they if the only way to use them is to be irresponsible in the first place?

There is no “market” for the responsible user so long as it is a criminal act to use in the first place. Sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy.