Who should be allowed to use drugs?

[Busty St Clare]

Hypothetical. Some drugs are legalised tomorrow and their taxation, sale and distribution is taken over by the government. For ease of debate lets say just cannabis and MDMA are suddenly reclassified. So who should be allowed to used these drugs recreationally?

Should it be open market with Johnny Dealer free to open a shop or online store and start selling it to anyone with a credit card? Should there be an age limit of 18 like with alcohol or, given their effects on developing brains, should be set an age limit of 21 or even 25?

Should we make users have a certified medical examination and give them a licence? Who shouldn't be allowed access then? If you are already on blood pressure medication should you be allowed to use MDMA? What about if you are on SSRI's or suffer from depression? What about schizophrenics? If you have a history of addiction such as alcoholism, should you be allowed to use? Should they be concerned about a history of family members with such conditions? What about having a gambling addiction?

How would you change current drug laws and what consequences are you willing to accept?

 

[shimazu]

make it exactly like alcohol

 

[L3inad]

Controls should be set specifically for every drug. Age limits definitely should be imposed from a harm reduction point of view.
It should not be an 'open market' drugs should be obtained from a dispensary, only to those who have been issued permits for their possession. The idea of permits being that one first has to apply and under go a short session where they are educated on potential dangers and safe usage practices. (again, harm reduction)

Limitations should be enforced on a 'quantity per month' basis or something of the sort. A black market would still definitely exist for those wanting more then their quota allows or those unwilling or unable to get a permit for whatever reason. Diversion will still happen with people selling their quota, but this 'black market' would be a fraction of that which exists today and with decriminalisation shouldn't result in much if any of the issues we see currently. Adulterants and impurities become a thing of the past. That said, drugs likely wouldn't all come in the forms the do currently. I'd say there would be an emphasis on oral formulations rather than the conventional powder in a baggie.

Oh, and it will be taxed to high heaven. Prices would likely remain in the same region they are now but instead of our money going to organised crime hopefully our government might feel the need to spend it on healthcare and harm reduction support for drug users. Essentially 'managing' the issue.

 

[Divine Moments]

Hypothetical. Some drugs are legalised tomorrow and their taxation, sale and distribution is taken over by the government. For ease of debate lets say just cannabis and MDMA are suddenly reclassified. So who should be allowed to used these drugs recreationally?

Should it be open market with Johnny Dealer free to open a shop or online store and start selling it to anyone with a credit card? Should there be an age limit of 18 like with alcohol or, given their effects on developing brains, should be set an age limit of 21 or even 25?

I would take a liberal approach and consider that, in most cases, it is not the role of the government to decide who is allowed to take them but rather leave it to the individual's discretion. The main exception that springs to mind is children - in theory I think 21 is a more reasonable age to start, but if the varying age restrictions on alcohol around the world have demonstrated anything, it's that if people want to use a substance underage they will. Additionally, I think similar rules regarding the use of alcohol while driving, operating machinery, working, etc. should apply to most other drugs.

Should we make users have a certified medical examination and give them a licence? Who shouldn't be allowed access then? If you are already on blood pressure medication should you be allowed to use MDMA? What about if you are on SSRI's or suffer from depression? What about schizophrenics? If you have a history of addiction such as alcoholism, should you be allowed to use? Should they be concerned about a history of family members with such conditions? What about having a gambling addiction?

This is probably the toughest part of the question. If we take precedent (which obviously doesn't mean it's right or even remotely logical) then there shouldn't be medical restrictions to access. Plenty of people shouldn't drink alcohol (those with pre-existing conditions such as liver disease, anyone with advanced alcohol-related damage, pregnant women, people on certain medications) but they are still free to if they so choose. Same goes for smoking, though probably even moreso given the wide range of body systems it affects.

With regards to medication, there would need to be much more clear written and verbal advice given to patients prescribed medications with potential interactions, and given to customers buying recreational drugs regarding what they may interact with and how to use safely.

