Opinions - should all drugs be legal or just the soft ones.

[cannabis-sam]

The only two drugs I'm torn over on this issue are amphetamine and cocaine. Now I'm in do doubt whatsoever that all drugs need to be regulated (removing of criminal penalties and removing the supply from criminal hands) in varying degrees. Now heroin, correct me if I'm wrong, has the highest potential for abuse (I'll leave meth as it isn't an issue where I live right now). Not many people who use heroin can use it recreationally and keep using it recreationally before a physical dependance forms so for heroin I'm convinced prescription heroin to addicts and off limits to anyone else is the only to go.

Now Coke and amphet are a little trickier although they aren't physically addictive like heroin for instance they do have a high addiction potential if compared to MDMA, Cannabis and Psychedelics. They also have the potential for social harm i.e harm caused outside one's own body. In my experience amphet has the potential to make people violent, more pumped up. But the problem that comes is it still has recreational value and many users can keep using regularly without full blown addiciton forming and the same goes for cocaine. Infact I even think Cocaine and Amphetamine could probably be ranked alongside alcohol because in a sense they're quite similar. Many people can use them on a friday or saturday night and not have a problem, it can make them more relaxed and talkative but it can also cause dependance and violence (actually take that sentence and you couldn't tell if I was talking about speed or booze)

Now the question is if you were to set up a prescription program similar to what is in place for heroin, would it create a black market outside the clinics for people who want to use recreationally. But how could someone prove addiction and not just be there to get free drugs. So I think for those two particular drugs they should be fully legal for recreational use, now the question is what sort of regulation do we put in place to prevent addiction forming but allow people to continue recreational use. What if we were to implement a system of psychological screening and careful observation to stop a habit forming.

I think it is a fact that the criminal approach is a failed approach for every drug hard or soft. Maybe this thread should be called 'if drugs were legal, what degree of regulation is required'. The issue of what regulation is required is a far more complicated one than the question of should drugs be dealt with through the criminal justice system, because I think thats a given. We've pretty much shown the supply of drugs can never be completely wiped out and niether can the demand although it can be reduced through education which again is not a criminal issue and again it's a health issue.

The trouble is you have to wiegh up the issue of personal freedom vs being protected from ourselves and I really do feel drug addiction is an illness and addicts are vulnerable people (if I sound patronising please let the addicted pets on this forum tell me off). So we do need to try and, to a degree, to protect people from themselves and from harming others around them. Of course as stated earlier I believe this can only be acieved through proper regulation. We also need to take practicality into acount i.e cost to health service and amount of people to operate the system. However a lot of this cost and manpower could be taken from the huge amounts of time and effort spent enforcing our failed drug policy.

[nate81]

I might be wrong, but I thought that in animals I.V. cocaine had the greatest problems and heroin was lower and amphetamine lower still. With cocaine, the animals would self dose repeatedly without end, choosing it over food until they starved themselves. With heroin, they would behave similarly but would reach a point where they stopped increasing the dose, reaching a kind of balance between food and self dosing. I don't remember the amphetamine results but don't think it was as severe as cocaine.

Honestly I think that if people had free and clear access to heroin, most wouldn't be dosing themselves to death. They would increase their doses up to a point and stay at that level. This all assumes I.V. use as smoked use might bring different results.


I hear you about trying to help people. Prevent them from harm, protect them from themselves. It's dangerous water to tread in because one can never be certain that one's own intentions are true. Personally, I feel that freedom is pigshit unless it includes the freedom to make a decision that everyone else thinks is stupid. Then again, that would include harm toward others and that's not quite fair either.

[Jasim]

Regarding the couple posts above. First, the route of administration greatly affects the addiction potential.
AFAIK smoking freebase methamphetamine has the greatest addiction potential. And then, in decreasing order of addictive potential: freebase cocaine, heroin, and then cocaine HCl.

Additionally, when used in a consistently similar environment without other drugs heroin is relatively safe and causes the least physical damage to the body.

