# The drugs debate; The final revisitation. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 13, 2001, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-drugs-debate-the-final-revisitation/76098 "2001-08-13T20:31:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Blackclaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e68b1a/32.png) [@Blackclaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blackclaw)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2001, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-drugs-debate-the-final-revisitation/76098/61 "2001-08-17T16:20:13Z")
> [@](#): > > If that logic were truly applicable, tobacco would have been banned years ago. Bah! I’ll put up an anorexic stringy haired sunkened eyed junkie against your cancer patient anyday. Cancer is a terrible disease, but it’s widespread enough that most folks have seen or known folks fighting it. Most folks have not had the opportunity to come face to face with a hollowed out junkie. But of course this is all factless political grandstanding anyway… I’d like to see a study on how many heroin users actually manage to live out meaningful lives. It has always been my impression that a heroin user is basically nonfunctional. ---
**Author:** ![Blackclaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e68b1a/32.png) [@Blackclaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blackclaw)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2001, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-drugs-debate-the-final-revisitation/76098/62 "2001-08-17T16:22:56Z")
Sorry forgot to add in this: Tobacco is facing more and more opposition lately. Many people do not find its casualty numbers acceptable. The idea of bringing in yet another drug that can kill people is not politically possible. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2001, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-drugs-debate-the-final-revisitation/76098/63 "2001-08-17T18:00:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blackclaw \* > I’d like to see a study on how many heroin **users** actually manage to live out meaningful lives. It has always been my impression that a heroin **user** is basically nonfunctional. (emphases mine) You probably meant addicts, not users. 65%-70% of heroin users do not have a problem with their use of the drug. As for how many addicts are functional, I don’t know of any studies, and I would think that that information would be hard to generate - a functional heroin addict is pretty unlikely to reveal his/her addiction (unless he/she is a rock star ;)). That heroin addicts **can** function in society is demonstrated by a pilot project in Bern, Switzerland, as described in this quote from The Economist > [@](#): > > One of the most remarkable projects designed to reduce harm is going on in a clinic two floors up in a side street in Bern, in Switzerland. The clinic is tidy: no sign, apart from covered bins full of spent syringes, of the 160 patients who come two or three times a day to receive and use pharmaceutical heroin. This Swiss project grew out of desperation: an experiment in the late 1980s to allow heroin use in designated sites in public parks went badly wrong. Bern had its own disagreeable version of Zurich’s more notorious heroin mecca, Platzspitz. In 1994 the city authorities in Zurich and Bern opened “heroin maintenance” clinics, of which Bern’s KODA clinic is one. > > It takes addicts from the bottom of the heap. By law, patients must not only be local residents: they must be the addicts with the greatest problems. Christoph Buerki, the young doctor in charge, describes the typical patient as a 33-year-old man who has been on heroin for 13 years and made ten previous efforts to stop. Half his patients have been in psychiatric hospitals, nearly half have attempted suicide, many suffer from severe depression. Given such difficult raw material, the clinic has been remarkably successful. > > First of all, relatively few drop out of the programme, in contrast to most other drug-treatment schemes. After a year, 76% are still taking part; after 18 months, 69%. Of those who drop out, two-thirds move on either to methadone, a widely used heroin substitute, or to abstinence. Two-thirds of the patients, stabilised on a regular daily heroin dose, find a job either in the open market or in state-subsidised schemes. Crime has dropped sharply. “To organise SFr100-200 ($57-113) a day of heroin, you need either prostitution or crime, especially drug-dealing,” says Dr Buerki. Yet a study that checked local police registers for mentions of patients’ names found a fall of 60% in contacts with the police after the addicts started coming to the clinic. At least with this small sample, it is not heroin itself that drives addicts out of society. It is the cost, an undependable supply, and the possibility of withdrawal that makes these addicts non-functional. Sua ---
