It should come as no surprise that the right answer is treating drug addiction and substance abuse like medical conditions rather than legal ones. The idea that the government should regulate what I choose to put in my own body is preposterous to begin with.
If you want to criminalize something, try starting with the actions that drug addicts take towards others, not themselves. Driving while intoxicated, theft, vandalism and more serious crimes are already illegal and should stay so. It is impossible to violate your own rights; why should making a 100% personal decision be a crime?
"why should making a 100% personal decision be a crime?"
Because that "personal decision" has a huge negative influence on a lot of people. Drug use affects your family and friends negatively, it affects your coworkers, your employer, random people that you run over with your car or attack violently while high, and it raises taxes or insurance premiums since it's very costly to treat drug-related issues at hospitals.
Sure, in the beginning drug use may be a personal decision that doesn't affect too many people - but once addiction kicks in - and it does to a very large percentage of users - your drug use has a hugely negative effect on everyone around you, and even strangers.
Ethanol is so absurdly addictive that you can actually flat out die from the withdraw. No opioid is going to do that.
The only reason ethanol is legal to consume and most opioids are illegal is that ethanol has been with human society for thousands of years. There is nothing rational about it.
Furthermore, it's hardly just "hard drugs" that are currently illegal. Even fucking caffeine is more dangerous than THC...
> Alcohol kills, and so does alcohol withdrawal... The only drug that kills more people per year is tobacco/nicotine, which is also legal.
Perhaps alcohol and tobacco should be prohibited too? (I am not really saying that)
If sometime in the future I invented a substance that was very addictive, would cause people to have altered behaviour (i.e. be more inclined to shop for more of the drug specifically at http://meric.com), and ends up being taken by millions so they shop at my website every day, and one day the FDA comes out and says my drug is now banned because it is a form of 'mind control', will you be against that decision because 'it is your right to put whatever you want in your own body'?
I don't see nicotine being much different, instead of buying only cigarettes from https://www.marlboro.com/ they are merely buying more cigarettes from anywhere else.
I can definitely see the point of view that government shouldn't influence people's private lives. That's why I am not so quick to say I support for/against prohibiting mind-altering substances...
Just saying, I'd hate the idea the that anything have influence over decisions I make, no matter if its the government, alcohol or cigarettes. (Anything, not anyone.)
I think we agree: autonomy is the whole point here.
I'm not sure what you're arguing, but it's easy for me to say I'm 100% against the prohibition of any sort of recreational drug.
The reason I mention the danger of alcohol and nicotine is to point out an inconsistency in drug policy, which purports to ban the "dangerous" drugs and (presumably) allow the "safe" ones. ...at least that's how the scheduling criteria are operationalized in the US. Clearly, that's not the way it plays out in real life, and the disaster of this is people believing the legal drugs are the safe ones.
...but I fail to see the point of your argument, because it's not hypothetical at all. There are legal, addictive drugs in wide circulation, and although I hate the fact that my best buddy smokes a pack a day, I would oppose the prohibition of tobacco... and obviously I would oppose the FDA ban in your hypothetical. ...not exactly sure where that leaves us, but I'll upvote you for taking the time to think this through.
While I agree with the point you're trying to make, that image is pretty useless without some units on those axis and citations for the studies that determined the numbers.
Heroin apparently ranks "almost" a 3 on this graph, the highest shown, but not quite a 3. Why does it fall slightly short? If this is purely comparative then why isn't doesn't the most dangerous drug align with the highest number? And why 3? A scale of 1 to 10 seems like a more common choice for arbitrary scales. And where would something obviously more harmful (like say, draincleaner) fall on that graph? It tells us that Heroin is apparently more harmful than cocaine, but gives us absolutely no indication of how much so. THC ranks as a '1' on this harmful meter. Does that mean heroin is only 3 times as harmful as a substance that nobody has ever overdosed on?
I could construct a similar graph with water, apples, and THC, but it would end up being extraordinarily misleading and just as useless. In fact, the more I think about it, this is probably the worst graphic I've seen in a long time, there are just so many layers to what's wrong with it...
Linking me to the methodology used to create that graphic might be a nice start. At least enough to simply suggest it just wasn't pulled out of somebodies ass...
The point is that it DOESNT MATTER what the scales or methodology was. There is no study or methodology or renumbered axis that will place alcohol to the left and bottom of marijuana. All that matters is that alcohol is above N2O and that heroin is above cocaine and that tobacco is to the right of marijuana etc.
The point I was originally making is that alcohol and tobacco is IN THE MIDDLE of all the illegal drugs in terms of damage and addictiveness and therefore you can't argue that they should be legal or illegal base just on those 2 factors alone.
