International - Positive side effects of drug prohibition?

[Pondlife]

We could talk all night about the negative effects of drug prohibition, aka the "war on drugs", but are there any positive side effects?

For example, the prohibition of alcohol in 1920s America resulted in the birth of many of todays famous cocktails, whos original purpose was to make the rough bathtub gin drinkable.

Could it be that many of today's RCs have only been discovered because of prohibition? As they say, necessity is the mother of invention. When the war on drugs as we know it finally comes to an end, will people look back and say "yes, those times were bad, but look at all the ingeneous stuff they came up with"?

[Mint boi]

well as they say retrospect is 20/20, but right now i really cant see much positives to drug prohibition, i guess theres an argument to the whole rc side of things, i mean would we have lsd if drugs had been legal when it was first synthesised?

[bcubed]

It's taught many a person to have a healthy skepticism whenever gov't elects to regulate us "for our own protection." Other than that, I guess if one's a cop or a dealer, it's keeping them employed.

[darawk]

Originally Posted by mint boi

well as they say retrospect is 20/20, but right now i really cant see much positives to drug prohibition, i guess theres an argument to the whole rc side of things, i mean would we have lsd if drugs had been legal when it was first synthesised?

Um...yes? Most drugs were legal when LSD was first synthesized. And LSD was made in a pharmaceutical lab, it wasn't designed to be a recreational drug.

As for the question of RCs, I don't think prohibition has done anything to enhance the science of research chemicals. If these drugs were legal, this research would have been done years ago by pharmaceutical companies and there would be a much wider array of "research chemicals" available, and most of them would be much more "researched" and well understood.

Reputation Comments on this post:

good post

[trptamene]

Originally Posted by darawk

As for the question of RCs, I don't think prohibition has done anything to enhance the science of research chemicals. If these drugs were legal, this research would have been done years ago by pharmaceutical companies and there would be a much wider array of "research chemicals" available, and most of them would be much more "researched" and well understood.

^^^exactly;

Seems like Shulgin mostly opened the door for RC's and this interest of his came not from drug prohibition, but actually from being in a war for the same country these drugs are now illegal in; ironic?

If these drugs were never prohibited people would know now what they are taking when they order whatever random chemical from whatever random vendor and decide to research it themselves; all of which is very unscientific and does not add much to our knowledge of the subject, as most of what any of these people discover will probably not see the light of day, and will not be accepted by many in the scientific community without some type of guidelines and/or protocols.

As for the topic; positive side effects? I draw a blank...

[enquirewithin]

Originally Posted by trptamene

^^^exactly;

Seems like Shulgin mostly opened the door for RC's and this interest of his came not from drug prohibition, but actually from being in a war for the same country these drugs are now illegal in; ironic?

If these drugs were never prohibited people would know now what they are taking when they order whatever random chemical from whatever random vendor and decide to research it themselves; all of which is very unscientific and does not add much to our knowledge of the subject, as most of what any of these people discover will probably not see the light of day, and will not be accepted by many in the scientific community without some type of guidelines and/or protocols.

As for the topic; positive side effects? I draw a blank...

I am not sure what you maen by Shulgin's interest in psychedelics coming form being in a war? Also, even if drugs were not prohibited, why would they just be random chemicals. If they were not prohibited, we would have much more information about them.

[podge]

Positive effects of drug prohabition.....very tricky......perhaps this Forum. Or maybe it would exist eitherway. Meeting lots of new friends through the underground drug culture, wheter it be at home or abroad.

But who knows the people swim could have met by now if everything was legal. This question is confusing swim.lol

[Rio Fantastic]

Didn't injecting drugs come about as a result of drug prohibition? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that people began injecting drugs to make there supply last longer, and they wanted to make the supply last longer because it would be hard to find more of the drug or because they couldn't afford anymore - both of these circumstances came about as a result of drug prohibition.

[grandbaby]

The ONLY positive side effect I can think of from the prohibition of (some) exogenous drugs is that because the illegal market is pretty much unregulated, it's easier for teenagers to get their hands on pot and LSD and so on.

Why is this a positive? It keeps them from huffing gas and sniffing glue, which WILL fuck them up.

I'd rather have kids on pot than on booze, too. And because the liquor market is regulated (*whew!*), it is much more difficult for teenagers to get their hands on booze than on pretty much anything illegal. And most kids (at least the ones I know) tend to stick to pot and psychs rather than "hard" drugs (I know, I know, it's a meaningless category). If all exogenous drugs were legalized, regulated, and age-controlled (as I firmly believe they have to be), then kids'd have a harder time getting their hands on them, and many more would turn to crap like solvents to get off than do now. This is actually a thorn in the side of my argument against prohibition ... though not, probably, the kind that the pro-prohibitionists are looking for (i.e. prohibition is supposed to protect our kids from "drugs", not make access to them easier).

Other than that, I come up blank.

[trptamene]

Originally Posted by grandbaby

it's easier for teenagers to get their hands on pot and LSD and so on.

hmmm, I would tend to disagree. Both booze and cigarettes are "regulated" but it is very ease for kids to get ahold of them. SWIM has never been able to get ahold of LSD and thinks that if it were age regulated this would be another story as he has found it easier to get booze and even prescription drugs than illicit drugs (other than pot vs. prescriptions), but even then, booze is easier to get than pot. In addition, if these drugs were regulated, they would come with some kind of controls such that people knew what was in it. Poor people gettin their blotters thinkin its not working, then double or triple dosing, only to find out later they are in for quite a ride with the high dose of DOx they just ingested.

[UberDouche]

A positive effect might be forcing some individuals to take a closer look at one's government and its ruling body(ies). In the USA, for example, there are some who, even though opposed to illicit drug use, see the police state that is evolving concommitantly with the erosion of constitutionally ordained rights due to the 'war on drugs'. Any stimuli that causes one to more closely examine one's life and times in these United States (or any other place on earth), is a good thing provided that it leads to action and not just talk.

[Alfa]

Supply and demand: with the demand for legal drugs always being there, the prohibition of drugs, will automatically lead to the supply of new legal drugs. Since most good drugs seem to eventually get banned, this is a never ending circle. Drug prohibition is actually lining up our future drugs.
Example: I rather doubt that so many new research chemicals would have been synthesized and made commercially available if 2C-B would still have been legal. Would BZP and other piperazines be widely available if MDMA would be legal? I think not. So i think it's not only the appearance of new drugs, but also the wide array of available drugs that are caused by drug prohibition.

And the same thing can be said about precursors and synthesis routes. Drug prohibition is forcing chemists to be more creative. To invent new techniques. Yes, it annoying that the easy & obvious routes are cut off, but it does make clandestine drug chemistry as a whole more advanced. And in several cases that has a effect on price: ecstasy for example has become much cheaper over the years.

[grandbaby]

Originally Posted by trptamene

hmmm, I would tend to disagree. Both booze and cigarettes are "regulated" but it is very ease for kids to get ahold of them. SWIM has never been able to get ahold of LSD and thinks that if it were age regulated this would be another story as he has found it easier to get booze and even prescription drugs than illicit drugs (other than pot vs. prescriptions), but even then, booze is easier to get than pot.

Wow. This is the opposite of SWIM's youthful experiences. He was into pot and acid long before he got into booze, mainly because the supply chain was easier to break into. Once he came of age, he did a lot more booze than illicits.

Originally Posted by trptamene

In addition, if these drugs were regulated, they would come with some kind of controls such that people knew what was in it. Poor people gettin their blotters thinkin its not working, then double or triple dosing, only to find out later they are in for quite a ride with the high dose of DOx they just ingested.

Full agreement. If you read other posts of mine in other legalization-related threads, you'll see that one of my favourite arguments for full legalization of all drugs, a policy I fully support, is one of harm reduction and personal safety: the fact that users can never be 100% sure what's in their supply of illicit drugs (save if they grow pot and other ethnobots themselves) is a tremendous health risk, etc., etc., but this thread was asking for benefits of prohibition ... and I gave the only answer I could think of.

If you (or SWIY) is correct that regulation makes it easier for kids to get hold of substances, then my worries that ending prohibition will drive kids to solvents are moot (and I'd never be more pleased). It's a point one could argue forever, probably: how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? But there was my 2¢.

[stoneinfocus]

One good thing is, several thousands of chronic pain sufferers will commit suicide per year (3000/y in FRG) because the mean time of getting a pain therapy is 8 years.

So they don´t have to take-in the deadly menace of pain medication, that will lead to death, and will be relieved of all their problems, by taking their misery to an end, in an efficient way.

[Trebor]

Originally Posted by Alfa

Example: I rather doubt that so many new research chemicals would have been synthesized and made commercially available if 2C-B would still have been legal. Would BZP and other piperazines be widely available if MDMA would be legal? I think not. So i think it's not only the appearance of new drugs, but also the wide array of available drugs that are caused by drug prohibition.

Wasn't BZP originally used as a agricultural drug? So really, it was not born out of prohibition.

[Alfa]

Originally Posted by Trebor

Wasn't BZP originally used as a agricultural drug? So really, it was not born out of prohibition.

Please explain. What does that have to do with it being widely used as a XTC/ amphetamines alternative? It would probably still onle be used as a agricultural drug if MDMA would still be legal.

[Bajeda]

Originally Posted by Alfa

And the same thing can be said about precursors and synthesis routes. Drug prohibition is forcing chemists to be more creative. To invent new techniques. Yes, it annoying that the easy & obvious routes are cut off, but it does make clandestine drug chemistry as a whole more advanced. And in several cases that has a effect on price: ecstasy for example has become much cheaper over the years.

Thats what I feel.


Also, would this forum be here if drugs were completely legal? If it were, would it be as active as it is now? Where would we be getting our sources of information about these substances?

[darawk]

Originally Posted by Bajeda

Also, would this forum be here if drugs were completely legal?

Of course it would be. Every legal activity/hobby has a forum on the internet, why would drugs be any different?

Originally Posted by Bajeda

If it were, would it be as active as it is now?

Are you serious? How could it not be? Millions of people use drugs even though it's a crime, we can only assume it would be far more widespread an activity if it were legal.

Originally Posted by Bajeda

Where would we be getting our sources of information about these substances?

The medical establishment and an unbiased(because they wouldn't have any particular interest in it) government, probably.

[trptamene]

Originally Posted by darawk

The medical establishment

I agree here, if drugs were legal there would be much more studies done using them and more information would be out there, and it would also be more scientific in nature. Most, but certainly not all, the information on sites like this come simply from a single persons experience with these substances and how they affect those close to them. The majority of this information has little to no scientific basis and there are too many variables to say "this is the way it is". There can certainly be a consencus on certain subjects among the community, but there is no raw data to back up many things. If drugs were legal we would have this type of data and people would really know what they were getting into. Sure, there are some researchers who do actual scientific work, but they are few and far between as the hassle with legally working with controlled substances, seems to far outweigh any benifits gained in peoples minds. Although, there are a few exceptions and we see the fruit of their labor published in articles which all seem to eventually make its way to this site.

Originally Posted by darawk

and an unbiased(because they wouldn't have any particular interest in it) government, probably.

I disagree here, the government will always be biased; whatever makes them look better than they are is best. I know this is broad, but scientists funded by the government working on such projects would certainly be pressured into making it look favorable. Possibly with the threat of getting their funding removed if the government does not like what they have to say. But, this seems to be the case already.

Oh, grandbaby, I appreciate your 2 cents, but find it interesting that SWIY found it easier to get LSD than alcohol. But maybe this is simply swim's experience because the household, not because of his peers.

[Bajeda]

Originally Posted by darawk

Of course it would be. Every legal activity/hobby has a forum on the internet, why would drugs be any different?



Are you serious? How could it not be? Millions of people use drugs even though it's a crime, we can only assume it would be far more widespread an activity if it were legal.



The medical establishment and an unbiased(because they wouldn't have any particular interest in it) government, probably.

I meant if drug prohibition had never occurred. You have to wonder when corporations would have gotten involved (as there wasn't really much regulation for this area before straight-out illegality) and what would have happened from there.

[bcubed]

Since the OP made a connection between alcohol prohibition and present prohibition of most drugs, I thought it might be interesting to look at some of the "unintended consequences" of alcohol prohibition:

-Prohibition (at least temporarialy) shifted US tastes away from beer and wine, to distilled spirits. I always figured this to be the case, but had it confirmed by a couple of sources. Alcohol is a bulky drug, and logistics require that it be shipped in as concentrated a form as possible. Hence, hard liquor vs. non-distilled beverages. Actually, much of the beer drunk in Prohibition was legal N.A. beer with straight alcohol added afterwards via injection (aka "needle beer").

-Prohibition led to bland, underhopped "light" style beers. Beer is usually made up of Barley (malted and unmalted) and hops. Hops was a "giveway" for illegal activity, because it didn't have many uses outside of beer production. Thus, hops use was minimized, and adjuncts such as corn and rice were used. Once beer was legal again, changed tastes resulted in a marketplace with low-hopped beer.

Thanks for the opportunity for a beer snob to put some of his pointless knowledge to use.

[darawk]

Originally Posted by trptamene

I disagree here, the government will always be biased; whatever makes them look better than they are is best. I know this is broad, but scientists funded by the government working on such projects would certainly be pressured into making it look favorable. Possibly with the threat of getting their funding removed if the government does not like what they have to say. But, this seems to be the case already.

I knew that statement would generate controversy but was too lazy to clarify it when I made it. I don't really mean they would be completely unbiased, just that they would be very significantly less biased, and would be more inclined to at least feign honesty. I mean - the FDA pretends to be honest, but the DEA hardly minces words when it comes to lying to children because "we know what's best".

Obviously there will be corruption and bias in any government agency - but at least the FDA has a stated purpose of being unbiased. The DEA's stated purpose on the other hand is to simply deter use irrespective of science or reason - not provide unbiased or factual information to anyone, or protect anyone's safety.

[Trebor]

Originally Posted by Alfa

Please explain. What does that have to do with it being widely used as a XTC/ amphetamines alternative? It would probably still onle be used as a agricultural drug if MDMA would still be legal.

Sorry, I mis-read your post. My bad.

[zera]

People usually seem impressed when swim recounts his drug usage history, and their illicit status projects an aura of being a bad boy that seems to turn certain girls on.