Legalise some drugs, outlaw others?

orr · 20 January 2011

Julia said:
Yes, but why would you want to reduce your chances by using substances that are likely to further reduce your lifespan?

You all go on about how there are not the stats which show illicit drugs to be more harmful than legal drugs. Have you for a moment considered that this might be because a small proportion of the population uses illicit drugs and therefore quite obviously the stats will be skewed accordingly.

If any comparative studies have been done over a lifetime considering the differences in health outcomes betwen those who have used e.g. alcohol and those who have used illegal drugs, I'd be interested for you to offer these.

Plus when someone dies, who is going to front up and say 'well, Mr Coroner, I think it might have something to do with all the heroin, cocaine, et al he has pushed into his veins for dozens of years'?

Are you able to quote controlled, randomised, double blind, longitudinal trials which adequately demonstrate that the long term use of the above drugs do not have a deleterious effect?

Really? I'm sure you will have no problem in providing proof of the above statement.
i.e. a controlled trial showing no more risk in filling your veins with heroin than happening to witness a bar fight.

Quite obviously stuffing your blood supply with the variously horrible substances which the main drug is cut with is going to be potentially lethal, so why in the name of god would you do it???

Is your life so pathetically dull and boring, so lacking in stimulation, that you have to create an artificial euphoria from some synthetic compound?

So what if so called professional people take drugs? Why are you presenting this sad fact as something that you seem to feel legitimises their use?

How do you know what the eventual outcomes have been or will be for these people?

Doctors and dentists, e.g. have no need to access 'illicit' supplies of impure drugs.
They can, and do, very easily access the most pure pharmacological form of whatever they want. All it takes is the dishonesty and lack of ethics to dole out prescriptions for patients who never receive the drugs. Many a drug habit has been so sustained for many, many years. I hardly think your pointing to these people's drug habits as validity for your argument has the slightest drop of merit. They derive their drugs by means every bit as criminal as the pushers.

And further, I can tell you that I've seen the results of this drug use and the eventual outcome is too horrible to describe here.

But, hey, just rock on stuffing your minds and bodies with rubbish. I expect the great Australian medical system will be there for you when you either overdose or experience the inevitable long term results of such abuse.

From the Portugese experence drug decrimialisation has been a success on every social indicater. Probably most importantly Lower over all usage by youth and later take up.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

http://www.economist.com/node/14309861

http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf

As a tangental aside;
Narrated by Jack Thomson the 1994 ABC documentry "Billion Dollar Crop " can now be viewed on youtube in 5 parts, the VHS cost me $120 back then. Spend an Hour to understand Industrial HEMP...

tothemax6 · 21 January 2011

Really, we want to maximize freedom in society, since the ideal society has 100% freedom, not 90% freedom. Freedom of course, being the ability to pursue any course of action you wish to take, so long as it does not violate any one elses rights.

However, it is well known that some drugs cause brain damage and behavioral modifications in people, which cause them to commit crimes. Hence it can be considered that when someone takes these drugs, he is deliberately pursuing an action conducive to crime. This is still considered violation of others rights, since 'safety from violation' is included. I.e. someone firing a machine gun in the direction of a city is still violating rights, even if he hits no one.
Secondly, we have the addiction issue. When somebody takes an addictive hard drug, it effectively causes a form of brain damage, which forces a prolonged drugged-out state due to the constant re-taking of the drug ('the addiction'). The person has effectively destroyed their rationality, and hence could be considered to be 'insane'. The question then is, 'what does self-induced insanity come under in terms of the law?'. Do we submit them to the asylum after they take their first hit, when they have fully entered the addiction, when they have committed a crime to pay for the drugs etc.

Really, the current setup pragmatically deals with this situation, albeit without a strong legalistic basis, and without good consistency (i.e. marijuana should probably be legalized if alcohol is).

prawn_86 · 21 January 2011

Julia said:
Yes, but why would you want to reduce your chances by using substances that are likely to further reduce your lifespan?

Because it's enjoyable.

You all go on about how there are not the stats which show illicit drugs to be more harmful than legal drugs. Have you for a moment considered that this might be because a small proportion of the population uses illicit drugs and therefore quite obviously the stats will be skewed accordingly.

