Would the U.S. outlaw a drug just because it was fun?

[Beltane]

Say somehow a scientist created a recreational pharmaceutical that had effects that resembled an approximation of all the best parts of heroin, cocaine, lsd, ketamine, etc, but definitely a powerful psychadelic kinda thing. Not something like alcohol.

Now say that it came in a pill and that medically, somehow, this was the best and only way to take it.

Now say that when a user took the drug, their skin turned a temporarily bright orange color that lasted for the duration of the drug, which could be chosen by dosage from 1 - 4 hours. No one could hide the fact that they were under the influence.

Now lets say that somehow it was impossible to O.D. and proven to have no long- or short-term side effects.

Assume everything else that could go wrong was considered and resolved successfully.

So if such a wonder drug existed, and had no positive OR negative side-effects, but were just fun.

Would the U.S. govt. allow such a drug to be legal? Would it be prescription? What reason(s) could they come up with to make it illegal?

The govt. says drugs are illegal because they're dangerous, and to some degree they're right on some levels. But mostly I think that these days they'd make something illegal as soon as they could figure out how just because it's fun.

Thoughts?

- Beltane

Reputation Comments on this post:

	This post was interesting and creative aswell,does make you think.
	Thought-provoking post...

[Heretic.Ape.]

Absolutely. The moralistic trip from which the "drugs are bad" advocates get their juice from is based on the old puritin view of austerity--that pleasure is basically wrong and indicitive of wasting time not feeling bad about being a sinner. This is still very much a part of the American collective psyche today regardless of its incongruency with modern views. The drug war is an American based notion. If it were really safety and social/health risks that were at the heart of drug policy then it would be centered around treatment, regulation of substance purity, education, and that sort of thing as opposed to religating it to the realm of criminal oversight, where it wreaks true damage.

[Mona Lisa]

Originally Posted by heretic.ape.

Absolutely. The moralistic trip from which the "drugs are bad" advocates get their juice from is based on the old puritin view of austerity--that pleasure is basically wrong and indicitive of wasting time not feeling bad about being a sinner. This is still very much a part of the American collective psyche today regardless of its incongruency with modern views. The drug war is an American based notion. If it were really safety and social/health risks that were at the heart of drug policy then it would be centered around treatment, regulation of substance purity, education, and that sort of thing as opposed to religating it to the realm of criminal oversight, where it wreaks true damage.

I agree.

[Nature Boy]

I agree. Just look at methaqualone back in the 70's. Very few side effects, if any, on moderate doses and it worked relatively safely with alcohol. Issues involving tolerance and "dependance" are still highly debatable. Then there's cannabis of course. Virtually harmless, natural, benign plant but highly illegal. Of course the tobacco and alcohol companies ensure it remains illegal but who ever refused a joint after having a beer or vice versa.

[JohnnyTheFox]

Yes, it would be banned no doubt, probably in a heartbeat before anyone could prove that it was harmless. Marijuana was banned like that, in 1937, due to anecdotal evidence that it caused "murder, insanity, and death", and can be seen as a racist measure against Mexicans as well as trying to protect paper and plastic industry from the growing field of hemp products.

Reputation Comments on this post:

I'm with you on this one

[beena]

Originally Posted by JohnnyTheFox

Yes, it would be banned no doubt, probably in a heartbeat before anyone could prove that it was harmless. Marijuana was banned like that, in 1937, due to anecdotal evidence that it caused "murder, insanity, and death", and can be seen as a racist measure against Mexicans as well as trying to protect paper and plastic industry from the growing field of hemp products.

I agree 100%.

[zera]

Guys, its all about marketing when it comes to drugs. If you start selling the drug on a sketchy website and raving on the description: dudz this will make you trip balls, of couse it will eventually get banned once it becomes illegal.

If a chemist on here comes up with some sort of alcohol-replacement thats minorly psychedelic get in contact with me, Ill set you up with a super-premium DC lobbying firm (buy off some congressmen) and start a PR campaign spinning the new compound (dont use the term drug) like alcohol, but safer. Once we start giving it away in upscale clubs in LA, NY, Miami, and Vegas places where the rich, beautiful and fabulous hang out it will spread like wilefire. This is exactly the same formula that made the owner of Red Bull become one of the richest men in the world.

And you cant distribute it in a pill, that will make people think its sketchy. Put it in a can, flavor it, and mix it with vitamins and electrolytes and shit. Its all about making it seem like just another energy drink. That was the fundamental flaw with GHB, people drink little capfuls like sketchy-ass druggies (unfortunately thats how the world views our community) and roiders and ravers were its biggest promoters (both viewed as freaks by the mainstream). If GHB would have been dilluted enough so that you would have to drink a few cans to get a buzz, with the right marketing and the right lobbying, we could have been buying it at 7-11 today. Shit I think Im going to do this with phenibut.

