drugs - are they best kept a secret?

[footscrazy]

I think that providing education on drugs, and legalising them, is a way to reduce harm. But, I also think that if drugs were legalised, or even if more education was provided, that more people would use drugs. You just have to look at the amount of people who use alchohol and tobacco - it's not because they're the best drugs, it's because they're legal. I think if drugs were decriminalised or legalised, there'd be a big surge in usage, at least to begin with. Especially with something like methamphetamine, which can make people so much more productive - something that's highly valued in our society.

The sad story of the teenager who died after using Tassie poppies made me think about this. Is it perhaps better not to educate the world about drugs, because overall, less people will use that way, and hence there'll be less deaths? Or do you think all the information should be put out there, and people can decide for themselves whether to use or not? It's a hard one for me. I believe that the info should be out there, and criminalising drugs is wrong, but at the same time...I think that coming across drugs can alter your life, and it's impossible to make a fully informed choice to first use a highly addictive drug. Sometimes I wish I just hadn't known about drugs for a few more years; it's one of those things you can't un-know.

What does everyone else think...?

 

[JessFR]

I think the mistake you're making is the black and white thinking that drugs must be either banned, or unregulated to the point that we advertise heroin for minor aches and pains at any hour of the day.

It doesn't have to be one or the other. We could just as easily do it in a controlled form, say for example, make it so you have to get a license to buy drugs, and have to take a safety and awareness course to be issued the license. I'm just speculating but condoning or encouraging drug use need not be inherent in legalization. Take smoking. We haven't banned it but we have made a lot of progress in discouraging its use.

Whatever system we use, I don't believe that prohibition will ever be an effective public health strategy for either users or nonusers.

You're right there are limits to explaining the risks on paper. But ultimately the option chosen must be the one with the overall best impact for public health and well being. And prohibition causes such an enormous negative effect on society I can't believe it's the right choice.

The big issue is getting it out of the public's head that legal means safe. We treat adults like children and they learn to act like them. Unable to handle the responsibility of their freedoms to do something that's bad for them because they've been conditioned to believe the law will protect them from anything dangerous.

Society needs to grow up and relearn how to be adults.

 

[Jakeperson]

This^^


I think there would be a surge in usage at first but people would get bored with them, the next generation would watch the damage done to those who went out of control and think, "Why the fuck would any one want to take drugs?"

 

[footscrazy]

^ I completely agree with your last two paragraphs. I'm definitely not thinking in black and white though. I post threads to try and stimulate discussion, and try not to make it all about my opinion, but I don't think I ever suggested there was only the option of advocating drugs completely rather than the current, prohibited situation we have now.

I think it's a question worth considering. Even just educating people about drugs will probably introduce someone who would otherwise never have come across them to the concept. If, for example, you had to get a licence to use certain drugs, there'd surely still be a thriving black market for those people who couldn't gain their licence for whatever reason. I also think that a lot of people are plain idiots, and if drugs were suddenly decriminalised plenty of people would take that as face value that drugs were harmless. For every person on Bluelight, there's a lot more who neck pills after their dealer says they'll get high off them.

 

[DeathDomokun]

Enriching drug lords, treating regular members of the public like criminals, and neglecting drug abuse victims, far exceeds the damage done if the drugs were legal.

This is a point that cannot be overstated nor repeated often enough in contexts such as these. I have found myself facepalming and indexthumbnosebridging more times than during the Star Wars prequel trilogy when participating in or listening to debates re. the merits of drug decriminalization/legalization (D/L) vs those of prohibition for this reason alone. An expected increase in mean per capita usage (which is, of course, dubious to begin with) and volume of consumption are typically offered as deterrents to D/L, but the principle dilemma that is so often neglected is the one summarized above. The issue isn't whether one variable or another is significantly reduced - it's a matter of 1) How well the suggested policy's benefits stack up to its deficiencies and costs; 2) To what extent said policy's sociopolitical justification and implementation is in keeping with collective interests and current social theory; and 3) The actual plausibility of this policy's implementation in the first place, i.e., its relationship to consensus reality. If one considers these criteria to be effective metrics of legislative merit, the issue is unthinkably simple.