If any comparative studies have been done over a lifetime considering the differences in health outcomes betwen those who have used e.g. alcohol and those who have used illegal drugs, I'd be interested for you to offer these.

I too would love to see a study like this, but due to illegality it can't be done unfortunately.

Are you able to quote controlled, randomised, double blind, longitudinal trials which adequately demonstrate that the long term use of the above drugs do not have a deleterious effect?

As above. I wish i could.

Quite obviously stuffing your blood supply with the variously horrible substances which the main drug is cut with is going to be potentially lethal, so why in the name of god would you do it???

Think about it from a business perspective. If all drugs were cut with lethal 'fillers' then the suppliers would have no customers left. It is in their best interest to use neutral fillers, but occasionally bad combintations do come along. This is where harm minimisation websites come into play and the danger would be removed if legalised.

Is your life so pathetically dull and boring, so lacking in stimulation, that you have to create an artificial euphoria from some synthetic compound?

So based on this comment i assume you never drink and have never been drunk in your life? If not, thats all well and good, but I like to think that I am more open minded to let people do what they want and not judge providing they are not harming others.

I have an amazing life and the euphoria generated from certain drugs is not artifical it is merely heightened. If you take drugs when in a bad mood they will make you feel even worse and vice versa for a good mood.

So what if so called professional people take drugs? Why are you presenting this sad fact as something that you seem to feel legitimises their use?

Doctors and dentists, e.g. have no need to access 'illicit' supplies of impure drugs.
They can, and do, very easily access the most pure pharmacological form of whatever they want. All it takes is the dishonesty and lack of ethics to dole out prescriptions for patients who never receive the drugs. Many a drug habit has been so sustained for many, many years. I hardly think your pointing to these people's drug habits as validity for your argument has the slightest drop of merit. They derive their drugs by means every bit as criminal as the pushers.

My point is that people are going to do it, no matter what the government says. I can think of at least 20 dr's, dentists, lawyers, bankers etc who use more than say 3 times a year. Does the government really want these people to have their careers severely thrown off track if they were ever to get a conviction? (which is unlikely as counselling is usually offered for small possession amounts)

And as an anecdotal studie of the 300 people in my high school class, 250 people in my college year and 50 people in my workforce i would say minimum 40% have tried an illegal substance and at least 20% of the 600 would use illegal substances more than twice a year.

Fact is its here to stay and we may as well look at ways of harm minimisation as opposed to a blinkered view of 'drugs are bad' and locking people up for petty possesion.

sails · 21 January 2011

Perhaps this thread explains why mental illness and depression is on the rise and will likely be in epidemic proportions in the future.

The sad thing with mental illness is that the sufferer is not necessarily aware there is anything wrong or that anything has changed. It's the family and those close to them that suffer.

I believe these mind altering drugs (marijuana included) have the potential to slowly destruct the brain. It is usually not noticed by the user.

Perhaps go cold turkey for a while to find out what damage it is doing to your body and mind. If these drugs were as harmless as has been suggested here, then why is withdrawal such a difficult thing - both physically and mentally?

I wonder if the next generation will so despise their parents stupidity that they won't touch any of this damaging stuff.

Mofra · 21 January 2011

Julia said:
Yes, but why would you want to reduce your chances by using substances that are likely to further reduce your lifespan?

Yet we allow crap like McDonalds to set up shop on every street corner?
Teh average diet represents a far greater killer than substance abuse IMO.

Julia said:
You all go on about how there are not the stats which show illicit drugs to be more harmful than legal drugs. Have you for a moment considered that this might be because a small proportion of the population uses illicit drugs and therefore quite obviously the stats will be skewed accordingly.

As a proportion this is also the case in every study I've seen, with the exception of the mental damage long term Ice users suffer.
Alcohol is one of the few (only?) drugs that attacks every cell in the body.

The cultural bias of having alcohol as a legal drug for decades does not change the safety (or lack thereof) of various substances - if Marijuana was legal and alcohol was illegal, we'd probably have the same people arguing the same case for alcohol remaining illegal.

prawn_86 · 21 January 2011

sails said:
Perhaps go cold turkey for a while to find out what damage it is doing to your body and mind. If these drugs were as harmless as has been suggested here, then why is withdrawal such a difficult thing - both physically and mentally?