Reputation Comments on this post:

good point

[darawk]

Originally Posted by zera

And you cant distribute it in a pill, that will make people think its sketchy. Put it in a can, flavor it, and mix it with vitamins and electrolytes and shit. Its all about making it seem like just another energy drink. That was the fundamental flaw with GHB, people drink little capfuls like sketchy-ass druggies (unfortunately thats how the world views our community) and roiders and ravers were its biggest promoters (both viewed as freaks by the mainstream). If GHB would have been dilluted enough so that you would have to drink a few cans to get a buzz, with the right marketing and the right lobbying, we could have been buying it at 7-11 today. Shit I think Im going to do this with phenibut.

SWIM was contemplating doing this with phenibut. The main problem he saw was that extremely long onset time though. Maybe a supplement like dimethylamylamine or rhodiola rosea would be better suited.

[darawk]

Psychedelics? At least with marijuana they can make claims about lung damage or mild temporary cognitive impairment. There are ZERO side effects to most psychedelic drugs.

[Paracelsus]

Originally Posted by darawk

There are ZERO side effects to most psychedelic drugs.

Try to tell that to a person who has an aneurysm and dies while smoking DMT. Or to a DOx overdose victim. And these are only physical side effects. I won't go into psychological ones.

Back on topic: The puritans CAN'T accept drugs. You can't make them accept ANY psychedelic (even if perfectly safe), as long as they are trying to get rid of alcohol and tobacco. Drugs have to be replaced by going to church.

[darawk]

Originally Posted by Paracelsus

Try to tell that to a person who has an aneurysm and dies while smoking DMT. Or to a DOx overdose victim. And these are only physical side effects. I won't go into psychological ones.

I said "most". Obviously the stimulant psychedelics have similar risks to other stims. How many people have died from an LSD overdose? Or shrooms? Or mescaline? Even most of the "research chemical" psychedelics appear to be relatively safe.

As for aneurysms from DMT, that certainly seems possible because it elevates blood pressure somewhat significantly, and probably also causes vasodilation and vasocontriction in various places in the brain(as do all 5-ht2a psychedelics), but I can't find any reports of anyone actually getting an aneurysm from DMT.

[Swimster]

C'Mon "BELTANE", living in the U.s - as do I - You should know just how jellious the Government can get dude!!!

The U.S gov can also be IGNORANT!

[Nicaine]

Originally Posted by Beltane

Say somehow a scientist created a recreational pharmaceutical that had effects that resembled an approximation of all the best parts of heroin, cocaine, lsd, ketamine, etc, but definitely a powerful psychadelic kinda thing. Not something like alcohol.

Now say that it came in a pill and that medically, somehow, this was the best and only way to take it.

Now say that when a user took the drug, their skin turned a temporarily bright orange color that lasted for the duration of the drug, which could be chosen by dosage from 1 - 4 hours. No one could hide the fact that they were under the influence.

Now lets say that somehow it was impossible to O.D. and proven to have no long- or short-term side effects.

Assume everything else that could go wrong was considered and resolved successfully.

So if such a wonder drug existed, and had no positive OR negative side-effects, but were just fun.

Would the U.S. govt. allow such a drug to be legal? Would it be prescription? What reason(s) could they come up with to make it illegal?

The govt. says drugs are illegal because they're dangerous, and to some degree they're right on some levels. But mostly I think that these days they'd make something illegal as soon as they could figure out how just because it's fun.

Thoughts?

- Beltane

My first thought was yes, it would be immediately outlawed. But then I thought about the huge pharmaceutical conglomerates and their insatiable greed, political connections and substantial dominance over the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

If it were picked up by a pharmaceutical company early on, chances are excellent it would pass every review stage and be approved by the FDA, perhaps as 'incredible, new, novel' treatment for depression and other mood disorders... not to mention whatever other 'mental illness' translated to unhappiness of one sort or another. Hell, it'd probably get prescribed off-label for anything even *remotely* related to mental health. "Acute Atypical Dysthymia" (boredom), anyone?

Since it would probably be psychologically addictive to some degree, I'm sure the DEA would push for scheduling and get it, probably C-III or C-IV. Maybe knocked back to C-5 eventually through pharmaceutical industry lobbying.

Dollars would flow like a tsunami. Naah, no chance in hell it'd be outlawed, at least in the USA. Nothing with that much cash-flow potential ever gets outlawed in the U.S.

[grandbaby]

Originally Posted by Nicaine

Naah, no chance in hell it'd be outlawed, at least in the USA. Nothing with that much cash-flow potential ever gets outlawed in the U.S.

Nicaine, are you nuts? All currently illegal drugs have huge cash-flow potential, and they're all, well, illegal. *big breath* and annutherthing! *cough* [puts the brakes on usual rant about economic benefits of ending prohibition. General applause is heard.]

But you're durn tootin' right about this: if the drug were developed by a pharmaceutical company, they'd push it through the approval process without a hitch. Deep pockets make fast friends.