As mentioned by L2R above, the WOD is maintained on the behest of dubious historical tradition, rigid sociocultural attitudes, and, most importantly, the political cowardice of our leaders. Who has need for conspiracies when this all-powerful axis of idiocy can be readily cited for blame?

Providing information can (and usually does) reduce harm. This is something I would expect a senior mod to know, really...
Acting against reason is stupid.
You can't blame drugs for stupid people, and you can't keep them in the dark.
The premise that keeping them a secret is flawed by drugs not being secret in Australian culture at this point in time.

You might want to take a brief look at Portugal if you haven't done so already.

 

[Jakeperson]

I think she does know that^^

As for the stupid people there's an old saying that I haven't seen on here for a while. "Blame the user, not the substance."

 

[mister]

Drugs are fun, end of story. We have an inbred mentality that tells us that drugs are bad, the word "drug" is automatically associated with bad things. Legalize the lot and educate our kids not to abuse. Simplistic answer? Yes, does this approach work?, YES!!

 

[Busty St Clare]

If, for example, you had to get a licence to use certain drugs, there'd surely still be a thriving black market for those people who couldn't gain their licence for whatever reason. I also think that a lot of people are plain idiots, and if drugs were suddenly decriminalised plenty of people would take that as face value that drugs were harmless. For every person on Bluelight, there's a lot more who neck pills after their dealer says they'll get high off them.

This is pretty much my viewpoint on the issue. As much as I value personal freedoms and the right to choose, society, particularly in Australia, has not proven to me that it has the collective maturity not to descend in to a drug fuelled cluster fuck. At the moment I see the criminal justice system inflicting a disproportionate level of harm to many family and friends, how ever this doesn't mean that an open market will result in an utopia. People champion the term "functional addict" like their life is better than the sober person next to them, yet they are still just a slave to their drug of choice. Being able to freely source your poison is only a small part of the battle when you are a drug addict. Sure at the time it seems all your worries would be gone with an unlimited supply, but the life of an addicted is a selfish egotistically driven one that has no room for community values or compassion to others. This may sound harsh but addicts have no time for any one else but themselves and I believe families would be the biggest losers in a free and open market. Anyone who has had to live with an alcoholic can tell you that an unlimited supply of their drug of choice doesn't make them a better or more productive member of society. Addicts are usually happier alone.


Those of you who sprout studies from Portugal has obviously never been to that country. It is a shit hole (I'm excluding the touristy regions that most people sit in the sun and drink cocktails on the beach), with a huge discrepancy between the rich and the poor. Public health services are third world compared to Australia and the poverty line for most is extremely low. The fact that you can source your drugs without the fear of prison hasn't made their society any better. It has saved money by directing funds from policing to drug treatment but criminal gangs are rife and the black markets still exist. It may not be as wild and chaotic as say the slums in Rio, but drugs still ruin too many lives than is acceptable. Rates of use may have levelled but only because they were ridiculously high to begin with.

One of the biggest benefits of changing our drug laws that I foresee would hopefully be turning people back to "safer" more predictable drugs. At the moment we have a real problem with people necking any old shit for a high. Quality control and consumer confidence is at an all time low because of the share number of different white powders that are being sold to us. If the government were to focus more on education it's first step should be to teach the average drug user what is safe and what is a risk. At the moment it runs a "All drugs are bad" policy that fails to address the fact that as experienced users we know this is bullshit. MDMA, when used with restraint is a safe and predictable drug. "Ecstasy", as we know is dangerous when it is cut with shit and then mixed with something else we don't know about. A couple of lines of cocaine has not harmed the majority of the legal community because they also know the value of moderation. If the average Joe was more informed of their options then I would like to see it have an eventual flow on effect to dealers and producers.