Same as any drug. If it doesnt form a habit then going without doesnt cause a problem.

Same as drinking, sometimes i think "oh i feel like a beer" but if i know i shouldnt then i dont have one.

Withdrawal is generally only a problem when addiction has formed and MDMA, cocaine and a host of other synthetic drugs have no active compound specifically designed to cause addiction (such as nicotine is), it is the high/rush that people get addicted to, not the drug itself.

sails · 21 January 2011

Mofra said:
Yet we allow crap like McDonalds to set up shop on every street corner?
Teh average diet represents a far greater killer than substance abuse IMO.

As a proportion this is also the case in every study I've seen, with the exception of the mental damage long term Ice users suffer.
Alcohol is one of the few (only?) drugs that attacks every cell in the body.

The cultural bias of having alcohol as a legal drug for decades does not change the safety (or lack thereof) of various substances - if Marijuana was legal and alcohol was illegal, we'd probably have the same people arguing the same case for alcohol remaining illegal.

Agree, Mofra, including your mention of takeaway food that should only be used as an occasional treat, IMO. To replace otherwise healthy meals completely with takeaway food is possibly a recipe for major health problems later in life caused by nutitional deficiencies.

It is clear that the legal or illegal status of a harmful substance makes little differene to consumption. Perhaps the only thing by being illegal gives customs and police the ability to try and prevent these drugs from reaching out streets. However, perhaps confiscated drugs are factored into the price, so it probably makes little difference. Hopefully the risk of imprisonment for dealers might provide some deterrant.

prawn_86 said:
...Withdrawal is generally only a problem when addiction has formed and MDMA, cocaine and a host of other synthetic drugs have no active compound specifically designed to cause addiction (such as nicotine is), it is the high/rush that people get addicted to, not the drug itself.

Prawn, if it were no more than the high/rush that is addictive, there would be no physical or psychotic effects during withdrawal. These effects can be incredibly significant during withdrawal.

Perhaps you only have occasional use (at this stage), but I think your statement generally shows lack of experience in the real world...

Mofra · 21 January 2011

sails said:
Agree, Mofra, including your mention of takeaway food that should only be used as an occasional treat, IMO. To replace otherwise healthy meals completely with takeaway food is possibly a recipe for major health problems later in life caused by nutitional deficiencies.

It also brings up the point of usage - I know of many people who may take a pill or have a joint 4-5 times a year, as many healthy people see junk food as only an occasional treat. T
here are people that understand the word moderation and are careful with their own health - it's just a shame that personal responsibility is a concept that is being increasingly eroded from modern life (and I do have to wonder how the growing litigious nature of modern society is playing a part in this).

prawn_86 · 21 January 2011

sails said:
Prawn, if it were no more than the high/rush that is addictive, there would be no physical or psychotic effects during withdrawal. These effects can be incredibly significant during withdrawal.

Perhaps you only have occasional use (at this stage), but I think your statement generally shows lack of experience in the real world...

My full quote shows the drugs i was referring to. I know there are plenty of other drugs that do have 'physically' addictive compounds, but if you research you will see that MDMA and cocaine in particular do not have anything in them which addicts the body so to speak; it is only the mind that gets addicted to the dopamine/endorphin rush and in this case it simply becomes mind over matter if one wants to stop (admittedly this is something some people struggle with)

awg · 21 January 2011

No-one has mentioned magic mushrooms?..they should be made compulsory

Heroin is by far the best treatment for end-stage illness, it is a travesty that it cannot be prescribed.

With regard to marijuana, the current drug-testing regime carried out not only by police on the roadside, and also some employers, has unpleasant implications for users of this substance, as my understanding is it remains detectable for a long time, and being illegal, I dont think the excuse of "but I havent had any today" will wash

prawn_86 · 21 January 2011

awg said:
With regard to marijuana, the current drug-testing regime carried out not only by police on the roadside, and also some employers, has unpleasant implications for users of this substance, as my understanding is it remains detectable for a long time, and being illegal, I dont think the excuse of "but I havent had any today" will wash

Again depends on usage frequeny and volume, but yes it does tend to have a longer half-life than many synthetic compounds. You will find a lot of chemical based drugs tend to be completely out of your system within 48 hrs whereas dope can stay up to a week after a heavy session, as far as i am aware, i am far from an expert

Julia · 21 January 2011

awg said:
Heroin is by far the best treatment for end-stage illness, it is a travesty that it cannot be prescribed.

