[QUOTE=colonial]
he term “OD” attained notoriety in the 1960s specifically because of LSD overuse.
[/quote]
I was in college 1967-71. How about you?
Where I was “OD” almost always referred to LSD, and likewise
for media references.
It was of course well-known that opiate ODs were possible,
but they received much less publicity than the LSD cases, perhaps
because of LSD’s relative novelty.
But the LD50 for LSD is… unrealistically obtainable. Except that one guy, who had two sheets of orange sunshine in his back pocket when he went out, and got sweaty… you know that dude is still in the insane asylum*!*
You’re not allowed to call people insulting names in this forum, or any forum here except the BBQ Pit. Don’t do it again.
Namecalling, nice. Just because you and I disagree doesn’t make me a “crackpot.”
Hey, colonial,
What do you think would happen if you took some Angel Dust?
Probably this!
As I said earlier, this is the real obstacle for legalization. From my vantage point, there seem to be a lot (I would suggest even a majority, although obviously not well represented on this MB) of people in America like colonial. People who only have a passing knowledge of what drugs do, can’t be bothered to actually educate themselves in any significant way, dismiss anyone who disagrees with them as crackpots, and talk down to everyone else like they are the authority on the subject.
It is very difficult to make headway against this worldview.
My personal opinion.
I think that drug use by minors should be prohibited (same as alcohol and tobacco). I would support laws restricting some activities being performed by people who are impaired by drug use (like laws against driving while drunk). But other than that, I’d pretty much legalize everything. Treat the problems caused by drug use as a medical and psychological issue not a criminal issue (once again, like alcoholism).
Not going to try and find out.
I’m not suggesting you do.
But what do you think would happen?
Kindly read my replies again, more carefully this time.
You accuse me of being antilegalization, yet I advocate legalizing
the two most widely used illegal drugs; you accuse me of educating
myself, yet I provided citation.
Substandard debating ability such as yours is not going to convince
any reasonable, intelligent person, and you would be most well advised
to remain on the sidelines until you learned something from your betters
of the fundamentals of effective argument.
Given the demonization of tobacco, I just don’t see how drugs could be legalized any time soon.
Got it. Clearly I need to learn more quality debate techniques like calling people who disagree with me crackpots. I’ll do my best.
There is almost zero possibility that a small dose of LSD will cause psychosis.
But if that’s the standard we’re going for . . . .
Aspirin has a minute chance of causing intracerebral hemorrhage. Should it be illegal?
Fair points, although nicotine is actually more addictive for a lot of people than opiates, but it’s still legal.
The whole question depends a lot on how “addictive” is defined, so that’s an important consideration.
Yes. It is a clear waste of resources and increases violence. I don’t particularly care about some drugs, but if I had to choose all or nothing, I’d choose complete legalization
Completely legalize cannabis and opium derivatives and either decriminalize or heavily regulate cocaine products. Cannabis and opium products are safer than alcohol and tobacco, and easier to grow. Don’t even tax them a whole lot, because if you do, the ease of their growth will create grey market tax smuggling.
Coca, on the other hand, is more difficult to grow, so the government can tax the stuff highly and still squeeze some money out of it. But it still doesn’t make sense to ban it outright since it is still relatively easy to make compared to some drugs and therefore will always be prevalent.
We’ll still be making more money by increasing the number of members of society who can easily find jobs, the taxes the products naturally generate in a non-underground economy, and saving money on law enforcement.
We can give some of the let-out-of-work drug agents and prison guards the option to become immigration and border agents instead. It isn’t the best fit, but it’s better than some.
Now, non-growable drugs, I’m not so sure about. They are not easy to make correctly, and many of them are dangerous if created poorly. So they might need better regulation and higher taxes, and fewer rational people would be likely to resort to grey or black market designer drugs or meth than they would cannabis or opium because the white market drugs would be proven to be safer.
I wouldn’t exactly be protesting in the streets if nongrowable drugs continue to be illegal. But I’d lean toward the side of decriminalization or regulation.
Agreed on both counts. Though to the first, it’s much easier to OD on opiates than nicotine (using cigarettes as the standard dosing metric for the latter), and more likely an OD will kill you. I think there’s probably a discussion to be had in comparing lifetime chance of death and illness among nicotine addicts and opiate addicts. I think it’s safe to say that H kills people quicker than cigarettes, but I haven’t done the research.
And I guess that’s where I get uncomfortable with blanket legalization. We make a lot of money on cigarette taxes in the US, but we spend a shitload on smoking-related illness. It’s addictive as hell, and kills (albeit slowly). Booze is less addictive (way more social and casual consumers than with nicotine), and also kills slowly. Caffeine is highly addictive and doesn’t kill (as a general rule).
Apart from the libertarian argument, I don’t see the societal value of legalizing substances that are both highly addictive and kill people quickly.
(Full disclosure: except for a few breaks, I’ve been addicted to cigarettes for about 24 years.)
I’m not a fan of legalization, but I am concerned that the war on drugs has taken and will continue to take a serious toll on out Constitutional protections. Legalization may be the lesser of evils, if we can’t find some middle ground.
What I don’t understand is people favoring the legalization but lamenting that it cannot be done. It can be. If ever there was an issue that cut across the standard left/right divide it is this one. There are lots of people on the left and lots of people on the right that agree that the “war on drugs” is monumentally stupid and unproductive and that drugs should be legalized. What is needed is an organization - purely single issue one, and bipartisan in that - that would promote this and push politicians to support legalization or be marginalized - on both sides.
I see this issue as damaging enough to the country today that I would cross any political line to vote for a politician that would clearly and unequivocally promise to work for full legalization of all drugs. If the guy is a socialist loon as well, I can vote against him later, after the “war on drugs” has been consigned to history.
The history of strong drugs reaching the public deal with their illegality. Refined cocaine was primarily consumed in soft drinks before it was outlawed. The functional morphine addict doctor is a well-worn cliche. It’s not that I think you’re wrong, it’s that I think criminalization leads to the social environment where people get into a destructive cycle that makes OD sooner more likely. The common theme when I was in high school was that a sign of drug abuse was pulling away from family and friends. Yes, sure: so long as we consider drug use icky, drug users are going to stay away from elements which might otherwise temper their abuse.
It likely does, but I don’t find this particularly convincing. I’d guess more people die from prohibition-related activities than overdoses. I’d wager that quality of life from the high price of opiates (for addicts, for people whose property is stolen, for people who are in prison) makes the scale tip against prohibition. I’m certain people in prison for drug use could be productive, making prohibition doubly expensive. There are obvious costs to legalization. But we know exactly how high of a price we’re paying for prohibition, both here in the US and abroad.