Here's the study though in case you still want to look at it:
^ Nutt D, King LA, Saulsbury W, Blakemore C (2007). "Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse". Lancet 369 (9566): 1047–53. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60464-4. PMID 17382831.
Human beings have been altering their state of consciousness with various substances for all of recorded history and probably for all time. Mostly use of drugs was in an approved social or religious context that provided structure and meaning to the experience. Certainly, there is always the risk of some kind of harm, but history has demonstrated fairly conclusively that the most harm comes when drug use is illegal. When you take away the social, cultural and spiritual support for the experience. When you create an underground market for drugs etc.
The idea that the government should regulate what I choose to put in my own body is preposterous to begin with.
The abolishment of the FDA seems like a pretty drastic measure by any standard.
However effective drug legislation really -is not about this at all-. As you alluded to in your second point, it should be part of the broader system of minimizing the damage to society. Drugs are harmful -to society- when the criminal element is the sole distributor, when quality and dosages are completely uncontrollable, and price and availability of the addictive ish are unpredictable. Thus it seems the only way to quell the social damage of drug use of for the government to not only decriminalize everything, but to also ensure drugs are given away by community centers with specialized staff.
it should be part of the broader system of minimizing the damage to society
That's certainly one thing it should be about. Whether it is appropriate for the government to decide what substances people are permitted to introduce in to their own bodies is an important question though.
Thus it seems the only way to quell the social damage of drug use of for the government to not only decriminalize everything, but to also ensure drugs are given away by community centers with specialized staff.
Alcohol was pretty unsafe during prohibition, often containing methanol, a toxin which can blind or kill. Legalizing it meant that anyone producing and selling impure, mislabeled or adulterated alcohol could be sued or jailed. The same could be done with other drugs.
It's a good point you make about alcohol, but I think the difference is that the "pure/regulated" alcoholic being sold can be consumed in a safe manner without any physical harm. I don't think a "pure" version of hardcore drugs are safe under any scenario. It's not simply a matter of them being laced with something that makes them dangerous.
Actually a lot of drugs can be full of other toxic substances that are cheaper than the drug itself. One that you tend to hear a lot about is Ecstasy. I don't know how common it is, but I remember hearing that sometimes it could be full of stuff like rat poison, so if you wanted to score some you wanted to have a dealer you trusted, not just some random guy at a rave.
Completely agree, but my point is that even if you score it from a trusted dealer -- the so-called "pure" ecstasy you're getting is still dangerous to your body and mental state, even in the absence of additives.
MDMA does have known harmful effects. So does ethanol, and from what I can tell, ethanol is more dangerous. What would be your argument for maintaining a ban on MDMA and not banning ethanol[0], or do you believe ethanol should be banned as well?
MDMA is not harmful by any reasonable definition. It's possible for overuse to cause problems, it's possible for certain people with specific preexisting conditions to have problems. That's true for asprin as well.
I said "any attempt at prevention", not "making succesful suicide a crime".
IANAL, but, in the UK at least, it's possible for somebody who is suicidal to be locked up for their own safety. That goes against the parent comment's logic that we have the right to do whatever we wish to our own bodies... so I'm not sure the what the issue is with my question.
I think that the logic is that you are 'not in your right mind,' though I suppose you could end up in a situation where drugs are legal, but anyone that would use them is 'not in their right mind' according to the establishment.
The government doesn't "allow" free people (those not in prison, psychiatric hospitals, etc.) to commit suicide; they are free to do so if they choose.
Prevention is orthogonal to what I'm talking about. In fact, I'm all for helping those folks who are suicidal and will accept help. It's a shame that mental disease is one of the few afflictions that you can't admit you have, talk to others about or is even accepted as on par with more physical ailments.
It's tough because a "good" society would seek to help someone to prevent them from killing themselves. Counseling or treatment could help them. Maybe they've tried. Maybe they don't want to. Maybe they're plain tired of living. There are days that I feel bored with life. I would never do something so drastic as kill my life, but relative to many, I'm a spoiled little shit. I can only imagine how bad things could be for some. I hate it when people call those who kills themselves cowards. I couldn't imagine the pain I'd have to be in and the feeling of despair needed to kill myself. It's incredibly sad.
I think there are a few counties that could benefit from this approach of battling ramped drug use. It seems to have done something in Cali aswell as here in Massachusetts, for Mary-Jane that is. I have witnessed a few of my school mates succumb to heavy use of marijuana and some of them have had their problems with the law, but the majority of pot-heads I know can hold it within limits and actually do rather well. I was amazed to see how much drug use there was going to school in boston. Freshman year I would estimate that about 75-80% of people smoked atleast weed and close to everyone drank. To put my estimations into proportion, I must mention that I dont smoke and i cant say I hung-out with lots of potheads.
