# Make Drugs Legal **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 7, 2001, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-drugs-legal/80200 "2001-09-07T04:55:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2001, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-drugs-legal/80200/61 "2001-09-07T21:29:36Z")
2 things: 1. all of the ‘hard drug users used X first’ (where “X” is alternatively marijuana, alcohol, cigarettes etc), one needs to disply causality, not just proximity and ‘which was done first’. FOr example, we can say pretty certainly (except for modern scientific advancements) that vaginal sexual intercourse (tween male and female both who are capable of reproduction) causes pregnancy, however, despite the fact that hand holding probably occured prior to the sex act quite often, it doesn’t hold true that hand holding causes pregnancy. So can everybody kinda stop with the gateway stuff now please? 2. although the OP demands 'make ‘em legal’, the decision about ‘what’s in society’s best interest re: drugs’ does not simply have to remain ‘either/or’. I mentioned before that the current WOD as practised in the past several decades certainly hasn’t worked, and the main poster here against legalization apparently agreed with that. It does seem, however, that many of the proponents for legalization have passed right on by that posting and keep on pointing out the already agreed to position that ‘what we’ve been doing hasn’t really worked out like we’d hoped’. There is a middle ground called decriminalization - where the final end users of the substance are not criminalized by their use, but some of the other issues of casual use not being a problem, addicts need treatment etc. can get the correct amount of attention. For those focusing on the economic models, prices on computers et al are not really a good example to use regarding drug availability/costs. One generally doesn’t purchase computers daily etc. And, in the area of some drugs, there are other factors (such as building up a tolerance to the drug, addiction etc.) that make them a rather unique marketplace item. (for example, **Sua** I believe what our other poster was attempting to get at with their ‘25$ per week for how long’ statement was that idea of building a tolerance/craving - when I first started smoking, I smoked one cigarette a day, about 5 cents worth at the time, maybe. Of course when I quit, it was 2 packs a day ($2.50 a day at the time, more like $6 per day now). I agree that many folks use drugs and don’t cause much of a problem for others (generally, tho’, I also believe the number is higher than those who would claim that their use isn’t affecting anyone else). So, no, not everyone who tries any of 'em will be addicted. I don’t know that there’s much accurate data about frequency of addiction. Re: the comparison to Prohibition (that gets used every time). My view on that is that Prohibitions’ best lesson is that society goes a bit nutso when a sweeping change is attempted. Hence we’d best be pretty damn certain that the goal and effects of those sweeping changes are worth the pain of getting there before we make them. (ie the sweeping changes re: seperate but equal being bunk, the goal - equality/fairness for all of us - was of serious enough and grand enough value to warrent the risk of social upheaval while dealing with the change. It’s difficult for me to see the same level of value in ‘but I wanna get high’) I guess my position is that the whole thing is a real mess now. And, with my views expressed immediately above, we need to be damned certain about what we’re doing before we take huge risks. So, therefore etc, I’d rather see a decriminalization policy start, and see what happens then. (I also do NOT believe that the drug companies would be willing to see their potential for absurd profits go bye bye by reducing the costs of ‘gettin’ high drugs to a small level. I can hear them now “but we’ll use these exhorbitant profist we’re making off of cocaine to augment our tireless search in research & development department to find drugs to ummm, cure cancer, yep, and and AIDS, too, yea that’s the ticket” - Perhaps if you reflect on what the cigarette manufactures’ responses have been ‘our product kills people - must hide evidence.’ “our product is addictive - yippee! let’s see if we can tweak that up a notch or two” , 'our customers are dying - let’s market to the youth!, you’ll see my concern). ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2001, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-drugs-legal/80200/62 "2001-09-07T21:29:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by GreyMatters \* > \*\*Oh yea, > > It sure is funny how you left out the chocolate analogy. > > Odesity is the most costly health factor in the US right now. It destroys all negative health affects of drugs in its magnitude. Yet, you can plainly see, that it isn’t the deadly chocolate, it is the eater. > > You’re funny, \*\* Maybe the fact that I don’t live in the USA has some bearing on this… ---
