Drug Legalization Debate Thread

[TriPolar]

With rare exceptions all drugs should be legal for adults to possess, manufacture, or purchase. The exceptions are really just matters of debate for something like antibiotics where overuse could have a public impact.

However, I doubt that will happen anytime soon, so I prefer any progess towards that goal. I think the simple change that allows people to grow and consume marijuana on their own private property would be a way to end the stupidest prohibition in history (given certain values of stupid, prohibition, and history).

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

@spankthecrumpet

The strong hallucinogens are probably the drugs that need legalising most. The insights they give a reasonably intelligent person can’t really be reached any other way aside from temporal lobe epliepsy.

Not to mention their ability to help people break addictions to other drugs–particularly alcohol and nicotine.

[andros]

@Sateryn76

Cite that hallucinogens are undoubtedly dangerous? Particularly more than coke?

@colonial

I am not going to comb the net for a cite.

Good, because you won’t find one.

OTOH, there is no proof that they aren’t, either, and I think the question was poorly phrased. “Undoubtedly dangerous” covers a lot of ground.

But there have been no documented deaths attributed to LSD, and it is not medically addictive. Same goes for mescaline and psilocybin.

[colonial]

@HoboStew

This is a good example of the problem we face in legalization. By what definition are you describing hallucinogens as dangerous? Nobody has ever overdosed on LSD, for example.

What the hell are you talking about?

The term “OD” attained notoriety in the 1960s specifically because of LSD overuse.

@HoboStew

Psilocybin (aka magic mushrooms) are similarly safe.

I do not know enough about Psilocybin to speak with the same confidence as some
other drugs, but my impression is that it to LSD as a joint is to concentrated THC,
as a cigarette is to pure nicotene, as a beer is to 100% ethanol. If so I might grant
some allowance or exception to Psilicybin, and I hope you will not object too much
if we maintain a ban on pure TCH.

@HoboStew

That’s not to say that they can’t do any harm (people with mental disorders should steer clear, for example), but calling them “undoubtedly dangerous” is just not true.

There is no dissent that meth and Angel Dust are very dangerous, is there?-- especially Angel Dust.

@HoboStew

As an aside, does anyone know of a chart that shows deaths per 100k users for each drug? It is tedious searching for each one individually.

You do not need to be dead to be f*cked up for life.

[andros]

@colonial

What the hell are you talking about?

The term “OD” attained notoriety in the 1960s specifically because of LSD overuse.

I believe he meant that there has never been a death caused by LSD overdose.

I do not know enough about Psilocybin to speak with the same confidence as some other drugs, but my impression is that it to LSD as a joint is to concentrated THC, as a cigarette is to pure nicotene, as a beer is to 100% ethanol. If so I might grant some allowance or exception to Psilicybin, and I hope you will not object too much if we maintain a ban on pure TCH.

I think you only have that impression because psilocybin is most typically consumed in mushrooms, in which the active drug is less concentrated than in a tab of acid. The psychoactive effects are very similar.

You do not need to be dead to be f*cked up for life.

Well, that’s the thing, innit? LSD, psilocybin, and mescaline have all been shown to have potentially adverse short-term psychiatric effects. Bad trips are not in any way uncommon. But I’m not sure what the state of the research is now on long-term psychiatric effects. (I realize you are convinced they exist, but I’m interested in the data.)
.

[HoboStew]

@colonial

What the hell are you talking about?

The term “OD” attained notoriety in the 1960s specifically because of LSD overuse.

No one has ever DIED from an overdose.

@colonial

I do not know enough about Psilocybin to speak with the same confidence as some
other drugs, but my impression is that it to LSD as a joint is to concentrated THC,
as a cigarette is to pure nicotene, as a beer is to 100% ethanol. If so I might grant
some allowance or exception to Psilicybin, and I hope you will not object too much
if we maintain a ban on pure TCH.

I disagree with everything in this paragraph.

@colonial

There is no dissent that meth and Angel Dust are very dangerous, is there?-- especially Angel Dust.

Relative to what? Lots of things can be dangerous if used improperly.

@colonial

You do not need to be dead to be f*cked up for life.

No argument there. I just don’t want the government banning all these things because SOME people MIGHT have a problem with them.

[andros]

Because it seems I’m not going to get anything useful accomplished today, here’s a quick shot at long-term LSD effects. (NB, I have access to a bunch of journals that aren’t available without subscription, so cites on request. But I think most of this is wikipedia material.)

Hallucinogen Persisting Perception Disorder (HPPD) is a DSM-IV diagnosis, but seems to be quite rare and often includes only visual symptoms.

“Flashbacks” in general are not medically diagnosed, but show up for somewhere between 20 and 30 percent of users.

Psychosis is the big boy. As far as I can tell, incidents of lasting psychosis from LSD use are extremely few, and the jury’s still out on whether the condition is caused by the drug, or were preexisting and made manifest by it. It seems to be most likely to occur in heavy users, those who regularly use multiple drugs, and those with prior incidence of mental illness.