I doubt the government would ever want to get into the distribution business. Drugs come with risk, even when use wisely. It is hard enough balancing the legitimate pharmaceutical industry, at least with medicines you can control the dose and limit a patient to 3 pills a day with food. Recreational drugs won't allow such controls so you will always find a black market driving addiction.

 

[Portillo]

Many countries that have decriminalized have noted a decrease in drug use. This may be due to the fact that making them legal takes away the exciting risk factor that comes with something being 'illegal'.

 

[Busty St Clare]

Surely that would mean Legal High shops would have gone out of business by now. From what I have seen they are more popular than ever.

 

[MrIbis]

It's a moot point, idiots are always going to be idiots.

What needs to be encouraged is individualism and freedom of choice - not if its right/wrong by a society standpoint. Why should people be criminalized for taking drugs? that's more the point. Taking medicines (read; drugs) is not illegal. Drinking alcohol is not illegal, nor is smoking tobacco. All these things are equally if not more dangerous than the drugs that would be legalized if that were to come into effect.

No one is out ranting that crystal meth and heroin should be legalized and regulated.

Also, an unregulated drug market was proven as a failure in the united states and worldwide back in the late 1800s/1900s which caused prohibition in the first place - purely because of a lack of education and understanding.

Today we have the education and understanding at a level among society where people are at least taught about drugs enough to make an informed decision. Why not make that education unbiased to the law?

I cant see the decriminalization of weed and common party drugs like MDMA a real danger - yet i think much thought needs to be placed into the decriminalization of meth and known addictive substances as well as treatments for those addictions.

Also we need to focus on people who take drugs for spiritual or religious reasons. why should people be persecuted for following personal belief systems as opposed to recognized religions? Is it not fair to enjoy your personal religious/ceremonial practices without persecution?

 

[Jakeperson]

Legal high are popular because of media publicity, alerting people to the fact that they can get high legally, the people buying from them are still drug users. I am yet to meet a single person that has taken any that had not taken an illegal drug first.

I agree that Australia isn't collectively mature enough to handle it but we seem to only learn the hard way. I dont think we will ever learn until after we've fucked ourselves up too much, which isn't possible with the current laws. Most uneducated users couldn't really go any harder than they already do..

How do you explain me Busty? I am a drug addict and I don't do anything (besides the drugs) for myself, pretty much all of my motivations are to make life easier for the people around me. Fuck, sometimes due to my depression I struggle to prepare food for myself but if some one around me asked I would jump up and have the best meal possible ready in the shortest amount of time. It's always been one of my life goals to try and be the nicest and friendliest drug user possible.

 

[Jakeperson]

No one is out ranting that crystal meth and heroin should be legalized and regulated.

Oh yeah? Wanna bet?

Oh and this dude actually wants legal meth, fo' real.

 

[JessFR]

I wasn't suggesting that anyone could really 'fail' getting a license, my thoughts about having a license were simply to force people to have to take a look at the risks they could be getting themselves into, discourage them, and offer alternatives, etc.

Part of the problem is that there's relatively limited information about what would happen if we legalized drug access to this extent in today's society, largely because we refuse to do so. But given the crime, danger, and black market economy fueled by the criminalized drug trade, we could at least trial an alternative option. It's not like we can't simply reintroduce prohibition if it's a huge failure. But the potential benefits merit at least a trial IMO.

 

[poledriver]

Drugs will never be a secret, not with the net and mainstream media.

Non violent drug crimes under a certain amount or level should just be a fine or caution in my books. I hardly take any illegal drugs anymore but that's what I believe personally. Look at Cannabis here in Aus, it is decriminalised to an extent even tho it is illegal. Quite a few states and territories you are allowed to grow a few plants now and all states and territories allow for end users to hold up to a certain amount with the only consequence being a fine, counselling or a caution and not having to face court or a criminal conviction.