**Author:** ![Acco40](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/58956e/32.png) [@Acco40](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acco40)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2001, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-drugs-legal/80200/63 "2001-09-07T21:30:17Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **GreyMatters** _: > > Legalization is being held back by the Older generation. Believe me you, there are just as many young people who feel the same way as the old folks on this. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **SuaSponte** _: > > Second, undoubtedly legalization will increase addiction. Supply will increase, and more people will try drugs. And the percentages noted above will become addicted. And that is a definite cost society will have to bear. And it is an obvious cost. It shows up more clearly than the (greater) benefits gained from legalization - less prison costs, less police costs, increased opportunities for inner city residents, etc. Well, there you go. I’m definetely not sold on the “(greater)” part yet though. You pretty much talked your way through it ----\> That 10-15% of illegal drug users who _are_ addicts gets awfully large when you add enough people to the equation. And you yourself said “more people will try drugs.” And **Sua** , what happens when that 10-15% run out of money? They do not simply say, “awww shucks, no crack this week… I gotta cut back.” No! They _must_ have it, and it is common knowledge that they will go to extremes to get it. **The fact is, not everyone reacts to drugs in the same way.** Some can hold it off to **usage**. For others, the downward spiral leads to **abuse**. **Sua** : Can you tell me what percentage of the American public regularly uses illegal substances? And what percent of first-time users are under 18 years old? (I was unable to find a stat.) The bottom line is this: I want my government to protect me. I do not want to encourage them to legalize substances which inhibit couth behavior in people when operating motor vehicles, and limit responsible, rational decision-making. I do not care what you do in your house. You shouldn’t care what I do in mine. I even smoke up even now and then. It is not you or me I’d worry about. **It’s the 10-15% of users I’m worried about who would be irresponsible about it, and possibly endanger my life.** Have a nice weekend all! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![GreyMatters](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a9a28c/32.png) [@GreyMatters](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreyMatters)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2001, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-drugs-legal/80200/64 "2001-09-07T21:33:02Z")
I know the Netherlands is a different culture, but in that real world example EXACTLY the opposite, by a tremendous amount happened, with drug addiction, crime and violence. So, where are you getting your fear from? Is it that you just THINK there will be more of this, or do you have any real evidence? When Alcohol Prohibition ended there was a slight increase in the ESTIMATED, they had no real data surveys on the subject, use of alcohol form the estimated use during. However, crime and viloence resulting from it ended very quikly. And, the use rates of alcohol went back down to their pre-prohibition estimates within a couple of years. Ya know, I could tolerate a couple of years of addiction increse to take the power away from the murdering, scum sucking, corrupt, theiving, lying, human rights violating police, oops, I mean dealers. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2001, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-drugs-legal/80200/65 "2001-09-07T21:39:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by GreyMatters \* > **I know the Netherlands is a different culture, but in that real world example EXACTLY the opposite, by a tremendous amount happened, with drug addiction, crime and violence. So, where are you getting your fear from? Is it that you just THINK there will be more of this, or do you have any real evidence?** Of course I don’t have any evidence, how could I? - I keep saying, I THINK that an increase in public use of mind-altering substances would lead to an increase in reckless, careless and dangerous behaviour and that it wouldn’t just be the users who would suffer the effects, I can’t prove that, but it seems reasonably logical to me. ---
**Author:** ![GreyMatters](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a9a28c/32.png) [@GreyMatters](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreyMatters)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2001, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-drugs-legal/80200/66 "2001-09-07T21:41:30Z")
Believe you me, where are you getting that from? Pulled it from your hat? Statistically, if you want to ASSUME the populations of the older say, 40 and older, to younger have the same distribution of beliefs, hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, then there are many, many, many, many, many older voters than younger. And, the older crowd has a higher voter turn out. And, I don’t know where you are from but in my part of the world I only know one person out of hundreds of my personal friends under 40 that thinks prohibition should continue. Oh, and I am not a current drug user. So, in my life experience, which I know is hardly a matter of true population belief, the younger crowd OVERWHELMINGLY disagrees with the older. I think I am getting hooked on ALL CAPS. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2001, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-drugs-legal/80200/67 "2001-09-07T21:47:55Z")
I didn’t even understand most of your last post, was that directed at me? ---
**Author:** ![Ferrous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Ferrous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferrous)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2001, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-drugs-legal/80200/68 "2001-09-07T22:00:30Z")
**Mangetout,** > [@](#): > > I’m trying very hard to keep an open mind about this, and you surely understand that most of what I’ve said is opinion based on fears about what might happen, but I don’t think I can stay in this debate in the face of hostility. I apologize for the hostile tone of my last posting. I get excited when I debate sometimes, and I’m rather passionate on this subject. Although maybe you weren’t talking about me. **Gray Matters** seems to be getting a little out of hand. … Actual point of this post:_I just learned how to use the vB codes!_ (I’m still not going to use smilies.) ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2001, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-drugs-legal/80200/69 "2001-09-07T22:03:01Z")
's OK, thanks ---