[Sven99]

Originally Posted by nate81

I might be wrong, but I thought that in animals I.V. cocaine had the greatest problems and heroin was lower and amphetamine lower still. With cocaine, the animals would self dose repeatedly without end, choosing it over food until they starved themselves. With heroin, they would behave similarly but would reach a point where they stopped increasing the dose, reaching a kind of balance between food and self dosing. I don't remember the amphetamine results but don't think it was as severe as cocaine.

There have been lots of different studies on addiction with lots of different results. Rats in unpleasant and unhealthy conditions offered cocaine are more likely to take it than rats in pleasant and healthy environments for instance. In some studies rats show a clear preference for sugar-water over cocaine.

[Jasim]

Originally Posted by Sven99

Rats in unpleasant and unhealthy conditions offered cocaine are more likely to take it than rats in pleasant and healthy environments for instance.

That is very very interesting. Do you have any sources for this? Brings to mind the differing aspects of drug use based on socioeconomic class.

[Sven99]

Originally Posted by Jasim

That is very very interesting. Do you have any sources for this? Brings to mind the differing aspects of drug use based on socioeconomic class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park

Rat Park was a study into drug addiction conducted in the 1970s by Canadian psychologist Bruce K. Alexander at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada.


Alexander's hypothesis was that drugs do not cause addiction, and that the apparent addiction to morphine commonly observed in laboratory rats exposed to it is attributable to their living conditions, and not to any addictive property of the drug itself. [1] He told the Canadian Senate in 2001 that experiments in which laboratory rats are kept isolated in cramped metal cages, tethered to self-injection apparatus, show only that "severely distressed animals, like severely distressed people, will relieve their distress pharmacologically if they can." [2]


To test his hypothesis, Alexander built Rat Park, a 8.8m² (95² feet) housing colony, 200 times the square footage of a standard laboratory cage. There were 16–20 rats of both sexes in residence, an abundance of food, balls and wheels for play, and private places for mating and giving birth. [3] The results of the experiment appeared to support his hypothesis. Rats who had been forced to consume morphine hydrochloride for 57 consecutive days were brought to Rat Park and given a choice between plain tap water and water laced with morphine. For the most part, they chose the plain water. "Nothing that we tried," Alexander wrote, "... produced anything that looked like addiction in rats that were housed in a reasonably normal environment." [1]

Reputation Comments on this post:

	Thanks for the great source!
	Didn't know about this study, thanks for posting it!!
	Great study link, keep up the good work!

[dr. swim]

Certain drugs are just too powerful, and dangerous if misused. Most people lack the necessary self-control and discipline needed to properly use or responsibly enjoy certain drugs, speed being the strongest example I can think of. I think psychadelics like pot, LSD, and magic shrooms should be legal but require a special license to use, I think people should know how to properly use a substance before they're allowed to use it. I also don't see any benefits to legalizing opiates, as they're not psychadelic, nor productivity-inducing, and are really only useful as painkillers and should only be used as such. The license thing should also apply to alcohol and tobacco.

Reputation Comments on this post:

basically boils down to 'my drug is better than yours'

[Heretic.Ape.]

It has always surprised me how little attention those studies received. I guess it's just easier to point to a substance and say "bad!" than to actually try to tackle social problems like poverty.

Reputation Comments on this post:

good analysis

[Herbal Healer 019]

ALL drugs need to be legal for the sheer fact that an illegal market is one that is unregulated & is not held with high standards. The illegality of drugs only creates problems because one can never garauntee that the drug they're supposedly taking is actually what it's proported to be (i.e. ecstacy is ussually never pure mdma & in many cases contains no mdma) & the fact that people cut drugs with harmful or dangerous substances (i.e. heroin cut with brain damaging adulturants).

If drugs become legal, the drug being bought is beyond a shadow of a doubt 100% pure & what it's proported to be thus ODs & drug related deaths will decrease (Im not saying there arent going to be bingers who take it too far and OD as with alcohol, but the drug market will be much safer).

[Sven99]

Originally Posted by Heretic.Ape.

It has always surprised me how little attention those studies received. I guess it's just easier to point to a substance and say "bad!" than to actually try to tackle social problems like poverty.