To the point: I think there is a great number of people that can deal with light drug use in everyday life, but there are some, in my experience mostly bipolar or psychologically depressed people have a hard time controlling themselves. Therefore I think that it may be a good idea for other countries to try similar measures.
It goes into subjects like boundary dissolution, how this is not something that some parties (governments, many religions, etc.) really like.
It also mentions how particular drugs (the ones that make you productive, e.g. caffeine) are the ones that are allowed. Not those which make you snap out of the standard Western materialistic view of the world:
"All the boundaries we put up to keep ourselves from feeling our circumstance are dissolved [when using psychedelics]. And boundary dissolution is the most threatening activity that can go on in a society. Government institutions become very nervous when people begin to talk to each other. The whole name of the Western game is to create boundaries and maintain them."
"The drugs that Western society has traditionally favored have either been drugs which maintain boundaries or drugs which promote mindless, repetitious physical activity on the assembly line, in the slave galley, on the slave-driven agricultural projects, in the corporate office, whatever it is."
I've once listened to this when I was in a skyscraper, looking at the world below.. seeing all those tiny people and vehicles move and pondering about this is really something that puts things in perspective.
Finally, although I don't use drugs/alcohol/caffeine myself.. I too cannot help wondering why one should not be allowed to experiment with ones own consciousness. Why not allow this in a legal, safe, special environment which watches over things?
Perhaps not all drugs are suitable for this, but let's not forget that drugs like DMT, which as McKenna describes give one 'the ride of a lifetime', are naturally occuring in our own bodies... yet they are one of the most illegal things out there.
“We really needed to learn how to prevent and discourage the use of drugs, especially in adolescent years. But you should use tools appropriate to the purpose, and criminal sanctions carried a lot of costs that really weren’t appropriate.”
I've always thought that the war on drugs was fought on the wrong side. That instead of working towards punishing people after the fact, we should have figured out why people use drugs and how to fix that problem. As with most things though, the easy way (prosecution) is the most traveled.
Mental illness is a major factor leading to the use of drugs, either by prescription or not. Lots of people have mental illnesses, therefore lots of people use drugs. Here's the trick: prescription drugs may be sanctioned, but they are not definitely safer, either for the individual or for society.
I tend to agree with you about the "wrong side" argument, but where I disagree is: sometimes, drugs are the fix for the problem. For one individual, maybe meth isn't the answer, but perhaps adderall is (i.e. still an amphetamine, but less acutely active)
Worked for me. Try querying your favorite search engine (Bing) for the opening sentence. I've found news sites tend to like you if you have a search engine as your referer.
"In the end, there was no way to ignore the problem, and no way for politicians to spin it, either"
Ah I meant to be more clear. I didn't mind registering for the site as there is good photography there. And thanks for the reminder on how to find it otherwise.
I don't get the difference between "drug use is legal" and "drug use is decriminalized." It sounds like mere possession is legal, but selling/trafficking is not, I would qualify that as 'drug use is legal.'
Drug use is not legal. It constitutes an infraction of the law and if caught you may be forced to see a psychologist and/or rehab. Decriminalized means there are no criminal penalties. Other penalties may still apply.
Malcolm Gladwell talks about this phenomenon in his book: "The Tipping Point". He calls it the 'stickiness factor'. He analyzes the phenomenon where children begin taking drugs even when they fully understand that it greatly harms them.
Teenagers are inherently, perhaps even genetically predisposed to imitate others and try on new behaviors and attitudes during adolescence. Second, the types of the people who are more likely to engage in dramatic, easily romanticized behavior such as early cigarette smoking or suicide are also more likely to be those that others tend to gravitate toward and seek to emulate.
When Portugal legalized all drugs, they greatly lowered the 'Stickiness Factor' for those drugs.
Strange. I was always pressured to do drugs but refused. I'd always been curious about marijuana, and I knew the actual risks and major lack there of. Sometime in college I tried it, but only one other person knew and with the people I run around with, drug use isn't "cool". It's not as bad for me and doesn't have the morning-after effects of alcohol and considerably less is enjoyable enough to relax in the evenings. I guess I'm more of a minority than I'd assumed.
.svg){kind=link}
If you want to criminalize something, try starting with the actions that drug addicts take towards others, not themselves. Driving while intoxicated, theft, vandalism and more serious crimes are already illegal and should stay so. It is impossible to violate your own rights; why should making a 100% personal decision be a crime?