What if some enterprising chemist came up with a drug that had no side effects other than being extremely addictive? Would it be restricted? On what grounds?
Are you talking about a “street drug”? That is, a drug being produced and sold by individuals, with no govt approval or regulation? I think any new street drug would be banned. It would be automatic. A knee-jerk reaction. The entrenched assumption is that people do not have the right to consume any recreational substance at all, ever – unless it’s government approved and regulated (and taxed).
If being basically harmless (no possibility of death from an overdose, little or nothing in the way of harmful side effects, just gets you peacfully high for a while) were enough to allow a substance to be legal, marijuana would not be outlawed. Heck, marijaua goes past “harmless” into the “beneficial” catagory. It is beneficial for a number of things.
Addiction is a dangerous side-effect in itself, especially when that addiction is sidled up next to poverty. I’d venture to say that petty theft is a much worse side-effect than headaches and diarrhea. Of course, the way to allievate this side-effect would be to create a bottomless supply of the drug and charge nothing for it. But the chance of this happening is zero.
In addition, it also depends on how the drug makes you high. A marijuana-like buzz is a lot different than an acid trip, and so are the implications for society.
Are you talking about something like water here ? It doesn’t seem to do much by itself, but the withdrawal symptoms are hell.
In that case, I think the ultimate legality of the mystery compound would depend on how it was marketed. If the clever folks at coke and pepsi promoted the compound as a new, different and wholesome refreshment, they might very well get the whole country happily addicted. On the other hand, if the drug were promoted through word of mouth in pool halls, video arcades and all night rave joints, it’d be declared a scourge of youth and outlawed post haste. IMHO, at least.
I do not see how being addictive could not be considered a form of harm. If a substance is addictive, a person who is addicted to it, will, by definition, feel bad in some way if they do not have that substance. Making people feel bad is a form of harm. This harm might be outweighed by the subtance’s beneficial properties, but the hypothetical drug of the OP apparently has none as none were mentioned.
What are the benefits of the drug? How does it alter the behaviour of the addicts? (if it makes them more sociable, I might approve).
As soon as this ‘product’ became reasonably well known, a marketer would begin selling a legal, off the shelf imitation. Seeing as the off the shelf brand would be government regulated and therefore ‘safer’, nobody would continue buying it on the street. Do you buy cigarettes “off the street”?
I’d also agree that addiction is a form of harm in itself. If you feel you cannot live without a substance that isn’t freely available [but is available to anyone with the money], then crime (both theft and violent crime) may be inevitable extensions.
It sounds like caffeine to me. It has no confirmed harmful side effects, and yet (I speak as a girl with a bit of a triple espresso habit) it is very addictive. I’ve seen some poeple go through some pretty nasty caffeine withdrawal, and it isn’t pretty. Of course, very few caffeine addicts try to quit because it doesn’t really have a lot of harmful side effects, and it is cheap and plentiful.
I’d imagine that any new caffeine-esque drug would be sold much like caffeine is now. Most likely it would be marketed like “energy drinks” are. It might also be served as a diet supplement. There is a chance that it would be perscription only (if it is a cool drug, there have got to be some theraputic uses for it) but it would be widely perscribed much like sedatives and pain relievers are today.,
Let’s see, Marijuana is 40x more likely to give you lung cancer then "regular cigarettes, also a link between marijuana and skitzophrenia.
But those are just teeny-tiny little “flaws”, right? They aren’t actually harmful.
OH PLEASE.
Cite?
But alcohol is adictive, and tobacco even more so. Most alcohol adicts and vertually all tobacco adicts are able to purchase their preferred substance without recourse to crime.
All these crimes committed by adicts – that’s people adicted to illegal substances. It ishe illegality of these substances that makes them so expensive that people turn to crime to support their habits.
Crusoe said, “But alcohol is adictive, and tobacco even more so. Most alcohol adicts and vertually all tobacco adicts are able to purchase their preferred substance without recourse to crime.”
My reply: All these crimes committed by adicts – that’s people adicted to illegal substances. It is the illegality of these substances that causes the expense level that leads people to turn to crime to support their habits.
WSLer, whatever the dangers of marijuana may be, how about we inform people of any dangers, outlaw sales to kids under 18, and in general, handle it the way we handle alcohol and tobacco.
Apologies for the double post. The first one didn’t seem to be working, so I tried again with fewer bells and whistles (but with an additional comment). Could a mod please delete the FIRST of the two posts? Thanks.
No I didn’t (sorry!), although I take your point about illegality being a key driver of addiction-related crime.
Why did everyone assume that the mystery drug would get you high? I was thinking a substance which if you take it, nothing happens, but if you don’t, then you suffer withdrawl symptoms.
If a drug doesn’t make you high or confer any other benefits, then no one would take it And you seem to be glossing over the fact that withdrawl is a SERIOUS side effect.
Is it mean to say this is a stupid conversation?
Some people are dangerously allergic to caffeine. Personally, if I get too much in my bloodstream, I have to park my butt on a toilet all day. Not pretty.
Why would someone take, let alone buy, a ‘drug’ that had no affect? Would you become addicted to this hypothetical drug after the first dose? Second? Fifth?
I need more info.
These sites don’t explicitly give the statistics as WSLer gave, but I think they will do.
LilShieste
Hm, this sounds remarkably similar to a few drugs that are already on the market legally: air, water, food, shelter, and human affection, to name a few. Addiction to the first three seems to be hereditary, and most people become hopelessly addicted to the last two very early on in life. Withdrawal symptoms include quick death, slow death, very slow death, discomfort, and depression.
Our nation’s youth have become hopelessly addicted to dihydrogen monoxide, a chemical that can be extracted from simple tap water! When ingested in large quantities or used as an inhalant it is almost invariably fatal. We must take action to ban this hideous drug!
Back on topic now… Some people have inquired as to how, if it has no noticeable effects other than addicitveness, the drug in question could be distributed in the first place. Easy: slip it into the nation’s Coca-Cola and Pepsi supply. If the government found out, the soft drink industry would be in big trouble, probably major lawsuits, but enough of the population would be so hopelessly addicted that they couldn’t stop putting the additive into the beverages. Quite a scary thought, if you ask me. I like to drink soda out of free will rather than because I have to. 