**Author:** ![Blackclaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e68b1a/32.png) [@Blackclaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blackclaw)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2001, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-drugs-debate-the-final-revisitation/76098/64 "2001-08-17T18:13:53Z")
Thanks for the info. It basically drives home the point that addicts with treatment can function. I would like to see such clinical projects in the US. I did mean users. I guess we might need to define our terms a bit. When you say that 65%-70% of heroin users do not have a problem with their use of the drug, do you mean that they do not require clinical help such as you describe above? Are you claiming that the majority of heroin users can just take a fix now and then with no or little ill effects and just stop whenever they desire without withdrawl effects? Do you have a link to such info? That Economist article you refer to wouldn’t happen to be online would it? I’d really like to read it. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2001, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-drugs-debate-the-final-revisitation/76098/65 "2001-08-17T18:27:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > **Look back to Larry Mudd’s post. With drugs illegal, there is no incentive for drug dealers not to sell drugs to kids - they’ve already committed the crime. If drugs are legal for adults and illegal for kids, there is a legal customer base, and the incentive to sell to the illegal customer base is diminished.** Diminished, but it’s still there. In other words, drug dealers would still have an incentive for selling to kids. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > **Further (and yes, I know this sounds callous), why should the potential problems of someone else’s kid infringe on an adult’s right to do with his/her body what he/she chooses?** That sounds fine for the adult in question, but not for the parents of the kids. In other words, the non-parent may not care, but the parents certainly should. Why should the former’s desires overrule those of the latter? ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2001, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-drugs-debate-the-final-revisitation/76098/66 "2001-08-17T18:42:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blackclaw \* > **Just the illegal stigma of such drugs is enough to deter some people away from doing something that could ruin their life.** Worked for me. Worked for my siblings, too. Granted, not everyone will react the same way. However, the oft-stated claim that “Kids will just do it, legal or not” is clearly false. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2001, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-drugs-debate-the-final-revisitation/76098/67 "2001-08-17T18:58:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > > Look back to **Larry Mudd’s** post. With drugs illegal, there is no incentive for drug dealers **not** to sell drugs to kids - they’ve already committed the crime. If drugs are legal for adults and illegal for kids, there is a legal customer base, and the incentive to sell to the illegal customer base is diminished. > > Diminished, but it’s still there. In other words, drug dealers would still have an incentive for selling to kids. > \*\* Actually, I should amend that. They’d have a diminished incentive for selling to kids _if_ their income goal doesn’t change – in other words, if they remain satisfied earning X number of dollars per month, and have no desire to expand their markets. Personally, I think that’s a questionable assumption. In addition, while the individual drug dealers _might_ have a diminished incentive for selling to kids, that doesn’t guarantee that the drug market itself won’t increase. If legalization leads to an increase in drug dealers (as it surely would), then the customer base among minors would surely increase. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2001, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-drugs-debate-the-final-revisitation/76098/68 "2001-08-17T19:03:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blackclaw \* > \*\*Thanks for the info. It basically drives home the point that addicts with treatment can function. I would like to see such clinical projects in the US. > > I did mean users. I guess we might need to define our terms a bit. When you say that 65%-70% of heroin users do not have a problem with their use of the drug, do you mean that they do not require clinical help such as you describe above? Are you claiming that the majority of heroin users can just take a fix now and then with no or little ill effects and just stop whenever they desire without withdrawl effects? Do you have a link to such info? That Economist article you refer to wouldn’t happen to be online would it? I’d really like to read it. \*\* Yes. The Economist reported that 30-35% of heroin users become dependent. Dependence is defined by the [Merck Manual](http://www.merck.com/pubs/mmanual/section15/chapter195/195a.htm) as > [@](#): > > physical dependence, a state of physiologic adaptation to a drug, manifested by a withdrawal (abstinence) syndrome. In a withdrawal syndrome, untoward physiologic changes occur when the drug is discontinued or when its effect is counteracted by a specific antagonist that displaces the agonist from its binding site on cell receptors. The Merck Manual identifies opioid dependence as follows: > [@](#): > > A strong psychologic dependence manifested as an overpowering compulsion to continue taking opioids, the development of tolerance so that the dosage must be increased to obtain the initial effect, and physical dependence that increases in intensity with increased dosage and duration of use. Those not suffering from dependence by definition do not suffer withdrawal. The Economist survey is online at [http://www.economist.com](http://www.economist.com) . However, it is a pay site - some articles are available for free, but I think the drugs survey they did is part of the pay service. Sua ---