I completely agree with you. Of the developed world, The UK and the US have some of the highest rates of poverty, and some of the highest rates of drug and alcohol abuse. But if we blame the drug we don't have to fix anything and can carry on as normal.

[machine_elf]

Legalised? Yes. Marketed? Hell No!
They should be legalised to eliminate the black market (a large source of organised criminal revenue) and to protect the users. However, they should NOT be glamourised or marketed.

As previously mentioned there should be rules and regulations. For example, Heroin would only be available from a pharmacist to registered users. This way the black market would disappear due to a fall in demand for contaminated and expensive produce, but the cultural opposition to heroin would remain, as to ensure the user group stays as a responsible and informed few. This benefits not only the users, but the whole country, as more tax would go to the government in order to renew public services(from the legitemate sale of drugs), and organised crime would suffer a major monetary blow. Not only that but there would also be a large reduction in crime such as muggings which would be carried out by addicts unable to hold down a job because they have to worry about where their next fix of drugs will come from (not to mention the over inflated prices on the black market).

Culture is more powerful than law (a case in reference being the popularity of cannabis in america despite it being a schedule I drug carrying draconian penalties. The culture says yes, so the law is not a deterrent to use.)
There is a common misconseption that as soon as drugs become legal everyone will try them and the country will go to shit. This is not true, for it is not the law that enables or prohibits the actions of the majority, it is the culture.

[cannabis-sam]

As I said I can only see the people who already smoke ciggaerettes and drink alcohol changing their psychoactive substance of choice, I think less people may drink and more use drugs, but I think the people who abstain from c&a anyway will abstain when drugs become illegal. And less people drinking can only be a good thing, might make our towns and cities safer on friday and saturday nights, not so many drunk idiots fighting and arguing just people on weed and E you wouldn't have half the crime.

[blaze all daYy]

i think marijuana should be legal as long as it isn't in public.. other than that i think the world would fall apart if heavy drugs were legal..

Reputation Comments on this post:

See the post, this is wrong.

[cannabis-sam]

Why would the world fall apart if hard drugs were legal, please explain your comment in further detail. Why would the world fall apart if other drugs apart from cannabis were legal. Do you agree with continuing prohibition of other drugs beside cannabis?

cannabis-sam added 3 Minutes and 49 Seconds later...

Legalised? Yes. Marketed? Hell No!

I think all recreational substances, the softer ones at least, that includes alcohol should all be sold in single shops with no flashy packaging, no advertisment and under 18's should be banned from the premises.

Drugs again alcohol included should not be glamourised, should not be sold in supermarkets like alcohol is it should be seperated and completety hidden away so as not to encourage people to buy them.

[blaze all daYy]

to cannibas-sam, i think weed shou;d be legal because people smoke it all the time & it doesn't impair your judgment or make you do crazy things. as if i smoked 2 blunts before work i could flip a burger fine but if i were to take shrooms even much earlier that day or something it could be dangerous. i just think that people wouldtake advantage of it & be high all the time. but i think alcohol & weed (if legalized) should be sold in any convienant store or anything.. they will tax the hell out of weed if it is legalized but i tihnk that will only help the dealers from before out.

blaze all daYy added 6 Minutes and 9 Seconds later...

ya swim is a much better driver when on opis & stuff idk swim was just saying like little kids getting all fucked up for the next generation & things falling apart

[MOGGIE]

Originally Posted by blaze all daYy

i think marijuana should be legal as long as it isn't in public.. other than that i think the world would fall apart if heavy drugs were legal..

SWIM is finding it really hard to understand how anyone can possibly think this is true.SWIM thinks this is actually part of the problem.Dis/Misinformation and a general lack of facts as well as 'drug snobbery'.Why does someone getting stoned on pot/grass/hash/weed think they are better able to function than some 1 using another drug...ie heroin,has the term tollerance escaped you?.......Sorry i seem 2 be ranting all the time,i promise 2 put a mellow post on at some stage.SWIM ask me 2 tell u all 2 stay safe!!

MOGGIE added 8 Minutes and 34 Seconds later...