Legal highs are becoming more popular in part probably because of the media, just like raves were back before that incident when the media went ballistic over it (then everyones mum, dad and grandparents knew about them) and certain websites are the same, they get in the media a bit and become more and more popular and known about. None of my friends are interested in legal highs, they all prefer illegal highs, same with when i used to goto alot of parties, there were bzp pills about then, no one wonted them, they wonted e's or lsd or speed etc. But there is obviously a market for them and plenty of people are using them for whatever reasons. They aren't going away, just like illegal drugs, doesn't matter how much of a secret they start out as, the word spreads, some people abuse them, get known about more and more, media catches on and tells every tom dick and harry about them and sometimes where to get them and for how much etc as well. Promo plus.

This legal high guy was probably making a killing before his legal high killed someone and another guy had his leg amputated from binging on them.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sordid-deals-and-deadly-games-in-pursuit-of-pleasure-20121130-2amh9.html

I'd like to see the same with any illegal drug as the cannabis system, under a certain amount would just mean it's confiscated and you get a fine or drug program or a caution. Do it several times and you may have to face a judge in court, kind of like getting caught speeding I guess. Wouldn't matter if it was heroin, meth, lsd, mdma, cocaine, pma, g, whatever. End users who arent violent arent doing anything that major to send them to court about, its not going to change them or the availability of drugs for sending them to court.

 

[Busty St Clare]

No one is out ranting that crystal meth and heroin should be legalized and regulated.

Look around, there are quite a few here

How do you explain me Busty? I am a drug addict and I don't do anything (besides the drugs) for myself, pretty much all of my motivations are to make life easier for the people around me. Fuck, sometimes due to my depression I struggle to prepare food for myself but if some one around me asked I would jump up and have the best meal possible ready in the shortest amount of time. It's always been one of my life goals to try and be the nicest and friendliest drug user possible.

Do you have kids? That is the trute test of how selfish you are. It is pretty easy to live every day as a drug addict when you don't have any one to answer to. The difference is if you get on it on a Saturday night, what are you usual plans Sunday 8am? Like it or not, more than half of our society are kids, innocents who rely on some one to look after them. Ditto every person who works Sunday morning from the guy who sells you your smokes to the bloke who makes sure your phone reception works. No one really gives two shits about the junkie sleeping on someone's sofa come Sunday morning when they talk about the scourge of drug addiction, it is the meth head who picks up their kid from school or the dad who doesn't work whose kids do with out. If you have had an alcoholic parent you wouldnt probably understand. If you did then you must have a short memory.

 

[Stevenski]

This is pretty much my viewpoint on the issue. As much as I value personal freedoms and the right to choose, society, particularly in Australia, has not proven to me that it has the collective maturity not to descend in to a drug fuelled cluster fuck. At the moment I see the criminal justice system inflicting a disproportionate level of harm to many family and friends, how ever this doesn't mean that an open market will result in an utopia. People champion the term "functional addict" like their life is better than the sober person next to them, yet they are still just a slave to their drug of choice. Being able to freely source your poison is only a small part of the battle when you are a drug addict. Sure at the time it seems all your worries would be gone with an unlimited supply, but the life of an addicted is a selfish egotistically driven one that has no room for community values or compassion to others. This may sound harsh but addicts have no time for any one else but themselves and I believe families would be the biggest losers in a free and open market. Anyone who has had to live with an alcoholic can tell you that an unlimited supply of their drug of choice doesn't make them a better or more productive member of society. Addicts are usually happier alone.


Those of you who sprout studies from Portugal has obviously never been to that country. It is a shit hole (I'm excluding the touristy regions that most people sit in the sun and drink cocktails on the beach), with a huge discrepancy between the rich and the poor. Public health services are third world compared to Australia and the poverty line for most is extremely low. The fact that you can source your drugs without the fear of prison hasn't made their society any better. It has saved money by directing funds from policing to drug treatment but criminal gangs are rife and the black markets still exist. It may not be as wild and chaotic as say the slums in Rio, but drugs still ruin too many lives than is acceptable. Rates of use may have levelled but only because they were ridiculously high to begin with.