**Author:** ![GreyMatters](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a9a28c/32.png) [@GreyMatters](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreyMatters)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2001, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-drugs-legal/80200/70 "2001-09-07T22:10:30Z")
Most recent post was to Acco40. Tapswiller, Oh jees, stop being so thin skinned. I was just being flamboyat, or something. Nothing serious. And, I didn’t call anyone any names or anything. Lets relax, smoke a joint and debate. hehehehe ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2001, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-drugs-legal/80200/71 "2001-09-07T22:11:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Acco40 \* > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by **GreyMatters** _: > > > > Legalization is being held back by the Older generation. > > Believe me you, there are just as many young people who feel the same way as the old folks on this. Always the problem - you can’t choose your allies. I know you haven’t yet, but please don’t associate me in the future with any comments **GreyMatters** might make. Thanks! > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by **SuaSponte** _: > > > > Second, undoubtedly legalization will increase addiction. Supply will increase, and more people will try drugs. And the percentages noted above will become addicted. And that is a definite cost society will have to bear. And it is an obvious cost. It shows up more clearly than the (greater) benefits gained from legalization - less prison costs, less police costs, increased opportunities for inner city residents, etc. > > Well, there you go. I’m definetely not sold on the “(greater)” part yet though. You pretty much talked your way through it ----\> That 10-15% of illegal drug users who _are_ addicts gets awfully large when you add enough people to the equation. And you yourself said “more people will try drugs.” Yes, drug users (and therefore drug abusers) will increase. This will occur because of three (or possibly 3 1/2 reasons): 1. The cost will be considerably lower; 2. Access will be easier; 3. The stigma caused by criminalization will be lower; 3 1/2. Hard to quantify, but modern marketing techniques may induce additional users to sample drugs. There is no doubt that legalization will increase use. But as for the “greater” benefits gained from legalization, consider two things. First, when at least 1/3 of the prison population is in the clink for drug-related crimes, legalization will eliminate 1/3 of prison (and prosecutor, and police, and criminal judge) costs. Second, a large portion of drug-related crime (DUI is an obvious exception) is caused by the **cost** of drugs. An addict with a $500/week habit is hard-pressed to support that, and is very likely to turn to burglary, etc. to get the necessary funds. Hell, I, with my ridiculous income, would have trouble paying for such a habit (I can barely afford to pay for the strippers. :)) After legalization, the same habit will cost about $25/week. The incentive for crime will drop radically. A quote from _The Economist_ > [@](#): > > Given the expense of a heavy habit, petty crime is an obvious income source. However, Michael Hough, director of the Criminal Policy Research Unit at the University of the South Bank in London, believes that the link is not simple. Rather, the sort of person who becomes a “chaotic” drug user is also disproportionately likely already to be an “acquisitive offender”: a thief, shoplifter (the addict’s crime of choice) or burglar. “The preconditions for starting on heroin are to be a risk-taker, and to have quite a bit of money,” he says. He points to a study of people arrested in Britain, by Trevor Bennett of Cambridge University, which calculated that the cost of consuming heroin and crack accounted for 32% of criminal activity. > > Where drug use directly harms society, government is right to intervene. But the best way to protect society is not necessarily to ban drugs. If that were the right course, governments would begin by banning alcohol, which causes far more aggression and misbehaviour than any other substance, licit or illicit. > [@](#): > > And **Sua** , what happens when that 10-15% run out of money? They do not simply say, “awww shucks, no crack this week… I gotta cut back.” No! They _must_ have it, and it is common knowledge that they will go to extremes to get it. **The fact is, not everyone reacts to drugs in the same way.