Agree absolutely. An alternative that is used is the Brompton Cocktail comprising morphine, cocaine, alcohol or ideally heroin in place of the morphine.

Julia · 21 January 2011

prawn_86 said:
You could live a 'clean & pure' life and still drop dead at an early age, or be killed in a car crash etc etc. Life is to be enjoyed and to be honest if you are slightly careful the risks are extremely minimal (no more risk than being an innocent bystander in a bar fight). Have a look at some studies and you will see the main damage comes from impurities, rather than the actual active drug that people are seeking.

Still waiting for some substantiation of these claims. Where do you get your evidence that people using pure drug, e.g. morphine et al, or pharmacologically pure amphetamine, are not going to be damaged? Have you ever actually known anyone who has demonstrated a couple of decades of such use and shown no adverse health outcomes? I doubt it. For a start, you wouldn't even be old enough.

prawn_86 said:
My point is that people are going to do it, no matter what the government says. I can think of at least 20 dr's, dentists, lawyers, bankers etc who use more than say 3 times a year. Does the government really want these people to have their careers severely thrown off track if they were ever to get a conviction? (which is unlikely as counselling is usually offered for small possession amounts)

Your naivete is probably not unreasonable for your age I suppose.
I'd like to have a video or two of the number of people I' ve known in the above quoted professions who have wrecked their health, marriages and careers through drug use/abuse.

Every single one of them started out using the drug occasionally/socially, or maybe just as an analgesic for that mother of all headaches.

And as an anecdotal studie of the 300 people in my high school class, 250 people in my college year and 50 people in my workforce i would say minimum 40% have tried an illegal substance and at least 20% of the 600 would use illegal substances more than twice a year.

That's a meaningless comment. You might just as well offer validation for the widespread use of alcohol: i.e. everybody uses it.

The only good thing I can think of about all this superficial commentary is that people do tend to grow out of drug use as they mature. Hopefully you won't do too much damage to yourself in the meantime.

But anyway, as I've previously observed, the good old Australian taxpayer funded health system will be there for you if you find some of your naive assumptions are ill founded.

Garpal Gumnut · 21 January 2011

Julia, I read a study once, and I don't have it to hand, but the researchers reckoned that up to 30% of all suburbs ingested marijuana at least once weekly.

I'd tend to believe this.

I'll search for it and post it when I find it.

Also someone did a scan of all euro currency in Italy and a huge 60% plus, tested positve.

It makes the argument for legalisation and harm minimisation more imminent.

gg

tothemax6 · 22 January 2011

Julia said:
Still waiting for some substantiation of these claims. Where do you get your evidence that people using pure drug, e.g. morphine et al, or pharmacologically pure amphetamine, are not going to be damaged? Have you ever actually known anyone who has demonstrated a couple of decades of such use and shown no adverse health outcomes? I doubt it. For a start, you wouldn't even be old enough.

Correct, anyone who has seen a metho will instantly recognize that the person 'looks like they are the walking dead'. No impurities are causing that. Prawn_86 probably needs to see some photos of methos.

Garpal Gumnut said:
Also someone did a scan of all euro currency in Italy and a huge 60% plus, tested positve.

Yeah notes always test positive for cocaine with high frequency. This is because notes both rub together and change hands frequently, the testing is very sensitive, and rolled up notes make for a good snorter of the ol' Nose Candy.

Anyway, if drugs were legalized, the next thing you would see would be anti-discrimination legislation covering druggos too. After all, it is their life-choice. What gives you the right to refuse to lease them your house, tell your daughter not to date them, or deny them a job at your company? That's discrimination.
It seems that all politics is about nowadays is "how quickly shall we make society worse".

The battle is never about the current issue, it is always about the direction. Every time an inch of ground is given, that becomes the center - to be moved another inch further next time.

Socially, western society probably peaked somewhere around the late 1800s. In tothemax6s opinion, the bear run has a long way to go.

c-unit · 22 January 2011

Julia, you didn't answer Prawn's question about whether you drink or not. If you do, then your arguments against taking drugs for the enjoyment are a little hypocritical I think.