Originally Posted by cannabis-sam

I would agree with addiction, physical addiction that is being a disease, yes it is self inflicted at the start but the withdrawel syptoms are so bad for some drugs that an illness is the only way to classify it.

It needs to be dealt with as a health issue not as a criminal issue, I have only seen people give an opinion as to why hard drugs shouldn't be legal in this thread, not actually back it up with why, some will say it will be out of control if harder drugs are available but people have this crazy misconception that prohibition actually reduces use and have seen no evidence to back this up.

Spot on Sam.SWIM was prescribed benzo's from age 15-39 as well as topping up on top and stopping taking them is a disease in SWIMs book,even if it doesn't fit the 'models'.......B_LUCKY......STAY SAFE!!

[manda]

I feel children (18 and down) shouldn't be able to buy tobacco, alocohol, or drugs legally. For adults, in the privacy the home, everything should be legal.
They would have a hard time regulating the products strength and how much one individual was allowed to buy at once, though, and that's why it isn't legal yet...too many variables that could take profit away from the government.
I believe if the United States of America's government could make money on illegal dope they'd be legalizing it RIGHT NOW. Since they haven't legalized, it must be too hard to regulate and little in it for them. Right now they make more busting people then they would legally selling it. The fines they give those busted and the ensuing drug-tested probation can make a small drug infraction cost the accused thousands of dollars in probation fees and fines, legal costs, and missing work or losing jobs due to jail.
The probation fees and fines line the purses of our government, and with that money they buy cars, police equipment, and put more cops on duty.
The sure have a racket on everything, the way I see it.
If they gave a sh&t cigarettes and alcohol probably wouldn't be legal, considering all the deaths. People can use deadly substances in the US all day long- as long as the government gets their cut of the money.

Anyone from a different country have opinions?

[pinksox]

Addiction is NOT a disease. This is a old view that has stubbornly stuck around with the public and even with therapists working in the field. Modern science does not support the addiction as a disease model.

Jasism, do you have any recent empirical studies from mostly unbiased sources to back up that assertation? Because according to NIDA statement(NIDA is a sub-dept of NIH) ia it their claim that addiction in most definitely a "disease." One that like many other diseases--cardiovascular and diabetic for example--are influenced both by genetic and environmental components.
--http://www.nida.nih.gov/about/welcome/aboutdrugabuse/chronicdisease/


Personally, I believe that many medications should be legalized...although I wouldn't put them into the hands of street-type drugs dealers to control. We could probably go a long way towards paying off national debt thru the responsible legalized sale of some medications. The government is not supposed to be a nanny for their constituents. Legalized drug use should have the same stipulations as the consumption of alcohol currently has....ie, no driving under the influence, no consumption in public or public intoxication.

I don't have an issue with many drugs being legalized and available for sale OTC. Codeine preparations, Fioricet, Ativan, Valium, Xanax, Robaxin, Skelaxin, all NSAIDS, and many others. I don't see where pot is any worse CNS wise than is alcohol either.

Other drugs, hard street drugs, I'm not so sure about. There's not really valid medical reason that anyone needs heroin, methamphetamines, LSD, cocaine, crack, etc. I've seen those drugs ruin a lot of lives, a lot of families. And there's no valid medical reason for there usage.

Just my 2 cents.

[Jasim]

Originally Posted by pinksox

Jasism, do you have any recent empirical studies from mostly unbiased sources to back up that assertation? Because according to NIDA statement(NIDA is a sub-dept of NIH) ia it their claim that addiction in most definitely a "disease." One that like many other diseases--cardiovascular and diabetic for example--are influenced both by genetic and environmental components.
--http://www.nida.nih.gov/about/welcome/aboutdrugabuse/chronicdisease/

First of all, as a source of information, I don't like NIDA. NIDA tends to be very one-sided. Pubmed, I like.
Anyway, I guess this is really coming down to semantics.