[hoodabudda]

Originally Posted by grandbaby

Nicaine, are you nuts? All currently illegal drugs have huge cash-flow potential, and they're all, well, illegal. *big breath* and annutherthing! *cough* [puts the brakes on usual rant about economic benefits of ending prohibition. General applause is heard.]

But you're durn tootin' right about this: if the drug were developed by a pharmaceutical company, they'd push it through the approval process without a hitch. Deep pockets make fast friends.

this is a pharm so its not going to be able to be controlled in any way by the drug lords which means the us pharm company can make 10 billion a year off it for 7 years till the patent runs out or they make a d isomer to get another patent or w/e. it would be a gold mine.....more like a platinum/silver/gold/diamond/oil mine all rolled in one.its effects mimic all the most profitable drugs out there. we know that most people cant moderate use of coke/h/or w/e alone let alone all in one. mass addiction would happen,cuz anything thats fun or entertaining can be abused(dirtbiking,porno,weed) and after a while the drug would get boring and plain old sober life would be untolerable,then this drug state of mind would be the norm and to not be bored with the same feeling another plateau would have to be reached....ever read farenheit 451?

[Nagognog2]

On a similar note:

http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31363

[Nagognog2]

This happened with several substances already. I'll cite this one: DOET (2,5-dimethoxy-4-ethylamphetamine). In 1983, Lester Grinspoon wrote about this substance in a very positive light in his book Psychedelic Drugs Reconsidered. Lester is a very famous Harvard Medical psychologist - sort of the sane replacement for Tim Leary & Co.

At the time, no one had ever heard of DOET outside of a small circle of friends (Shulgin had invented it). And it never was even introduced to the underground market. But before that book even hit the bookstores - it was Schedule I. Just like that.

So this goes to show that they would jump on something sight unseen. Leave alone it ever was put out for sale. If you ever find something wonderful - keep your big mouth shut!

[stoneinfocus]

Originally Posted by Nagognog2

This happened with several substances already. I'll cite this one: DOET (2,5-dimethoxy-4-ethylamphetamine). In 1983, Lester Grinspoon wrote about this substance in a very positive light in his book Psychedelic Drugs Reconsidered. Lester is a very famous Harvard Medical psychologist - sort of the sane replacement for Tim Leary & Co.

I think Leary could have been replaced by any name and person that would have been the proven sane of mankind and still, the same things would have happended to this person, like they happened to Leary?

What he did, was just starting a harmless examination of a drug, as it´s still done today for i.e. asthmatics and if there´s a population that wants to take part. most of them will get it, if they apply to the studies conduct, and that was what it was with LSD back then.. a research chemical as something like today can be had as Viagra or Melanotan or Growth hormones, or IGF, just that this one was mind altering and used accordingly and struck all conservatives as a sin to mankind and god and body´s nature.

[Triple7]

Sometimes SWIMs mind dreamt: "What if the president himself is a drug lord and gunrunner?". Lot bigger than Escobar. Lot of money to make when things are forbidden. Say 'FORBIDEDN!' to drive up market prices.

When I saw the topic " Would the U.S. outlaw a drug just because it was fun?" I thought immediately 'Yes' because sex is illegal in USA. In some states blowjobs are forbidden, in some other state french kissing is forbidden and in some state it is forbidden if the woman is on the top. There are lot more laws than this. So, if all these are forbidden... then by all means drugs must be forbidden too.

[Nagognog2]

Kids have been given lobotomies in the USA for rocking in their chairs in a classroom - said to mimic masturbation! One I knew was promptly shipped to the school psychiatrist (and promptly drugged) for rubbing his eyes.

[Paracelsus]

Getting an aneurysm from DMT is unlikely. But if one already has one in the brain/stomach (an aneurysm is a damaged vessel which dilates and turns to a blood-filled bag), DMT would most likely kill that person.

Sorry for the off-topic posts.

Reputation Comments on this post:

This post may save lives

[Bajeda]

If it was patented by a pharmaceutical company it would stay legal and be sold for a ton of money.

If someone cooked it up in a lab and it became popular before being patented, it would become illegal pretty damn fast.

[Nagognog2]

Umm....Delysid (LSD-25) was patented by a major pharmaceutical company - Sandoz.

[Bajeda]

They marketed it all wrong though. They were providing it to actual researchers before it became illegal, the pharmaceutical companies of today wouldn't make the same mistake. They would find some possible use for the substance and sell it off for that purpose, even if it has plenty of recreational potential, like amphetamines today. They are doled out like candy to kids, and benzos aren't too hard to get from many doctors either.

If the substance wasn't addictive though, maybe they wouldn't bother...

[Nagognog2]

Then explain such as Prozac? If you customer stops taking it, he/she might kill a bunch of prospective customers. Or is this to say the dead weren't likely to become customers - and their demise was a fitting end to bad trash?

Fascinating marketing concepts 101.