As long as the individual is informed and aware of the risk, I don't think family history of addiction, psych disorders, etc. should preclude use. Chances are they will use anyway if they want to. The more restrictions there are on a substance the more the black market will flourish. Legalisation wouldn't kill them off completely.

Probably the aspect I'm least sure about is allowing use by people with active psychiatric conditions. I don't think I can really give a evidenced-based opinion on the matter, and it's probably something a committee of experts (medical, ethical, political, etc.) should consider. In particular, when an individual is unable to understand the risk associated with use, or when use is likely to precipitate a violent/suicidal/other crisis, it doesn't seem entirely appropriate to allow them to do so.


I just realised you said only MDMA and cannabis.. I was also considering harder drugs such as methamphetamine, which is of greater physical/psychological risk

 

[Crankinit]

As far as marijuana goes, just legalize it and sell it at a bottle shop equivalent with an age limit of 18. If we can sell adults tobacco and alcohol, we can sure as hell sell them marijuana, which is a fraction as addictive and harmful.

Honestly, I think it's impossible to answer these questions without doing further research into the issue.

Ideally the path to legalization would be a slow process, wherein they gradually reduce controls and increase access while testing out different methods of control and treatment, until eventually hitting on a sweet spot where the minimum level of harm caused to the individual and society is reached.

The problem is that you'd need a different system for each. The ideal system for MDMA would be completely different to the ideal system for, say, opioids, or amphetamines. Stimulants in particular would be tricky, because they're both highly addictive and because the harms they cause are generally inherent to the drug itself. You can abate most of the harms caused by opiates with clean administration and dose monitoring, but no amount of harm reduction is going to stop cocaine destroying your cardiovascular system or meth causing brain damage, except perhaps some kind of rationing process. Although again, research could yield an alternative that's less dangerous.

The first step would be to take the decision out of the hands of ignorant politicians pandering to their voters, and put it into the hands of scientists who'll make their decisions based on facts and logic, not rhetoric or emotion or prejudice.

 

[GOTCOOKIES?]

Can't be Prejudice towards drugs, I mean look at how many people drink and pitiful tries to get it under control ..

People are going to do it regardless ..

 

[Juvenile]

I'd say anyone over 18 can use MDMA and Cannabis. If you are old enough to be sent to war then you are old enough for these, same as alcohol.

 

[Mr Blonde]

I'd see the dispensaries as somewhat similar to a pharmacy, but with the pharmacist having been specifically trained in these substances and what needs to be looked out for. People would go in and have to talk to the pharmacist about health conditions, medications they take and how to use safely. Something we have seen here on BL is that people often want to know if it is safe to take a particular drug with medication they currently take, and that without an information resource like this website they have no where else to go if they feel as if they can't talk to their doctor or a pharmacist.

The idea of a 'license' or pass to use these substances is something that I used to think about a lot in the past, but Divine raises a good point about the more restrictions there are, the more room there is for the black market to continue.

Another point I think about sometimes is should people's details be recorded for this system? There are benefits and negatives to both options. Benefits would include the 'pharmacist' being able to record a person's medications, potential interactions, known reactions to either active substances or the inactive substances they are ingesting (including binders, fillers, etc...) so that this information does not have to be ascertained from scratch each time. The negatives would include the record of the purchases and if this might have negative repercussions on a person, for example with their family or work.

Something that I just thought about concerning restrictions; this may also just be setting such a program up to fail. This might not be part of your hypothesis, but as we all know how miserable a failure the War on Drugs is then we can reasonably assume any restrictions on a legitimate drug dispensing program will be overcome as well and this would serve as ammunition for conservatives and anti-drug campaigners in shutting down such a system again. This system would also have to see successes that are enough to change public opinion on the dangers of drugs and how these dangers are best avoided.

Just a few thoughts, I'm sure I will think of more later... but a very interesting topic, Busty.

