• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

Should California "Medicalize" Illegal Drugs?

phr

Ex-Bluelighter
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
36,682
Should California "Medicalize" Illegal Drugs?
Tom Fudge
KPBS
6.1.09



SAN DIEGO — The effort to legalize drugs remains on the periphery of our political landscape. A San Francisco lawmaker, for instance, has sponsored a bill to legalize marijuana. Some doctors who deal with drug addiction say a better model may be medicalization. That means allowing addicts to use drugs under a doctor's supervision. But KPBS Health reporter Tom Fudge says attempts to change the legal status of drugs raises serious questions that don't have simple answers.

There may be no drug policy critic in California more outspoken or better credentialed than Jim Gray. He served as a district court judge in Orange County for 25 years. But he decided, long ago, that the war on drugs was a failure.

Drug use, he says, should not be seen as a criminal matter.

"It makes as much sense to me to put this gifted actor Robert Downey Jr. in jail for his cocaine problem, as it would have to jail Betty Ford for her alcohol problem," he says.

The idea of treating drug addiction as a medical problem enjoys wide support. And some people who work with addicts propose that we medicalize addictive drugs. Clark Smith is medical director of Sharp Vista Pacifica, a drug and alcohol treatment hospital. He says providing addicts with the drugs they crave, under a doctor's supervision, is a promising model that could take the profit out of the illegal drug trade.

"This sounds pie in the sky and idealistic," he says. "But huge amounts of money are being spent for illegal drugs. And if we could divert even ten percent of that money toward medicalized treatment and drug rehabilitation treatment, I think we're going to see this problem go away."

The example often cited of medicalization is one in Zurich, Switzerland. There, heroin addicts are allowed to use the drug with a prescription. Smith says the program means addicts don't have to commit crimes to get their drugs, and treatment remains an option.

"Now it's possible that they may choose to use heroin on a regulated basis. I think that would still be preferable to the system we have now," says Smith.

Medicalization, as Smith describes it, isn't the only option for changing the system. Legalizing drugs could mean treating cocaine and heroin as we treat alcohol or tobacco. Decriminalization usually means legalizing the use, though not necessarily the production and sale of drugs.

"People who propose legalization… essentially they say we failed in keeping drugs illegal. That's why let's legalize it."

Igor Koutsenok is a psychiatrist and drug addiction specialist at UCSD.

"Okay let's fantasize," he says. "Even if it's legal tomorrow morning it means a huge governmental involvement. Since you just said the government has failed in keeping it illegal what makes you think the government will be successful in making it legal and controlling it effectively?"

Koutsenok is also very skeptical of the existing models for legalization and medicalization. The Swiss example? Koutsenok points out that it's a highly controlled program that serves only about 200 heroin addicts in Zurich. He also wonders… why keep addicts on heroin when methadone has proven to be an effective, safe substitute?

And what about the Dutch experiment, in which Amsterdam allows marijuana to be used in certain districts? Koutsenok says supporters claimed that this would hurt the illegal drugs trade.

"In fact, what happened the entire drug trafficking has been rerouted to Amsterdam. And the groups, the organized crime groups, have made a remarkable profit because, practically, what you get here is a clear indication of where the market is," says Koutsenok.

Even people like Clark Smith, who favor medicalization of drugs, have serious misgivings about legalizing marijuana. It's a drug Smith considers to be addictive and potentially destructive to a young person's development.

Addiction specialists say the urge to alter consciousness is fundamental to the human experience. Like it or not, that means people will use drugs and some will become addicted. That raises the question: What role should the criminal justice system play, visa vi the medical establishment, when it comes to controlling the destructive potential of drugs. So far, there's no easy answer.

Link!
 
So far, there's no easy answer.
The easy answer is personal responsibility.

Keep the government out of the drug business. The only government involvement should be:

1. To prevent the sale of drugs to minors without a prescription.

2. Ensure truth in labeling, where drug potency and ingredients must not be misrepresented.

3. Abolish the DEA and the ONDCP. Allow over-the-counter sale of all drugs and drug delivery systems (e.g. needles) to all adults at pharmacies, liquor stores, drug stores, etc. No restrictions on adults manufacturing drugs for their own personal use.
 