** Some can hold it off to **usage**. For others, the downward spiral leads to **abuse**. See above. This argument assumes costs will remain constant. According to the laws of economics (and U.S. experience after the end of Prohibition), they won’t. > [@](#): > > **Sua** : Can you tell me what percentage of the American public regularly uses illegal substances? And what percent of first-time users are under 18 years old? (I was unable to find a stat.) These stats are hard to come by. According to RAND, 87% of high school students have tried alcohol and 45% pot. From another source (which I forget right now), about 1% of the population has tried heroin. > [@](#): > > The bottom line is this: I want my government to protect me. I do not want to encourage them to legalize substances which inhibit couth behavior in people when operating motor vehicles, and limit responsible, rational decision-making. Well then, you should be fighting for the criminalization of alcohol. I mean, we have already conceded, as a society, the “protection” argument. Alcohol kills, both absolutely **and as a proportion,** more of its users than does cocaine. Likewise, nictoine kills, both absolutely **and as a proportion,** more of its users than heroin. As for DUI deaths, I don’t have statistics, but I also have no reason to believe that illegal drugs use presents more of a risk of DUI than alcohol does. And all of this is before we get into the discussion of the fact that Prohibition hasn’t worked. > [@](#): > > I do not care what you do in your house. You shouldn’t care what I do in mine. I even smoke up even now and then. It is not you or me I’d worry about. **It’s the 10-15% of users I’m worried about who would be irresponsible about it, and possibly endanger my life.** A fair concern, but be realistic. Have you been hit by a drunken driver? Will your odds of injury appreciably increase if drugs are legalized? Further, from a philosophical point of view, why should the irresponsible behaviour of 10-15% of a population negatively impact the rights of 85-90% of a population? There are scads of legal instrumentalities, from cars to chainsaws, that present a risk to the population. Why are drugs the ones that are banned? ---
**Author:** ![GreyMatters](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a9a28c/32.png) [@GreyMatters](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreyMatters)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2001, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-drugs-legal/80200/72 "2001-09-07T22:16:40Z")
Paranoia - Self Destroya Relax, my friend and ALLY, Acco was just addressing two things in one post. Do I give you the willies or something? You’re funny too. ---
**Author:** ![GreyMatters](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a9a28c/32.png) [@GreyMatters](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreyMatters)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2001, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-drugs-legal/80200/73 "2001-09-07T22:18:26Z")
You’re still upset because Global Warming hasn’t melted the ice caps yet. ---
**Author:** ![xanakis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/7bcc69/32.png) [@xanakis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xanakis)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2001, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-drugs-legal/80200/74 "2001-09-07T22:58:20Z")
Just one point I wanted to throw in regarding ecstasy: The idea of a person taking one E and dying as a result is a bit of an urban myth. People who die after taking an E die either because they didn’t drink enough water (and danced madly all night in a hot club) or because they drank too much water (like 20 pints or so). They DON’T die as a result of the E tablet itself. I am not aware of any deaths that have resulted as a consequence of a bad E. This is not to say that this hasn’t occurred somewhere in the world but the vast majority of E-related deaths (all of them as far as I’m aware) have occurred because of the water issue. Not, repeat NOT, because of a bad E. We are supposed to be fighting ignorance here, right? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2001, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-drugs-legal/80200/75 "2001-09-07T23:48:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xanakis \* > They DON’T die as a result of the E tablet itself. > > I am not aware of any deaths that have resulted as a consequence of a bad E. As a big fan of E I must say that I would agree, except there are some recent studies which showed brain damage (specifically, damage to nerve receptors) as a result of taking ecstacy, and no-- before you ask-- habitual use wasn’t the factor. Of course, the more you did it the worse it would get, but each use causes damage. Of course, this doesn’t mean death is the result either; but I’d rather be dead than suffer brain damage. ---
**Author:** ![Tr8rJake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/97f17d/32.png) [@Tr8rJake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tr8rJake)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2001, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-drugs-legal/80200/76 "2001-09-08T01:39:18Z")
Hi all. This is my first post, but I’ve been lurking for about a year. Legalization is one of my interests b/c of the harm I see the “War on Drugs” doing to this country. Firstly, there is the matter of drug-related gang violence. But, probably the prime reason for the intensity of the conflict between different gangs and gangs and the police is the fact that there is so much money involved in inter-gang competition and that the traffickers are in fear of imprisonment when dealing with law enforcement. The irony in most cases (cocaine for example) is that the commodity being traded is not intrinsically very valuable. The mark-up on cocaine from the refining plant to America’s streets is in excess of 15,000 times. So the shipment that the DEA intercepts and brags about having a street value of 15 Million dollars, only costs a grand to produce. So you see the futility of trying to stem the tide of drugs into the country. Even if only a few shipments in a hundred made their way through, a resonable profit could still be generated. Meanwhile, Crips and Bloods shoot it out across schoolyards winging the occasional child while Legislators promise harsher sentencing between sips of their socially inoccuous scotch or vodka. But the gangsters have to protect their