**Author:** ![bgack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecd19e/32.png) [@bgack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bgack)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2001, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-drugs-debate-the-final-revisitation/76098/69 "2001-08-17T19:20:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Larry Mudd \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Blackclaw \* > > **Yes, some people will always choose to use heavy drugs, but why should we make it easier for them to do so?** > > As I cast my mind back through the years to when I was a minor, I recall that if I wanted contraband substances, all I had to do was walk down the block to the theatres-- Plenty of folks out there reciting the mantra “Pot, Hash, Cid…” But man, try and get a case of beer for the weekend! > > Therefore it seems to me that legalization = regulation, and it would serve to restrict minors’ access to drugs. \*\* Agreed. When I was a college student (at several different colleges) under 21, it was FAR easier to get a bag of marijuana than to get a case of beer. I figured the baby boomer ex-hippies would have dropped the ‘drugs are bad’ blanket stigma by now. Do you think this is the only reason that nothing has changed? The lure of extra tax dollars isn’t enough? ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2001, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-drugs-debate-the-final-revisitation/76098/70 "2001-08-17T20:14:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > Actually, I should amend that. They’d have a diminished incentive for selling to kids _if_ their income goal doesn’t change – in other words, if they remain satisfied earning X number of dollars per month, and have no desire to expand their markets. Personally, I think that’s a questionable assumption. > > In addition, while the individual drug dealers _might_ have a diminished incentive for selling to kids, that doesn’t guarantee that the drug market itself won’t increase. If legalization leads to an increase in drug dealers (as it surely would), then the customer base among minors would surely increase. To look at this in economic terms. Currently, the incentive for dealers to deal is high profits. The risk is jail. Selling to children does not significantly add to the risks of dealers. If drugs were legal for adults but illegal for children, dealers would have no longer have the risk of jail if they confined their selling to adults. The added profits of selling to children would have to outweigh the resumption of the risk of jail. Whether it will or not, I don’t know. Sua ---
**Author:** ![Blackclaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e68b1a/32.png) [@Blackclaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blackclaw)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2001, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-drugs-debate-the-final-revisitation/76098/71 "2001-08-17T22:01:45Z")
Okay, I’ve found a website that backs up some of the things posted here by Sua, although some of the data it refers to is a bit dated. [http://www.heroin-information.org/heroin/pages/how\_bad\_withdrawal.html](http://www.heroin-information.org/heroin/pages/how_bad_withdrawal.html) I suppose that my difficulty in understanding drug usage is that I cannot comprehend why someone would want to engage in an unnecessary risky practice for the mere benefit of a temporarily physical sensation. Because despite the fact that the risks of many drugs are overblown, this is still not a healthy thing to do. But then again, neither is my love of large juicy steaks I suppose. But after eating a steak, I’m still in control over my senses. (No, I don’t drink either.) And I’d stop eating steak if it became apparent that it was beginning to affect my chances of living through the next meal. I still don’t feel I’m really any closer to understanding drug use. But let’s move on and began to theorize what happens in a drug legal world. Drugs are legal. Dealers no longer have to hide in the shadows. They stumble out into the sunlight and begin to sell. Perhaps they become as annoying as the panhandlers. Does the violence stop? In time, the drug trade would move into store-shops. In the short term I believe there would actually be an upswing in violence. These folks are not use to friendly competition. Who gets to stand where or set up shop where will be determined by gangs with all the efficiency that the Italian mobs show when it comes to charging protection money. Drug dealers are not going to let Mom & Pop stores simply take their profits away without a bit of heavy leaning. Much of the imagined benefit of legalization is that drugs would become more pure in form thus reducing overdoses and poisoning by less scruplous dealers. But for this to happen there must be some type of quality control and approval process. (Picture in your head a former DEA agent saying “Oh yeah man, this is good shit.” Chuckle