And the relaxation isn’t an effect of the light intoxication?
This might make sense from a health point of view, but won’t solve the issue of criminality associated with the consumption of still forbidden drugs.
Drug users won’t dissapear. Ever. Even if you sentence them and the dealers alike to be skinned alive in the public square. But we could prevent murderous criminal cartels from getting rich on it (and warlords to fund their bussiness), and remove all this petty (or not so petty) crime commited by addicts trying to get the money for their fix (from a previous thread, heroin is extremely cheap to produce, for instance). And that might even give them a life besides the drug, when they won’t have to spend all their energy and everything they can get their hands on on getting this fix. And it would reduce the risk of overdose/poisoning/rotting alive (see Krokodil) that results from the injection of products of random origin.
There’s only in my opinion one argument against it : the risk that more people could become addicted. I don’t believe people would become heroin addicts in droves just because it’s easier. After all there were times not so long ago when you could easily get your hands on various opiates and not everybody was an addict. And ever if the numbers rose, I believe we would still be much better off (much less crime, less drug-related deaths, addicts able to have a life).
So? If I want to take some chemo without a prescription, who’s business is it but mine? And seriously, outside of recreational drugs and certain meds which should be OTC but aren’t for political reasons (birth control, sudafed), why would anybody do this? This is the drug prohibition version of “next we’ll have to legalize getting married to your dog”.
I guess I’m just assuming that legalization would have to be approached with some sort of reasoning beyond just “these drugs look like fun.” What possible rationale is there for making heroin and methamphetamine available “recreationally” while maintaining strict control over other drugs? Why should one person be trusted to set his own intake of ecstasy, while another person is forced to submit to a doctor’s care for his Zoloft?
You could say the same thing about hot peppers as well. There are a lot of things that in small quantities are perceived as tasting good or flavor enhancers but in pure form are repulsive.
In my experience, “intoxication” usually refers to being drunk, that is, clearly impaired. Drunk to the point of staggering, falling down, and/or vomiting is not moderate or recreational use.
The point was that yes, some things can be and are typically used in a moderate, recreational sense without causing major impairment to other aspects of one’s life. Some substances seem to lead much more quickly to abuse. I know lots of people hooked on caffeine or nicotine, who use alcohol or marijuana in a moderate and recreational fashion. We all do. I’ve yet to meet a casual heroin user - have you?
If we legalize a drug we will, indeed, see more abuse and more addicts. The question is whether the trade-off - in theory less crime and destruction - would make up for that.
The US decided that alcohol prohibition wasn’t worth the price, so it was revoked. We seem to be in the process of doing the same for marijuana. Fine. But, again, while I know casual alcohol and pot users I don’t know any casual heroin users. I think we need a mechanism - other than criminalization - to discourage people from screwing themselves up with the more refined substances that seem to be harder if not impossible to use casually.
Legalize, regulate and tax! Like we do with alcohol and cigarettes. Like we are doing with cannabis. Most “evil” drugs are the result of criminalization and legalization would drastically reduce use.
Prescription meds and that process don’t need to change much – though codeine and BC being OTC should definitely happen as well.
Well, if we’re playing Name That Anecdote, I actually have. A number of casual cocaine users as well, and a number of casual users of amphetamines, club drugs, and psychedelics. (I know a bunch of casual smokers, and as an addict I’m very envious of them.)
Heroin and other opioids are not instantly addictive, and many many people have used them for pain management (and, indeed, recreationally) for decades without ill effects.
Absolutely. And in all likelihood, so have you. You just don’t know they’re a casual heroin user, because they’re *casual *heroin users. They don’t match your stereotype and they’re not using heroin when you meet them, so you don’t register them. (It’s like all those transmen and transwomen that look their gender: you don’t know they’re trans. The ones you flag as trans are the ones who struggle to “pass”, so that’s what you think transpersons look like.)
I don’t have a clear position on drug legalization. It seems very silly that marijuana is illegal when alcohol is not, but it also seems that destructive drugs like methamphetamine should be banned. OTOH, much of drugs’ problems comes from their criminality. Thus drug legalization is just one of many issues on which I’m middle-of-the-road, i.e. indecisive – one reason I don’t fit in well here at Great Debates.
