Your saying you want a new drug. Maybe one that won’t make you sick. One that wont make you crash your car, or feel three feet thick. One that won’t hurt your head, make your mouth to dry or your eyes too red.
I need a new drug to get that song out of my head.
If “safe” versions of any currently illegal drug was discovered it would pretty quickly be made illegal. Neither LSD or MDMA are addictive and are (I would guess) less toxic than paracetamol, certainly less than alcohol. Politicians seem incapable of categorising recreational drugs (DRUGS :eek: ) in any sensible way. LSD and MDMA are class A drugs here, same as heroin and cocaine.
I just googled up this list (page down a tad) I’m surprised we’re allowed to eat Smarties.
Actually on preview I see “This list is not exhaustive” so maybe we aren’t.
Thank frak that alcohol was discovered in the year dot, good luck making that illegal*
Yes, I do know that’s been tried too*. But that was less than a total success.
**The most they dared do in this country was to limit opening hours, and that has had unintended consequences in terms of British drinking habits.
Oh, Smarties are definitely my preschooler’s drug of choice. On really hard-core nights, it’s a Pixie Stick!
I don’t know who originally said it, or what “it” was exactly, but I had a teacher once point out that if “they” actually succeed in winning the War on Drugs, the next big party craze would be spinning - people would just lean their heads back, spread out their arms and spin and spin and spin until they fell over, and they’d enjoy the head rush and giggles. And then we’d outlaw spinning because it’s fun. (And causes concussions when people fall over.)
Watching my kids play with an office chair, I believe it!
I think drugs are illegal simply because the Government can make more money from their illegality than they could if they were legal.
I said, “as long as it’s easily available”. By that I mean cheap and legal. Hell, I’m addicted (in a sense) to oxygen, water and a whole range of vitamins and minerals. But I don’t commit crimes in order to get access to these things.
Go ahead. Tell us exactly how the government makes more money from illegal drugs than they could by taxing them. Be sure to add in all the expenses, too, like the War on Drugs.
I got your trademark issues right here, pal. 
to echo t-bonham, I’m failing to see the problem in having the population feel euphoric most of the time. Christ, the world would be a better place. Some doctors are using Ultram, a ‘non narcotic’ pain killer for low level depression, because the opiod like euphoria from the drug keeps them functioning. There are also studies that some depression is linked to endorphin deficiency, and that for some people, drugs like suboxone or methadone don’t get them ‘high’ or ‘loopy’ but rather normal.
I always wondered why Vicodin or whathave you didn’t make me “high” like everyone said. I simply felt focused, creative and comfortable with the bonus of being able to walk 
Endorphins?
[QUOTE=commasense]
Re the thread title: it’s been done (although not intentionally) and the government made it illegal anyway.
“MDMA, aka Ecstasy, is not addictive or particularly harmful, [snip] Although there was no evidence of any health problems caused by its use, [snip]”
Not exactly true. By far the most harmful effects from MDMA usage is the after-effect. Its neurobiological action is to block to serotonin re-uptake mechanism on neurons. In very high doses (doses far exceeding what a person would normally take) it permanently damaged that mechanism after the 1st dose. In a normal range of use the mechanism was temporarily damaged causing serious depression for up to 2 weeks after use. This means the user is at high risk for suicide after taking MDMA. What isn’t clear is how much, how frequently, and for how long does a person need to take it to cause permanent damage.
I would guess that the amounts used in the psychotherapy trials were less than the amount used at raves or for fun.
Check out this link for more information and feel free to browse through the other articles at NIDA.
For the record, I’m not anti-drug (meaning, I don’t think drugs are inherently bad but unfortunately they carry some serious side effects) but I don’t subscribe to propaganda from either side of the argument either. I just want the facts. Give me the science.
No thanks, I’m full.
I think diggleblop was incomplete in saying that the government makes more money from illegal drugs. It would be more accurate to say that certain individuals/corporations who have much influence in our government make more money from illegal drugs.