I’m still reviewing the literature. Beats my actual grad school research.

-a-

[andros]

@HoboStew

I just don’t want the government banning all these things because SOME people MIGHT have a problem with them.

And there, I think, lies the crux of the discussion.

Would you have a problem with the government banning substances that caused terrible problems for most people?

It’s about where to draw the line. I’m fine with cyanide not being available over the counter, f’rinstance. I know some libertarians who aren’t chill with that at all.

So say we had some hypothetical drug (fuck it, it’s GD) that caused instantaneous addiction, caused its users to fly into unpredictable violent rage, and killed its users within a year, but made them feel really good the whole time.

I’d consider it a definite societal ill and worthy of prohibition. Y’all?

-a-
.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

Marijuana should be legalized and along with alcohol have the age limit set at 18. Most hard drugs should be decriminalized for users and have it a crime only to distribute, sell, manufacture, or grow the drug.

[HoboStew]

@andros

And there, I think, lies the crux of the discussion.

Would you have a problem with the government banning substances that caused terrible problems for most people?

It’s about where to draw the line. I’m fine with cyanide not being available over the counter, f’rinstance. I know some libertarians who aren’t chill with that at all.

So say we had some hypothetical drug (fuck it, it’s GD) that caused instantaneous addiction, caused its users to fly into unpredictable violent rage, and killed its users within a year, but made them feel really good the whole time.

I’d consider it a definite societal ill and worthy of prohibition. Y’all?

Certainly there exists a threshold above which it doesn’t make sense to have a substance available. I don’t think anyone would complain about lethal substances with no benefit like cyanide restricted - some would argue that the free market would take care of that but lets leave that alone for now.

This is why I asked upstream for chart demonstarting deaths per 100k, which I think is a useful starting point for discussions in this regard. My feeling is we should take the things we have legal now - alcohol and tobacco - and weigh them against the other substances to determine a hierarchy.

My main problem with the current system is that, taken as the whole, it just does not make any sense. There is no good reason why tobacco should be legal and pot illegal. When you are asking society to buy into a system, that system should be coherent, and ours as it currently stands is not. That’s why young people, when put in situations where they might experiment, find it so easy to toss out what the system tells them, because it makes no sense when compared to reality. That certainly was my experience, at least.

[Craz3d117]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Marijuana should be legalized and along with alcohol have the age limit set at 18. Most hard drugs should be decriminalized for users and have it a crime only to distribute, sell, manufacture, or grow the drug.

I’d have to agree with this. While they should be decriminalized, I just don’t think it would benefit society much for everyone to have widespread availability to very addictive substances such as cocaine, meth and heroin. I don’t think any good could come of that.

[erislover]

@Craz3d117

I’d have to agree with this. While they should be decriminalized, I just don’t think it would benefit society much for everyone to have widespread availability to very addictive substances such as cocaine, meth and heroin. I don’t think any good could come of that.

So there’s nothing bad about cops, soldiers, citizens of your country, and citizens of other countries dying over this law enforcement measure?

[erislover]

I haven’t seen linked in any of the recent threads, so
The War on Drugs is Lost

NATIONAL REVIEW has attempted during its tenure as, so to speak, keeper of the conservative tablets to analyze public problems and to recommend intelligent thought. The magazine has acknowledged a variety of positions by right-minded thinkers and analysts who sometimes reach conflicting conclusions about public policy. As recently as on the question of troops to Bosnia, there was dissent within the family from our corporate conclusion that we’d be best off staying home.

For many years we have published analyses of the drug problem. An important and frequently cited essay by Professor Michael Gazzaniga (Feb. 5, 1990) brought a scientist’s discipline into the picture, shedding light on matters vital to an understanding of the drug question. He wrote, for instance, about different rates of addiction, and about ambient pressures that bear on addiction. Elsewhere, Professor James Q. Wilson, now of UCLA, has written eloquently in defense of the drug war. Milton Friedman from the beginning said it would not work, and would do damage.

We have found Dr. Gazzaniga and others who have written on the subject persuasive in arguing that the weight of the evidence is against the current attempt to prohibit drugs. But NATIONAL REVIEW has not, until now, opined formally on the subject. We do so at this point. To put off a declarative judgment would be morally and intellectually weak-kneed.

Things being as they are, and people as they are, there is no way to prevent somebody, somewhere, from concluding that ``NATIONAL REVIEW favors drugs.‘’ We don’t; we deplore their use; we urge the stiffest feasible sentences against anyone convicted of selling a drug to a minor. But that said, it is our judgment that the war on drugs has failed, that it is diverting intelligent energy away from how to deal with the problem of addiction, that it is wasting our resources, and that it is encouraging civil, judicial, and penal procedures associated with police states. We all agree on movement toward legalization, even though we may differ on just how far.

1996 series of opinion pieces.