I’ve read of Dutch who’d never tried marijuana until they visited U.S.A., where they tried it for the thrill of criminality. :rolleyes:
OTOH, how can we be sure there wouldn’t be many new addicts if heroin were legalized? Many in U.S. still start smoking cigarettes despite well-known concerns.
Isn’t this completely backwards? The horrors of non-pharmaceutical Krokodil can be attributed directly to the illegality of opioids.
What about cocaine? That stuff is just vile. IME, the only effect it provides is a desire to do more of it, right now. Then, it last about 20 minutes, after which there comes a headache that you just know can only be driven off with a few more lines.
Coca is useful in Bolivia, where it can alleviate the symptoms of altitude sickness, but the refined powder is just pure dusty evil that can drop you over the edge without warning. I cannot imagine how we could deal with that stuff, as long as people still want to do it.
Cocaine does have the virtue of medical uses - it both anesthetizes and restricts blood flow, so it used to be very popular for facial surgeries. Of course, with more and more regulation wrapped around it use for that is falling off due to the hassle of using it.
Perhaps if people had access to coca tea or leaves for chewing (the traditional uses) they could enjoy the mild high without having the urge to move to the concentrated form of the drug. Again, the problem seems to be the highly refined and concentrated active ingredient being consumed, not the fact the substance exists at all.
There have been some recent instances of teenagers fatally OD’ing on caffeine powder - caffeine being nearly ubiquitous in our society in a non-concentrated form, but some kids got ahold of the pure stuff and added too much for some extra kick and found out the hard way that caffeine can kill you in a sufficiently high dose. It’s just that we don’t typically have people trying to consume pure caffeine.
Comparisons to alcohol in these threads are a red herring. Alcohol is unique in that it has existed for thousands of years and is currently pervasive in our culture. We tried to outlaw it at one time and today have a unique regulatory system for trying to keep it where it should be and not allowing it where it shouldn’t.
Assuming I would agree that alcohol is worse than marijuana or even heroin, that would not be an argument for making those drugs as available as alcohol. If anything, it is an argument to not go down that same road and introduce these drugs into acceptable society as something that should be used recreationally. If you have a mold infestation in your house that you can’t seem to get rid of, should you take out all of the screens in the window to let flies in on the theory that flies aren’t as bad as mold?
Nothing says that our drug laws have to have internal logical consistency, especially considering our history with alcohol.
In the 19th century, alcohol was contributing to some serious problems, most notably domestic abuse. The temperance movement was led largely by women who objected to being beaten on by drunken husbands, and/or having those men drink away the butter-and-egg money before they could even get it home.
But the Volstead act just created a new set of problems, which is why it went away. Mostly it provided a healthy revenue source for the development of large organized crime syndicates, which, once established, have apparently not gone away. Illicit drugs remain a handy agar to support criminal organizations, because they are illegal.
Meanwhile, addiction is treated as a personal behavioral failing that the user themself must overcome. Little or no thought is given to where addictive behavior fits into the larger social picture or how we can do things to mitigate the other causative factors (which I suspect could result in a society that is less stressful overall for most of its members).
Just making stuff legal is not the answer in and of itself, but having the stuff illegal is creating more problems than it is addressing.
I’m not arguing with the idea that drug abuse is bad. It doesn’t matter if you’re abusing alcohol or heroin or nicotine or cocaine - they’re all bad for you.
But the issue we’re discussing here is criminalization. Can anyone show clear evidence that criminalizing certain drugs has helped the problem of drug abuse? There probably have been some people who have avoided some drugs because of the criminal risks involved. But there have definitely been a lot of people who have been more harmed by the criminal prohibition of the drugs than they were by the drugs themselves.
If criminalization was solving the drug abuse problem there might be some merit to it. But our prisons are overfilled with evidence that criminalization doesn’t stop drug abuse.
I had a rather unpleasant experience on acid. It resulted in four months of psych, till they tried LiCO[sub]3[/sub], which smoothed me right out. I took that stuff for a couple years, then stopped, never had a related problem since (and I have used acid since then, which was a few decades ago).
People are afraid of acid because of fools like Art Linkletter, who helped propagate horror stories about how it causes trippers to jump out of high windows because they think they can fly. It can be handled with minimal risk, as long as those involved know what to expect. Making it illegal is a great way to foment ignorance about its proper use.