Formally, addiction isn't actually referred to as 'addiction' in diagnostic criteria, it's referred to as either Substance Abuse or Substance Dependence. The disease model of addiction does not provide statistical evidence as a beneficial model for treatment. Currently substance disorders are considered behavioral disorders. Treated as behavioral disorders, treatment of substance disorders is statistically more successful (I'll try to find some sources discussing this).

The DSM-IV definition of Substance Abuse:

The American Psychiatric Association has developed strict criteria for the clinical diagnosis of abuse and dependence. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-IV (DSM-IV) defines abuse as:

• A maladaptive pattern of substance use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, as manifested by one (or more) of the following, occurring within a 12-month period:
  1. recurrent substance use resulting in a failure to fulfill major role obligations at work, school, home (e.g., repeated absences or poor work performance related to substance use; substance-related absences, suspensions, or expulsions from school; neglect of children or household)
  2. recurrent substance use in situations in which it is physically hazardous (e.g., driving an automobile or operating a machine when impaired by substance use)
  3. recurrent substance-related legal problems (e.g., arrests for substance-related disorderly conduct)
  4. continued substance use despite having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of the substance (e.g., arguments with spouse about consequences of intoxication, physical fights)
• The symptoms have never met the criteria for Substance Dependence for this class of substances.

[DSM-IV, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, ed. 4. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association (AMA). 1994.]

Substance Dependence

DSM-IV defines dependence as:

• A maladaptive pattern of substance use, leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, as manifested by three (or more) of the following, occurring at any time in the same 12-month period:
  1. tolerance, as defined by either of the following:
     • a need for markedly increased amounts of the substance to achieve intoxication or desired effect
     • markedly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount of substance
  2. withdrawal, as manifested by either of the following:
     • the characteristic withdrawal syndrome for the substance
     • the same (or a closely related) substance is taken to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms
  3. the substance is often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period than was intended
  4. there is a persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control substance use
  5. a great deal of time is spent in activities to obtain the substance, use the substance, or recover from its effects
  6. important social, occupational or recreational activities are given up or reduced because of substance use
  7. the substance use is continued despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by the substance (e.g., continued drinking despite recognition that an ulcer was made worse by alcohol consumption)

[DSM-IV, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, ed. 4. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association (AMA). 1994.]

It is interesting to point out that NA and AA are recognized as being successful programs for treatment. However, their success is attributed to the social support of the groups rather than to their focus on addiction as a disease.


Here's a couple of sources for the DSM:

http://www.mentalhealthchannel.net/a...iagnosis.shtml
http://allpsych.com/disorders/dsm.html

[MOGGIE]

Originally Posted by pinksox

Jasism, do you have any recent empirical studies from mostly unbiased sources to back up that assertation? Because according to NIDA statement(NIDA is a sub-dept of NIH) ia it their claim that addiction in most definitely a "disease." One that like many other diseases--cardiovascular and diabetic for example--are influenced both by genetic and environmental components.
--http://www.nida.nih.gov/about/welcome/aboutdrugabuse/chronicdisease/


Personally, I believe that many medications should be legalized...although I wouldn't put them into the hands of street-type drugs dealers to control. We could probably go a long way towards paying off national debt thru the responsible legalized sale of some medications. The government is not supposed to be a nanny for their constituents. Legalized drug use should have the same stipulations as the consumption of alcohol currently has....ie, no driving under the influence, no consumption in public or public intoxication.

I don't have an issue with many drugs being legalized and available for sale OTC. Codeine preparations, Fioricet, Ativan, Valium, Xanax, Robaxin, Skelaxin, all NSAIDS, and many others. I don't see where pot is any worse CNS wise than is alcohol either.

Other drugs, hard street drugs, I'm not so sure about. There's not really valid medical reason that anyone needs heroin, meth, amphetamines, LSD, cocaine, crack, etc. I've seen those drugs ruin a lot of lives, a lot of families. And there's no valid medical reason for there usage.

Just my 2 cents.

I think u put some great points across in this post,my only problem is whan u try to put Codine preps,Valium in a different leuge 2 heroin ect.I agree these drugs can be destructive as SWIM can confirm but half of the problem 4 them was getting the money,getting clean drugs ec,if they prescribed diamorpine more often this would at least reduce the problemB_SAFE!