 

[DeathDomokun]

Look man, we're dealing out synthetic opiates and stimulants like candy. Alcohol can be very addictive and fuck your liver, smoking likewise, only this time in can do a whole bunch of shit.
Prohibition doesn't work, if somebody wants something, they can get it.
I'd even say it's easier to get weed than it is alcohol when you're under eighteen here, and we've been getting some good acid lately. I mean, it's much safer to have clean/pure drugs in known amounts to those who want to do it than it is to let people play guesswork.
The thing is, if these drugs lose their stigma and gain a stature in the same ilk as alcohol, perspectives change and new thoughts arise and it's just not beneficial to the government other than raised revenue (and more regulated records of prices spent on drugs by who) (although the US have private prisons for example, I'm just talking about Australia)

As for the people, you'd need a license similar to an alcohol license, and you'd know what you're getting. The salespeople will take you through information regarding the drug, likes it's ROAs, doses, etc.
There's so much people could benefit from these drugs being legalised.

And if anyone is thinking everyone in the world will start abusing stigmatised drugs, I mean, do you think your mother is going to wake up and start taking said drug?

 

[jaurk]

Considering when you're 18, you can buy drugs such as tobacco and alcohol, there's not all too much difference with cannabis and MDMA.
I'd say 18, though I can definitely see it being higher, like 21.
Honestly I've never really thought about it, I'm interested to see more posts though.

I hope they'll be used in medicine by that time, so they should be able to be prescribe where needed.
I definately agree on each drug having it's own system, there so diverse and individualized.. it'll be tough.

 

[Nozphexezora]

I'd see the dispensaries as somewhat similar to a pharmacy, but with the pharmacist having been specifically trained in these substances and what needs to be looked out for. People would go in and have to talk to the pharmacist about health conditions, medications they take and how to use safely. Something we have seen here on BL is that people often want to know if it is safe to take a particular drug with medication they currently take, and that without an information resource like this website they have no where else to go if they feel as if they can't talk to their doctor or a pharmacist.

The idea of a 'license' or pass to use these substances is something that I used to think about a lot in the past, but Divine raises a good point about the more restrictions there are, the more room there is for the black market to continue.

Another point I think about sometimes is should people's details be recorded for this system? There are benefits and negatives to both options. Benefits would include the 'pharmacist' being able to record a person's medications, potential interactions, known reactions to either active substances or the inactive substances they are ingesting (including binders, fillers, etc...) so that this information does not have to be ascertained from scratch each time. The negatives would include the record of the purchases and if this might have negative repercussions on a person, for example with their family or work.

Something that I just thought about concerning restrictions; this may also just be setting such a program up to fail. This might not be part of your hypothesis, but as we all know how miserable a failure the War on Drugs is then we can reasonably assume any restrictions on a legitimate drug dispensing program will be overcome as well and this would serve as ammunition for conservatives and anti-drug campaigners in shutting down such a system again. This system would also have to see successes that are enough to change public opinion on the dangers of drugs and how these dangers are best avoided.

Just a few thoughts, I'm sure I will think of more later... but a very interesting topic, Busty.

My idea precisely. Very intelligent method of dispensing recreational drugs in what would be considered a Utopian world, at least for me.
I think the drugs should be tracked to some extent. The heavier drugs, specifically, would require a unique prescription so that it's not over-the-counter and, as you stated, so that these heavier drugs aren't at risk of being mixed with other drugs by the user. While Divine may be true about the fact that the more restrictions there are, the more open the black market is, if these drugs can still be dispensed similarly to medication (while still being acknowledged as recreational), I'd assume that the black market would be selling these 'prescription' products to those who can't obtain it due to buying limits etc. So the black market would essentially be feeding from the legalised industry, and hazardous impurities would be a rarity as buyers would expect the products to be packaged appropriately. But yes, there should most definitely be professional assistance like that of pharmacies in this case.

 

[gimpan]

In my opinion there is no way MDMA should be legalised, no responsible government would entertain a ridiculous idea like that, just staff a safe place (hospital, needle exchange) to test for other ingredients.
Yeah I think marijuana could be safely leagalised with similar laws to that of alcohol and tobacco.