and move on.) We can take the funds once aimed at interdiction and move it to this process if we wish but what process do we use? Do we simply label stuff? Is there a level of purity that must be obtained or the drug will not be allowed to be sold? How would we even get this stuff to be inspected? We can’t track what comes in now. How easy will it be for dealers wanting to make a bit more money to label their wares falsely? And what happens as new drugs are created? The FDA takes years just to approve medical drugs, will recreational drugs have a lower standard or no standard at all? Is there a lethality rate that we will not accept? Or do we post a warning label on it, “Recent studies have shown that this kills rats faster than cyanide.” Tough cookies to anyone stupid enough to try it. Someone will. Does the seller now get charged for murder? We can also expect people to enact the “Not in my Backyard” rule. Expect drug sales to be zoned to the poorest districts alongside run-down porno theaters. I don’t expect answers to all these questions. I just want to point out that if the legalization of drugs is seriously contemplated, it is going to take a lot more planning than simply making a blanket declaration. (I’m out of here for the weekend. Everyone take care.) ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2001, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-drugs-debate-the-final-revisitation/76098/72 "2001-08-17T22:13:15Z")
There is no moral case for making it legal for drug dealers to sell to children IMHO. However, in practice, legalizing drugs for adults might have the effect of making them more widely available to children. This is a problem for legalization schemes. ---
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2001, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-drugs-debate-the-final-revisitation/76098/73 "2001-08-17T22:15:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MGibson \* > \*\* > > Drugs are already illegal and I don’t believe any court of law has disagreed. So the burden of proof is on you. It isn’t fair but that’s the way it is. \*\* As a practical matter, yes of course it is, but as a philosophical point I do _not_ accept this. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blackclaw \* > \*\* > > But the government will be expected to pay for the welfare, medical expenses, and burial of those who excercise these personal liberties correct? \*\* Not if I have anything to say about it. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > \*\* > > In addition, there are loving parents who do _not_ want their kids exposed to these drugs, lest these children’s lives be ruined. \*\* I find repugnant the idea that adults must be confined to only those things that are suitable for children. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blackclaw \* > \*\* > > To ensure heroin purity would require the government to have some role in testing it…\*\* Why? ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2001, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-drugs-debate-the-final-revisitation/76098/74 "2001-08-18T01:42:59Z")
Blackclaw wrote, re. government regulation of legalized heroin: > [@](#): > > Addiction, withdrawal, collapsed veins, infection of the heart lining and valves, abscesses, cellulitis, and liver disease would still be a problem for and possible end of a user. I would contend that heart infections would probably become rarer among heroin users if heroin were legalized, due to the fact that legal heroin also means _legal supplies of hypodermic needles_. I was under the impression that a lot of IV drug infections arise because the users have to re-use their own dirty needles. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2001, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-drugs-debate-the-final-revisitation/76098/75 "2001-08-19T05:25:08Z")
Here’s a question that I think might be relevent to my coming to a decision on what I think of all this: do college students’ famous binge-drinking habits occur simply because it’s often illegal for them to do, as some assert? If we lowered the drinking age to 16 or 18, would it stop? I wonder partly because, well, stereotypical fraternity behavior is bad enough without having them roaming the streets on PCP. 🙂 Seriously, though, I believe that if drugs are legalized, things may eventually settle down into socially-accepted normalcy, but first we’d have to deal with a lot of binging as the former forbidden fruit is handed out to all and sundry for cheap. How we’d deal with that long enough for the inital euphoria (no pun intended) to die down, I dunno. Anyway, the process has a lot of work to undergo if advocates want it to come true. Sure, pot is a nice drug to mention, since it’s now partly associated with the sick and dying, but once you mention, say, ecstacy, black tar heroin, PCP, or whatever, then the image thing becomes a tad more difficult, IMO. Now here’s a question: if drugs were legalized, would we see less rainforest being chopped down in South America for use in growing drugs? ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2001, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-drugs-debate-the-final-revisitation/76098/76 "2001-08-19T07:01:10Z")