[curioushat]

@erislover

So there’s nothing bad about cops, soldiers, citizens of your country, and citizens of other countries dying over this law enforcement measure?

This.

Forget whether drugs are “good” or “bad”, whether the government should criminalize mental states and individual behavior.

leap.cc

The issue is about the massive societal cost of the drug war. $1 trillion has been spent on the drug war, with no tangible results.

Drugs are incredibly profitable for dealers and suppliers.

Every time the police make a huge “bust” (dangerous to citizens and officers alike), there is a new leader to step in, immediately, and with absolutely no impact on the drug trade.

This facilitates massive amounts of violence. The drug war being fought in Mexico is getting entirely out of control. The drug cartels are so profitable, so powerful, that they have corrupted the police, military, and Mexican government. The bloodshed is unbelievable there and not only gang members but Mexican citizens, and even US citizens in border towns are being slaughtered as a result.

Law enforcement it forced to remain silent on the issue while in power. Once out of power, there is a large and growing contingency that the drug war is a colossal failure and needs to be stopped.

[colonial]

I was planning a one-post hit-and-run contribution to this thread. Since my
remarks have incited so many people I will hang on for this one post longer,
but probably no more.

Some members seem to be ludicrously promoting the legalitization of any drug
not lethal in moderate doses, implying that mere mental effects, even psychosis,
are an acceptible risk.

I take LSD as a representative hallucinogen, and Re LSD Wiki is inconsistent,
reporting both that the drug is “psychologically well-tolerated” and that
“There are some cases of LSD inducing a psychosis in people who appeared
to be healthy before taking LSD. In most cases, the psychosis-like reaction
is of short duration, but in other cases it may be chronic”.

Where there is any possibility that a small dose may lead to psychosis then
I think we should err on the side of safety, and keep it illegal.

Re meth per Wiki: “As a result of methamphetamine-induced neurotoxicity
to dopaminergic neurons, chronic abuse may also lead to post acute withdrawals
which persist beyond the withdrawal period for months, and even up to a year.
A study performed on female Japanese prison inmates suffering from methamphetamine
addiction showed 20% experienced a psychosis resembling schizophrenia which
persisted for longer than six months post-methamphetamine use; this amphetamine
psychosis could be resistant to traditional treatment.

So IMO meth should remain illegal for the same reason LSD should.

Re Angel Dust (PCP) per Wiki: “PCP was first synthesized in 1926 and later tested
after World War II as a surgical anesthetic. Because of its adverse side effects, such
as hallucinations, mania, delirium, and disorientation, it was shelved until the 1950s.
In 1953, it was patented by Parke-Davis and named Sernyl (referring to serenity),
but was only used in humans for a few years because of side-effects. In 1967, it was
given the trade name Sernylan and marketed as a veterinary anesthetic, but was
again discontinued. Its side effects and long half-life in the human body made it
unsuitable for medical applications.

So IMO Angel Dust should remain illegal for the same reason LSD and meth should.

[colonial]

One more thing-- the so-called “Drug War” spends most of its resources
on marijuana and cocaine, doesn’t it? Legalizing those two would free up
an amount ample to cope with those drugs having a smaller market, but
bearing greater risk to make people go actually crazy.

And forget for the moment halluciogens and meth, if anyone here contends
Angel Dust should be legalized please say so, so I can can add his name
to my crackpot list.

[SeldomSeen]

@colonial

What the hell are you talking about?

The term “OD” attained notoriety in the 1960s specifically because of LSD overuse.

No, the term “OD” as used in the 1960’s nearly always applied to heroin or other opiates.
Qin Shi Huangdi

Marijuana should be legalized and along with alcohol have the age limit set at 18. Most hard drugs should be decriminalized for users and have it a crime only to distribute, sell, manufacture, or grow the drug.

Damn well said. We’ve arbitrarily set the age of official “adulthood” at 18 with all the the responsibilities that entails. It should entail full rights (including the right to consume alcohol, etc.) along with the responsibilities. And legalization of cannabis along with decriminalization of casual use of other drugs is a sensible compromise. Of course it makes so much sense that it’s unlikely to happen:(
SS

[Invisible_Chimp]

@colonial

I was planning a one-post hit-and-run contribution to this thread. Since my
remarks have incited so many people I will hang on for this one post longer,
but probably no more.

Some members seem to be ludicrously promoting the legalitization of any drug
not lethal in moderate doses, implying that mere mental effects, even psychosis,
are an acceptible risk.

I don’t think it’s my business what people put in their bodies. Anybody who wants to can already do these drugs. I think users should define for themselves what are or are not acceptable risks.

[colonial]

@Invisible_Chimp

I don’t think it’s my business what people put in their bodies. Anybody who wants to can already do these drugs. I think users should define for themselves what are or are not acceptable risks.

That’s one crackpot.

Any more?

[Odesio]

Given how we have so many laws governing the use of tobacco, I just don’t see drugs becoming legal any time soon.