I dont think the majority of the population would be responsible enough.

 

[Halif]

I'd see the dispensaries as somewhat similar to a pharmacy, but with the pharmacist having been specifically trained in these substances and what needs to be looked out for

The ideal approach.

make it exactly like alcohol

The more likely eventuation if the government took over taxation, sale, and distribution, as the OP states.

Look at the advertising of alcohol. Can you imagine the advertising of MDMA?

 

[spacejunk]

i think consenting adults should be allowed to take drugs without fear of legal (and medical) persecution.

i used to buy drugs when i was way too young. i had a drug dealer when i was 13. before i turned 18, i used to take mdma, weed, amphetamine, LSD and a bunch of other things. alcohol was harder to get, except when friends and i stole it from our parents.
i believe that young kids (like my younger self) should be kept away from these sorts of things, it's not good for your development.
the way things are though, cannabis and other drugs are a piece of cake for kids to score.
alcohol requires an adult to buy it for you, and when i was a kid it was harder to find a grown-up to buy you booze than it was to buy drugs. we were able to steal booze because people don't treat it like a drug - it is prominently displayed in a lot of people's houses, whereas i'm sure in a post-prohibition world, drugs would be treated with a bit more reverence.
i mean, people have a social glass of wine over dinner, but i really doubt mum and dad would be racking up lines of molly between mouthfuls of sunday roast. if they are inclined to do this sort of thing - well, they probably already are. i don't think the legal consumption of drugs would necessarily make people more reckless - if anything, people would be getting much better information about safety.

the only message allowed to get through to the masses about drugs at the moment is "don't take drugs".
all that misinformation and propaganda about ecstasy being made in toilets and whatever would be replaced by harm reduction information.
why? because the people legally permitted to sell the drugs (as discussed by various folks above) would be legally required to warn consumers about dosage, interactions and so fourth. currently one of the only sources of such practical information is websites such as this one.
this means that people would be able to make more informed choices about what they consume. i personally avoid some drugs like the plague, whereas others i take regularly. i feel i am well enough educated on these matters to do so, whereas other people will argue until blue in the face that their "smokable speed" is not meth, and that it is much safer, because it won't make them crazy (or whatever urban myth crap it is that people spread in drug circles)

people that suffer from psychosis or other mental health problems may be contraindicated for certain recreational substances - but certainly not all of them. stimulants and psychedelics may have serious side effects for people suffering from certain conditions, but i see no reason why those people shouldn't be permitted to brew up a mug of opium pod tea every so often.

i know that you have some issues with the masses having access to drugs, busty - and i don't totally disagree with you. but i think a great deal of the problems associated with drug use are a result of ignorance and reckless use. and at the moment, the drugs are freely available to all and sundry. sure, you have to know people, but that doesn't seem to be a problem for most of us.

in terms of the social impact of these things, i think the idea is that ending prohibition could mean that drugs could end up being more regulated than they are at present.
sure, we all risk legal trouble for buying/selling/possessing drugs - but that means that it all operates in secret and with absolutely no restraint. rather than people discussing drugs with medical professionals, most of us are either compelled to lie about our use, cover it up or deny it when talking to someone like our GP. this is a pretty crazy situation, considering how many people use various illicit drugs.

besides children and people with mental illness, who should be restricted from taking drugs? maybe people with a history of violent crimes, maybe people with specific medical problems.
the thing is, even in the medical field, people are prescribed drugs that cause them all kinds of harm. antidepressants which are roughly as effective as placebo, yet cause a huge list of side effects are liberally prescribed by doctors every day.
the deaths caused by prescription medicines greatly outnumber those caused by illegal drugs - despite the irresponsible way many people use illicits and the unregulated way they are manufactured and sold.

there is this idea floating around that not deeming drug use as a criminal activity would create a free-for-all drug orgy and the collapse of society. this, to me, is a scare tactic.
it has not been evidenced in the decriminalisation policies of portugal or the netherlands, and if anything, the situation we have at the moment is far closer to this anarchic vision.
not to mention that i can order all manner of untested research chemicals to be delivered to my door - or walk down the street to buy similarly experimental synthetic cannabinoids (apparently) legally from a local head shop. if the same store started selling cannabis, a plant that grows wild on the earth and has been used safely by humans for tens of thousands of years, the owners and store workers would probably have their homes raided and face harsh legal penalties. to me, this is the definition of madness.

who should be allowed to use drugs? the mature citizens of a rational society.