Alcohol is far worse for the body and mind than weed/ecstacy and cocaine.

For the two years after I turned 18, I was into the rave scene pretty heavily and went to raves most weekends (inner city Melbourne clubs like Bubble and 3d, and the festivals like Defqon). I can say from experience that I never saw one single fight or argument at a rave. Everyone is hugging, dancing, high fiving and having an amazing time. Quite a few are swimming around the room looking like space cadets, but who cares, they aren't harming anybody.

The last few years I've stuck to the more traditional nightclub / bar / pub scene, and the difference is stark. There are punch ons, broken bottles and windows, ambulances, I've had blood splattered over me, it's disgusting. Alcohol is a violence inducing drug.

And in terms of long term effects, how many alco's are there in this country? And how many innocent people are killed because of drink drivers? Why is alcohol legal and weed/eccy's/coke etc not?

Legalise it, regulate it, tax it.

c-unit · 22 January 2011

Prawn,

I don't agree with those economic arguments against legalisation that you mentioned:

1. A black market means cash, cash means purchases which in turns means the economy is stimulated. Drug dealers et al do tend to live it large so they spend their money quickly in a llot of circumstances

That cash previously paid for illegal drugs (and thus going to the big spending drug barons) will now go to new legal drug corporations who will pay cash to employees, creditors and shareholders.

The difference is that in the legal scenario, cash will be deposited into banks (which is in turn lent to productive businessses), or used to purchase other goods, rather than purchasing weapons, ammo and prossies as in the illegal case.

2. Employment. Many people are employed/hired through the druug trade

And the new legalised drug industry can employ those same very people. Zero net change.

3. Purchases. Legal products need to be purchased in order to make illegal drugs, once again stimulating the economy.

And those same products will still be purchased by the corporations in producing the drugs legally. Zero net change.

But otherwise, agree entirely with what you are saying. I get the feeling we are of similar age and beliefs.

Logique · 22 January 2011

With you here Kennas and GG.

Nothing stronger than a chilled frosty for me, or an occasional semillon. But all the same, I'd prefer the police to be nabbing petty thieves, housebreakers and road speeders than all this ridiculous and expensive chasing around after green crops grown in someones backyard or roof.

I think we should learn the lessons of history. Prohibition in the US, and more recently decriminalization in Portugal.

Making everything illegal just subsidizes the lifestyles of crooks. People have always used drugs and always will. In the US, the Prohibition years were an enormous stimulus to organized crime.

Sean K · 22 January 2011

The costs of tobacco, alcohol and illicit drug abuse to Australian society in 2004/05
by
David J. Collins Macquarie University
and
Helen M. Lapsley
University of Queensland and
University of New South Wales

Alcohol $15.3b
Tobacco $31.4b
Illicit drugs $8.1b

(nearly $4b of the illicit costs were crime related)

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/drugstrategy/publishing.nsf/Content/34F55AF632F67B70CA2573F60005D42B/$File/mono64.pdf

Not sure if this study puts a figure on pain and suffering associated with family and friends losing loved ones from early deaths, injury, jail, etc.

I suppose one question is the % uptake of the pop in comparison to the cost and what if illicit drugs were legal and carefully managed. They are going to offset the figures somewhat.

$30b for tobacco? eeek!

breaker · 22 January 2011

Reminds me of my father saying "you dont need alcohol to have a good time"

Boy was he wrong

Legalise some drugs, outlaw others?

orr

tothemax6

prawn_86

Mod: Call me Dendrobranchiata

sails

Mofra

prawn_86

Mod: Call me Dendrobranchiata

sails

Mofra

prawn_86

Mod: Call me Dendrobranchiata

awg

prawn_86

Mod: Call me Dendrobranchiata

Julia

In Memoriam

Julia

In Memoriam

Garpal Gumnut

Ross Island Hotel

tothemax6

c-unit

c-unit

Logique

Investor

Sean K

Moderator

breaker

Similar threads

Legalise some drugs, outlaw others?

Mod: Call me Dendrobranchiata

Mod: Call me Dendrobranchiata

Mod: Call me Dendrobranchiata

Mod: Call me Dendrobranchiata

In Memoriam

In Memoriam

Ross Island Hotel

Investor

Moderator

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency