International - How to control the rise of drugs under Legalisation?

[FuBai]

Methamphetamine is pretty much unheard of in Britain to the populace at large. Even within drug taking circles very little is known about the drug. Recent police reports say they have discovered evidence of use within every city, but this is mostly limited use and the availability of this drug is very small, confined to small bath tub chemistry productions due to the problems of getting large amounts of ephedrine and pseudo-ephedrine, the precursor chemicals needed to manufacture meth. So Britain's problem at the moment with this virulent drug is no where near that of the USA, where precursors are more available and the borders more open to Meth importation from South East Asia which has become a massive Methamphetamine producing region whilst Opium production there declines, as well as Mexico where further vast amounts are made.

We know Methamphetamine is addictive - some people claim to develop psychological addiction within 2 uses of the drug. This would be much less of a problem if the drug worked in the same way as nicotine, but it actually has a very strong and extended period of intoxication (12 hours), during that period it is incredibly hard to execute even simple procedures. In comparison to cocaine and opiate use, which, whilst lowering productivity in the work place, does not cease productivity altogether, it could be very damaging. Meth addicts, even under legalisation, would have a far more serious problem holding down a job than either Heroin or Cocaine addicts, due to the nature of the drug.

So we know Methamphetamine is a threat; a serious problem for America already and something most Britons would hope to avoid. Even browsing this website's Meth forum - a site composed of pro-legalisation drug users - very few people have anything nice to say about the drug. It would be hard to find a thread in any other forum entitled "It steals your soul and you don't even notice." So, my question is, under a legalised system how do we control and prevent Methamphetamine usage from becoming a major problem in the UK? And here's a more general question for everyone from every country - how do you stop and control the rise of any new drug that poses a serious threat to society under legalisation? I'm looking for some ideas before I lay out one of my theories.

[zera]

Methamphetamine was legal and sold over the counter in the US until the mid-50s. Until the mid-70s methamphetamine was used by a very high proportion of college students. Furthermore millions of soliders not only had access to it but were given high doses of it in regular periods by the American, German and Japanese governments. Civilization did not collapse. Meth is simply the bogey man of the moment, much as ex was in the 90s, crack was in the 80s, heroin was in the 70s and LSD was in the 60s.

As for what people in the meth sub-forum have to say about it, I think the way its viewed by society at large has to do with peoples perception of it. If you are told constantly that meth is pure poison and the most dangerous substance known to man, and you have a problem with meth, you will come to the conclusion that the problem must be with meth. If you have a problem with a drug that is viewed to be innocous, like weed, then you are more likely to identify the problem as a person specific, rather then generally related to the drug.

The greatest predictor of addiction is novelty-seeking behaviour. This is why you can never generalize how a drug will affect a random person from just looking at that drug community. The type of person who chooses to use meth, especially given the terrible reputation, is going to exhibit a much greater degree of novelty-seeking behaviour. In actuality I think that meth is less addictive than alcohol or other drugs, otherwise every military age American male would be a tweaker after they came home from war in 1945.

[Nature Boy]

Methamphetamine, in its modern street form, should never be sold, ready-to-use, legally IMO. It's a rotten drug with terrible side effects which has little or no beneficial attributes for the vast majority of people. It's comparable to huffing industrial strength glue or munching on toilet bonbons to get high. I say, legalise the rest, barring maybe crack, and if anyone is brave or stupid enough to freebase these two on their own time, let them do it without prosecution.

[brewlabboffin]

Legalise all - or legalise nothing.

Uncle Fester comments on Meth use:

'I would recommend no more than 50 mg no more than three times a week, any more than this and bad effects start to appear, such as difficulty in thinking clearly, paranoid behavior and excessive weight loss leading finally to amphetamine psychosis, which quickly fades upon stopping consumption of amphetamine.'

Commenting on why people use Meth:

'...and can keep a man rolling through a hard days work or a long night of play, or both. It sharpens the mind, allowing great amounts of mental work to be done quickly and error-free. It also sharpens one's mental reflexes to previously unknown levels...'


Do beware though!

'Meth is not physically addicting but since good effective stimulation is so enjoyable, it is habit forming.'

OK, people screw-up on Meth, and alcohol. Oh and heroine, coke, valium... Frankly, some folks stagnate, and exhibit paranoid/erratic behavior, on Cannabis.

If you legalise all drugs except the ones that you don't like, then you are playing the Drug War-Game.

You already know that drug use cannot be stopped.

Everything in moderation. And if not then lets have quality, pure products, dispensed responsibly.
Ask for too much paracetamol, you will be refused. Underage? - No alcohol.
Looking like death-warmed-up? - No meth.

Lets have some thought here on a practical level,
Lets have free drug education and taxed drugs. Lets moderate and control human behavior as we currently do.

The ideal: A society that moderates behavior personally...
We do not have this. But we do have coping mechanisms.

An educated society, with good medical and social care, will culture a percentage of addicts.
The question is: will that percentage be higher, or lower, than the one we currently have, and, more importantly, at what cost?

Finally, Mr Fester observes:

'People have been known to take extremely large doses, over a gram, and survive with no after effects, so overdoses are not a problem'

But they must...

'eat well whether they feel like it or not.'

Peace and love, just want to inform the debate.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Bravo! Keep posting this passionately and knowledgeably.

[Metalcore322]

The guy above me has a really good point...if only there was something to actually do about it.

[FuBai]

Most people would agree with me that, whilst we should legalise everything, we should also try to make sure that not too many people become addicted to the highly addictive and intoxicating drugs. To ensure this happens, even under a system of legalisation, there are various techniques that can be used - negative advertising, greater controls at the point of sale, diluting and limiting size of a single buy etc. So that it is still possible for it to be obtained legally for a low price, most people won't want to.

[zera]

Also if companies are competing for business they will have incentive to develop alternatives that are less addicting and/or destructive and still as enjoyable. Honestly I dont really believe that many people would use meth if amphetamine was readily available, its just that what the labs in North America are set up to produce since its chemically easier to produce. I have no idea what accident in history made it so that European labs are geared to amphetamine. Anyone else know?