Perhaps we should consider the fact that America’s war on some drugs causes all sorts of political problems in third world countries like Columbia. The wealth that drugs provide drug traffickers (largely or entirely the consequence of the illegality of drugs) often means that the traffickers are more powerful than the local and even national governments. All that drug money floating around contributes substantially to government corruption (remember when high officials in the Saigon government in Viet Nam were caught trafficking in heroin?) both abroad and in the United States. Pressure from Uncle Sam to fight drugs also means that countries like Mexico and Peru must devote badly needed resources into a pretty much hopeless effort to nail drug traffickers–just so gringos can be protected from their own desire to use drugs. Think about it, folks. You’re a Latin American or Asian peasant whose income is a mere fraction of what an American welfare recipient gets. You can plant beans or rice and maybe make a few pesos or yen. Or you can plant marijuana or poppies and make in a few months an amount of money that would otherwise take you years to get your hands on. _Why should you give a damn that it’s illegal? I sure wouldn’t!_ One of the most thought provoking political cartoons I ever saw was by a Mexican cartoonist whose name I no longer recall. It showed an emaciated, hollow-eyed Uncle Sam with a hypodermic sticking out of his arm sitting crosslegged on a sidewalk. He had a pathetic, dazed smile on his face and held a sign that read: “Help Me Fight Drugs.” ---
**Author:** ![JaxBeachBoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19adc/32.png) [@JaxBeachBoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JaxBeachBoy)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2001, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-drugs-debate-the-final-revisitation/76098/77 "2001-08-19T17:49:19Z")
I know the discussion has leaned toward heroin users…but I would like to bring up Ecstasy(MDMA). It is scheduled with all other class 1 drugs…despite the fact that it is in no way addictive…and all studies regarding short/long term damage from its use are inconclusive or incomplete. I was the typical “frat boy”…get very drunk…get into fights…get loud…sleep with girls i would never think of when sober…then I tood MDMA for the first time… I have since stopped drinking…I have completely changed my life… when I roll(the term for being on MDMA), I have no desire to get in a fight, to act stupid, or to have sex with unknown strangers… yet the government is imposing greater and greater regulations on this drug, which was once available to psychiatrists as a prescriptive medicine. MDMA, is in effect, impossible to overdose on…when you see the headline"raver takes X, dies" the chemical analysis always ends up showing that what the person bought was in fact another drug. Government regulation? I’m all for it pertaining to X…it would clean up the bogus stuff. Plus, think of the revenue 🙂 Make a pill for 1-2 bucks…sell it for 15-20. ---
**Author:** ![Blackclaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e68b1a/32.png) [@Blackclaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blackclaw)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2001, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-drugs-debate-the-final-revisitation/76098/78 "2001-08-20T11:42:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein \* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Blackclaw \* > > \*\* > > > > To ensure heroin purity would require the government to have some role in testing it…\*\* > > Why? \*\* Why test it? Because varying amounts of purity are a high contributing factor to overdoses. Why should the government be the ones to do the testing? Because they would not favor any given dealer. A nongovernmental body could be set up to provide impartial testing results if a way can be found to fund it. We certainly could not trust dealers themselves to correctly identify what level of purity their drug is and what other chemicals have been mixed with it? ---
**Author:** ![Blackclaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e68b1a/32.png) [@Blackclaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blackclaw)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2001, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-drugs-debate-the-final-revisitation/76098/79 "2001-08-20T11:43:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JaxBeachBoy \* > \*\*MDMA, is in effect, impossible to overdose on…when you see the headline"raver takes X, dies" the chemical analysis always ends up showing that what the person bought was in fact another drug. > \*\* Do you have any evidence of this? ---
**Author:** ![dude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f19dbf/32.png) [@dude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dude)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2001, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-drugs-debate-the-final-revisitation/76098/80 "2001-08-20T11:46:50Z")
My doctor says they are all bad for you. BUT so is alchol and tobacco… perhaps if well drugs in little packets with ‘warning’ labels it would be ok. mmmmmmmmmmm [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-drugs-debate-the-final-revisitation/76098.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-drugs-debate-the-final-revisitation/76098.md?page=5)