About half of all crime in the US is related to illegal drugs, so all these people get half their ‘customers’ from illegal drugs:
[ul][li]police[/li][li]jail workers[/li][li]criminal lawyers[/li][li]public defenders[/li][li]court workers[/li][li]judges[/li][li]probation officers[/li][li]prison guards[/li][li]construction companies that build prisons[/li][li]transport companies that haul prisoners to/from court[/li][/ul]
Then there are the private companies that get an increase in business due to the fear of crime caused by drugs:
[ul][li]private security guards[/li][li]sellers of bicycle locks, car steering wheel locks, etc.[/li][li]installers of home security systems[/li][li]companies who monitor home security systems[/li][li]home insurance companies[/li][li]auto insurance companies[/li][li]gun makers & stores[/li][li]pawnshops, fences, ebay, craigslist[/li][/ul]
So when you refer to the expenses of the War on Drugs, remember that those occur on both sides of the ledger: they are expenses to the government, but income for some corporations.
It’s unlikely that we are anywhere close to developing non-addictive (non-tolerance building for the sake of the discussion) versions of relatively safe drugs; and more over, it’s not the biochemistry of the drugs that causes addiction, it’s the bodies reaction to prolonged exposure to the drug.
Every drug that I can think of acts through some form of cell surface receptor. With repeated exposure the cells either start pulling those receptors off the surface (to protect the over stimulated cell) or pumping more receptors to the surface (if the drug acts by inhibiting use of the ones already present), forcing the addict to increase his dose. The pharmaceutical industry would have to essentially develop a drug that inhibits the feedback mechanisms that allow the cell to regulate presence of that particular receptor on the cell membrane, which probably gets more into genetics. There are diseases that have similar problems at their core, and since the treatments aren’t all that great, I’d guess we have a tough row to hoe before Soma’s freely available from Pfizer.
So the way to define the “government” in that sentence is “not the government”? And the way to define “make more money” is “have higher expenses”?
How could you possibly ever be wrong if you can change definitions like that?
One that won’t make me nervous, wondering what to do! One that makes me feel like I feel when I’m…
Look, This thread is entirely not my fault. What I need is Brain Draino. Then I will have no reaction to this thread.
Come now, Exapno, surely you understand the point that diggeblop and t-bonham@scc.net are trying to make. There are powerful forces on both sides of the law that would stand to lose money, influence, and power from the legalization of drugs. It is, sadly, far easier politically to tax the American public (i.e., make money) to support the failed War on Drugs than it would be to provide health care to addicts.
So although I wouldn’t have put it that way, yes, the government does “make money” on the drug war. And although we could arguably save billions and really make billions more by legalizing and taxing drugs, we all know it is politically impossible for now.
Actually, no. I don’t understand the point that diggleblop is trying to make. I doubt that he does. I think he’s just spouting ignorance about the government. If he wants to come in and clarify, then fine.
I think you and t-bonham@scc.net are making entirely different points, so they’re irrelevant. (They’re also wrong, IMO, but that’s beside the point.)
I have to point out that you’ve muddled up some terms in the above statement… specifically you call for a drug that won’t addict… and then addicts can indulge in it? Makes no sense.
It does bear pointing out that heroin itself, in normal recreational doses, is not harmful except for the risk of constipation. Yes, it’s addictive, but there’s no reason someone can’t continue a heroin habit for their entire life, if it weren’t for the war on drugs ensuring that they have to engage in risky practices to obtain a product of dubious purity. I think that’s the answer to the question you were asking.
As for a pleasurable drug that is neither addictive nor harmful… well… as has been mentioned before, most of the psychedelics are neither addictive nor physically harmful, though some of them can exacerbate existing mental issues, and can induce some whacked out thoughts in otherwise healthy people for some period of time.
I question whether there could ever be an intensely pleasurable drug that wasn’t somehow addictive or habit forming in any way. It seems that once you start playing around with the pleasure/reward pathways in the brain, they just don’t want to stop playing.
This is all hogwash. Nobody wins from drug criminalization except for drug kingpins and drug enforcement kingpins. Both establishments are fattened by it, it’s just that the narcoterrorists are a money-generating organization whereas the DEA is a job-generating organization. If anything, the drug war siphons revenue from the government. And good luck passing legislation that axes thousands of government jobs.
Cite, please? Especially for “user is at high risk for suicide after taking MDMA”, but even for “serious” depression.
Counter-cite 1: The sub-acute effects of recreational ecstasy (MDMA) use: a controlled study in humans
Counter-cite 2: Recreational ecstasy use and depression (in order to address the existing sequelae possibility in the 1st cite)
I made a statement above on promising developments with regards to inhibiting opiate tolerance. Here’s one cite:
PM me for more.
Sure, it’s way better to lock someone (or thousands of someones) up for decades for selling a little pot!