turf b/c too much money is involved and no matter how many are cut down or locked up, there are always more waiting to take their places. Why? Because the Bloods and Crips may be competitors, even bitter enemies, but, they are symbionts with the DEA. The DEA spends 16Billion a year to eradicate ellicit drugs. The existence of the dangerous gangs and cartels justifies this monstrous budget and only that kind of policing can artificially inflate the price of cocaine to the point that it makes it worth risking life and/or liberty to work in the “industry”. Damn. This is getting long. Secondly there is the matter of OD’s. I worked in the medical field for some seven years and can tell you that the majority of OD’s were a result of someone who was taking what they thought was a “safe” dose of product. Though the mistake is sometimes b/c they were impaired when preparing the fix, often it would not have occured if the drug was legal and thus a regulated product. Legalize for the children!!! Drug dealers sell to kids all the time b/c “Well I’m breaking the law anyway. It’s no less legal to sell to kids so I might as well”. Why would a licenced distributor risk his business and freedom when a adult who can legally buy his wares will be along eventually (not saying they won’t, but the number that do should be more managable that trying to nab all sellers as we do now). Got to go to work now so I’ll beat this dead horse more later. ---
**Author:** ![xanakis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/7bcc69/32.png) [@xanakis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xanakis)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2001, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-drugs-legal/80200/77 "2001-09-08T01:50:48Z")
Erislover - I wasn’t trying to claim that taking drugs is good for you. I was just trying to eradicate this popular myth that seems to be growing that E is intrinsically bad. Alcohol kills brain cells also. One more point while Im here: Your brain has certain natural chemical receptors ie certain chemicals are accepted by the brain straight away. The human brain doesn’t have many of these natural receptors (I think it has receptors for 4 different chemicals). Anyway, respectable research has uncovered that one of these natural receptors in the brain is for THC - the active chemical in marijuana. So we must have been smoking this stuff for a hell of a long time if one of the few natural receptors in our brain is specifically dedicated to it. Having this receptor places marijuana on a higher level even than alcohol which doesnt have it’s own receptor in the brain. Im sorry, I can’t be bothered looking for cites to prove this since I know it to be true (I have a doctor brother and other medical family members) but if anyone else wishes to search, I can guarantee you will find that this is true. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2001, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-drugs-legal/80200/78 "2001-09-08T03:49:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xanakis \* > Anyway, respectable research has uncovered that one of these natural receptors in the brain is for THC - the active chemical in marijuana. Well, I may be incorrect in this but any chemical which is _sufficiently similar_ to the brain’s natural chemicals should be able to bond there: this is why there are multiple variants of the same drugs: amphetamine, methamphetamine, methylenedioxymethamphetamine, mescaline, etc etc… Families of molecules can all have very similar effects. HOWEVER, I am unaware of how this applies THC in particular. But the idea of chemical analogs is why we have so-called “designer” drugs, as well as legitamite substitutes for “regular” ones. Because of this factor I’m not prepared to accept that THC absorbance is an effect, somehow, of evolution (or why being able to accept THC would even give an advantage to survival… munchies maybe :D) ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2001, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-drugs-legal/80200/79 "2001-09-08T03:52:44Z")
I wouldn’t expect that the body, whose cells rely on fatty molecules in their structure, would ever be able to deal with alcohol (a solvent) as anything other than a poison. I am unaware of any solvent that isn’t poisonous. DMSO is semi-safe dermally-- I believe. At least, don’t they use it to give horses medicine? It smells nasty though, couldn’t picture anyone wanting to drink it. Ok, enough hijack. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2001, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-drugs-legal/80200/80 "2001-09-08T04:01:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xanakis \* > They DON’T die as a result of the E tablet itself. > > I am not aware of any deaths that have resulted as a consequence of a bad E. Well, depends what you mean by that. The manufacture of any methamphetamine (which ecstacy is, MDMA, as well as its parent/sister drug MDA) isn’t something that your average schmoe should undertake. But because of drug laws the average schmoe usually does undertake the action, and this can result in some shoddy chemistry. GIGO is a popular catch-phrase in many an industry, and bathtub cookery is no different seeing as it is essentially organic chemistry. There is _at least_ one or two bad chemicals which are a result of the manufacture of meth, and though purification isn’t exceptionally difficult that doesn’t mean a non-chemist would undertake it anyway (if he even knew about it). Leaving these chemicals in can likely be the cause of some bad E trips. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-drugs-legal/80200.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-drugs-legal/80200.md?page=5)