I agree with Huaca, except on the "no restrictions on adults manufacturing drugs for their own personal use". There are many ways that amature manufacture of chemicals and drugs can have severe negative consequences on people other than those engaging in those activities, for example explosions and unethical disposal of chemicals.
 
interesting theory.....medicalize illegal drugs. dont think it will happen. but it is in fact better and more effective than the our current system. it will not only get rid of violence (if not all, a significant decrease), but also let the doctors who "prescribe" the drugs, see/notice if the patient has a drug problem...

in theory....
 
no if the government 'medicalized' all illegal drugs to "drug addicts" then that would mean the government would take away a shit load of your rights and label you as a drug-addict if you were to get prescribed a drug for 'drug-addiction.' Haucua is right the government has no business in being involved like that with the drugs. Honestly, I would rather have them stay illegal and keep my privacy in my usage of them then to be labeled a "drug-addict" by some ignorant government official. And then have rights taken away for using the drugs. No thanks
 
I agree with Huaca, except on the "no restrictions on adults manufacturing drugs for their own personal use". There are many ways that amature manufacture of chemicals and drugs can have severe negative consequences on people other than those engaging in those activities, for example explosions and unethical disposal of chemicals.
i don't think we should require a license to mix some chemicals. it's something that, yes, you should know what you're doing, but are we gonna license EVERYTHING that could potentially harm someone else? i think things like fireworks, sodium chloride, drugs, it just adds too many layers of complexity when we put them through govt regs. there are other ways to go about making them safer
 
no if the government 'medicalized' all illegal drugs to "drug addicts" then that would mean the government would take away a shit load of your rights and label you as a drug-addict if you were to get prescribed a drug for 'drug-addiction.' Haucua is right the government has no business in being involved like that with the drugs. Honestly, I would rather have them stay illegal and keep my privacy in my usage of them then to be labeled a "drug-addict" by some ignorant government official. And then have rights taken away for using the drugs. No thanks

I would rather be labeled a drug addict and get a fighting chance at a decent life then dance around with years of jailtime on a daily basis.
 
I would rather be labeled a drug addict and get a fighting chance at a decent life then dance around with years of jailtime on a daily basis.

great point. i think the whole "medicalize" theory is just a means (well..one of them) to keep drug users away from trouble with the law.
 
If people are legally free to purchase quality drugs of their choice at reasonable prices there would be no need to cook up your own meth for your personal use. It would be cheaper and easier to just go to the local drug store and buy what you need. I really don't think there would be many dangerous, toxic drug labs just for personal consumption.
 
If people are legally free to purchase quality drugs of their choice at reasonable prices there would be no need to cook up your own meth for your personal use. It would be cheaper and easier to just go to the local drug store and buy what you need. I really don't think there would be many dangerous, toxic drug labs just for personal consumption.

Bingo.

Why spend thousands of dollars along with shit loads of time and effort to grow your own plants, cook your own product, or whatever else when you could drive down the block to your local pharmacy and pick up clean, higher grade shit for dirt cheap?

Legalizing drugs would cut almost all violence associated with drugs out, seeing as how you wouldn't need to go to shady parts of town and deal with shady people to get your stuff. No turf wars. No border wars. The list goes on.

You also have less people crowding jails. Less people dying from drug ODs because they're getting clean shit that was made in a lab somewhere instead of in somebody's garage or some shit.

I could sit here all day naming the positives. It'll never happen, though. Government needs to keep their thumb on the populace and there's too much money involved in locking people up and the court systems.

Imagine how many shyster lawyers would be out of work if they didn't get to collect cash from people trying to beat minor drug raps.
 
If people are legally free to purchase quality drugs of their choice at reasonable prices there would be no need to cook up your own meth for your personal use. It would be cheaper and easier to just go to the local drug store and buy what you need. I really don't think there would be many dangerous, toxic drug labs just for personal consumption.

Yes, in the long run you're right. Or rather, mostly right. Without laws banning production by untrained individuals, precursor costs go down the tubes. I'd have to double check, but I'd be surprised if you couldn't make meth for as little as 5 dollars a gram if there were no ephedrine or pseudoephedrine controls in place. A large distribution system would necessarily cost more than this price- you have a large system to keep up, not just one guy in his back yard. That guy can make it hella cheap, and doesn't have to worry about safety and product control.

Are we going to allow him to be charged for murder when his customers start dying from badly made goods? The civil punishments we give to drug manufacturers when they mess up doses or something else aren't nearly appropriate to some guy who just whips out a batch to make a quick buck knowing full well that his product isn't pure.

In the short term, though, you're wrong.

It would take a long time for an effective distribution and production system to be put in place and in the mean time we'd have people synthesizing their own drugs.
 
Top