[dadrone]

Soft drugs only in SWIM's opinion.

[Greenport]

My opinion is that there are certain drugs that definitely need to be controlled. Strong opiates, meth, cocaine etc are known to be addictive and have unhealthy properties especially if used habitually, and thus there needs to be some kind of control over that.

Psychedelics are different though. One (hopefully) ingests a psychedelic with the intent of expanding their consciousness in one form or another, and thus they should not be controlled, however they should be carefully treaded upon - people need to know the facts about them and take them responsibly in safe settings.

MDMA is a gray area though. It's not a psychedelic, but an empathogen and while it isn't exactly heroin or meth, it does still have a small addiction potential and large amounts can be harmful. However like psychedelics this can be cured with knowledge , and the way it is now (being illegal), people are putting their trust into the black market where nobody is likely to tell them these dangers. Not to mention that black market pills can be cut with anything, including some of the more dangerous things.

In any case, people should be 18 or older to buy drugs legally.

[Spinner]

Definite? How can anyone be sure? Unless said individuals were in the same circumstances and sober, you have nothing to compare. Who's to say they would not have died at the same exact time the same exact way, or even a different way? Drugs do not make people careless/stupid. However, they can make careless/stupid people even more careless and/or stupid.

Spinner added 4 Minutes and 29 Seconds later...

See this 2-page paper I uploaded by John Brick, PhD that was published in Intoxikon International in 1996.See this 2-page paper I uploaded by John Brick, PhD that was published in Intoxikon International in 1996.

That is yet another example of an opinion, based on careless people who drink too much and drive. Not really at all similar to many other drugs.

Spinner added 5 Minutes and 59 Seconds later...

Oh yeah, don't forget that MADD bends statistics to further their political agenda. I assume the same or similar in any other study. Also, if involved in an accident, it is automatically the fault of anyone under the influence of anything, whether it was really their fault or not. Statistics are based upon crap like that.

Spinner added 3 Minutes and 14 Seconds later...

About half of all fatal traffic accidents involve alcohol and, in the majority of these cases, intoxication was the cause of the accident.

Can this really be proven???! I think not. Accidents occur all the time, whether people are intoxicated or not.

[Jasim]

Originally Posted by Spinner

Definite? How can anyone be sure? Unless said individuals were in the same circumstances and sober, you have nothing to compare. Who's to say they would not have died at the same exact time the same exact way, or even a different way? Drugs do not make people careless/stupid. However, they can make careless/stupid people even more careless and/or stupid.

Whatever. I provided statistics and sources to support my point, but it's really not about who is right or wrong.
I really hope swiy is a good a driver as you say he is. Obviously I'm not going to convince you no matter what I say or come up with. Just please use swiys judgement, for the sake of others.

[Spinner]

Originally Posted by Jasim

Whatever. I provided statistics and sources to support my point.

Statistics based on what? Did people die during their (rather old) study? Were these people used to drinking and/or drugs, or people who can't handle 3 beers? There are a lot of variables here that are constantly ignored.

Spinner added 14 Minutes and 13 Seconds later...

I just hate that so many people, who are indeed very capable of driving a car, or doing many other things, are criminalized, even if nothing bad happens. Most of these arrests are originally due to being pulled over for some non-intox related incident and then asshole cops breath test and peoples' lives are ruined for no reason. Now, if a driver is pulled over because they are obviously not driving well, and discovered to be shitfaced, I don't have a problem with this. But this is rarely the case, these days. In fact, I've even heard commercials in my state that say, "If you think you can drink one beer and drive, you're sadly mistaken." WTF? They're basically saying that the .08 limit means nothing.
SWIM was once charged with a DUI, but SWIM blew a .07. Because SWIM did not have tons of money for a good lawyer, SWIM got fucked and ended up with a DUI on his record. SWIM was really doing nothing wrong, but got fucked anyway. SWIM will never agree with these idiotic laws.

Reputation Comments on this post:

you'r arguing over stupid shit, that's barely legit. try understanding where the other side's comming from