 

[Mr Blonde]

In my opinion there is no way MDMA should be legalised, no responsible government would entertain a ridiculous idea like that, just staff a safe place (hospital, needle exchange) to test for other ingredients.
Yeah I think marijuana could be safely leagalised with similar laws to that of alcohol and tobacco.

I dont think the majority of the population would be responsible enough.

Not in the current climate, but hopefully one day it will be considered ridiculous for governments NOT to ensure that people are consuming a safe, quality substance. It will probably be the money that will eventually change things, not governments concerned about their citizens though.

 

[Divine Moments]

I'd even say it's easier to get weed than it is alcohol when you're under eighteen here

I've heard something like that about the US, but IME it isn't case here. May depend on your circle but I don't know anyone who wanted alcohol and couldn't get it.

 

[drug_mentor]

I really think adults should be able to take any drug that they see fit, perhaps with some exceptions. For example I don't think people with serious mental illness should be able to use powerful hallucinogens or stimulats, people with very serious heart problems shouldn't be allowed to use heavy stimulants, because it just isn't wise for them to be taking such substances and puts an uneccessary burden on the healthcare system.

I also tend to think that people should have to work their way up the drug ladder so to speak, what I mean by this is it makes no sense for an opioid naive individual to have access to heroin or dilaudid. Anyone with an interest in any class of drugs should have to start at the mildest drug in that class and gradually work their way up as tolerance and experience permits. I really don't think you would see many people injecting heroin if they could legally ingest weaker pharmaceutical opiods, or many people smoking high purity meth if they could take a decent strenth amphetamine orally or nasally on the weekends. I think prohibition blurs the line between softer and harder drugs, but if you were to make mild to moderate strength illicit drugs available then very few people would opt for the extreme options like IV heroin and smoking crack.

Although I do believe in legal availability of all drugs I do think that there would have to be some sort of guidelines in place as to who exactly can use what. I also think that anyone who wants to use any particular drug should have to pay for an education course to get certified as allowed to use said drug and the proceeds should go towards drug research and drug rehabilitation services.

 

[drug_mentor]

I've heard something like that about the US, but IME it isn't case here. May depend on your circle but I don't know anyone who wanted alcohol and couldn't get it.

Sorry to double post but I only saw this after I made my last one, from the age of 14 or 15 I always found access to moderate amounts of alcohol easy through my parents or parents of friends, however it would generally be consumed in somewhat controlled circumstances. The older crowd we would associate with tended to do more drugs than drink, and while they could be convinced to run into the bottleo fairly regularly they were always willing to sell drugs, particularly cannabis, this combined with more than a handful of schoolyard cannabis dealers and to a lesser extent speed and prescription stimulant dealers I would have to say illicit drugs were easier to acquire regularly and without supervision than alcohol was.

 

[most_illogical]

I'm believe in the liberal way. It should come down to education and parents raising kids to make the right choices.
That said, I think it would be prudent to have some regulations like with alcohol and tobacco, ie advertising and licensing hours restrictions, or possibly some sort of 'no-immediate-point-of-sale' system where buyers actually have to plan their drug taking (eg, mail order only) so there is less risk of emotional/impulsive drug taking.
Apart from that I think it should be down to the individual to decide for themselves, which is what people do now anyway.
Good topic.

 

[gimpan]

Work their way up the ladder? Who's gonna be the person who decides to move up a rung? a doctor?

This would be fantastic in a perfect world though, a team of medical professionals judging your drug taking capability then deciding if your ready for a higher dose.
Make a good tv show too.