One of the biggest benefits of changing our drug laws that I foresee would hopefully be turning people back to "safer" more predictable drugs. At the moment we have a real problem with people necking any old shit for a high. Quality control and consumer confidence is at an all time low because of the share number of different white powders that are being sold to us. If the government were to focus more on education it's first step should be to teach the average drug user what is safe and what is a risk. At the moment it runs a "All drugs are bad" policy that fails to address the fact that as experienced users we know this is bullshit. MDMA, when used with restraint is a safe and predictable drug. "Ecstasy", as we know is dangerous when it is cut with shit and then mixed with something else we don't know about. A couple of lines of cocaine has not harmed the majority of the legal community because they also know the value of moderation. If the average Joe was more informed of their options then I would like to see it have an eventual flow on effect to dealers and producers.

I doubt the government would ever want to get into the distribution business. Drugs come with risk, even when use wisely. It is hard enough balancing the legitimate pharmaceutical industry, at least with medicines you can control the dose and limit a patient to 3 pills a day with food. Recreational drugs won't allow such controls so you will always find a black market driving addiction.

Brilliant post Busty. That is pretty bloody close to how I feel on the issue. Informed drug users are far safer than uninformed ones. Sure there are those who knowingly over do it but they make that choice. Like alcohol I think the whole country would not turn into potheads is cannabis is legalised & regulated. There would be a proportion that would much like with alcohol.

You could regulate drug use to an extent by having doctors prescribe a patient for example up to X amount of bud, X of MDMA per quarter etc legally & safely. Now if that patient decides to source alternate supplies to have more of X drug then that is their decision. 90% of the population that were on these prescriptions would not source outside what they have prescribed as they would be satisfied with what they have "allocated". Much like most people can enjoy a bottle of wine & not drink 4 or 5.

I think drug educated psychiatrists would be the best candidates to prescribe the drugs as they could conduct an assessment of the patient prior to prescribing suitable drugs of the patients choosing.

Hope that made sense as I am rather hungover.

Also I am not saying legalise heroin or meth as they are drugs of physical addiction unlike weed, MDMA, shrooms, LSD etc. That is not to be prejudiced against heroin & meth users but from a realistic long term potential stance that may one day become a reality.

 

[opi8]

While I see valid points in many of the arguments here, even/maybe even especially Busty's, I am an advocate for heroin to be legalised. Heroin and meth are vastly different in my opinion, if you are just basing your views on addictiveness, then surely we should ban, or criminalize nicotine and alcohol as well. Surely. No, this has been tried, and it failed dismally, much like the current state of affairs.

If you look at these two drugs in particular, heroin and methamphetamine, which of the two are more damaging to long term users. No, scratch that. Which of the two are damaging to long term users? If you consider heroin to be damaging long term, apart from the obvious addiction itself, then you should send all those doctors like Busty to jail for prescribing morphine, oxycodone, fentanyl, codeine, buprenorphine, methadone, whatever. It's not the substance that causes damage in the case of the opiods, it's the fact they're illegal, they're cut with shit and because of their expense, people often neglect themselves, and as Busty likes to mention, their families. That could change if it was legal, prescribed and cheap.

Meth, no. It could not happen. It's not just that it's addictive. It also causes enormous physical and mental issues.

 

[Jakeperson]

Look around, there are quite a few here



Do you have kids? That is the trute test of how selfish you are. It is pretty easy to live every day as a drug addict when you don't have any one to answer to. The difference is if you get on it on a Saturday night, what are you usual plans Sunday 8am? Like it or not, more than half of our society are kids, innocents who rely on some one to look after them. Ditto every person who works Sunday morning from the guy who sells you your smokes to the bloke who makes sure your phone reception works. No one really gives two shits about the junkie sleeping on someone's sofa come Sunday morning when they talk about the scourge of drug addiction, it is the meth head who picks up their kid from school or the dad who doesn't work whose kids do with out. If you have had an alcoholic parent you wouldnt probably understand. If you did then you must have a short memory.

Yes my father is an alcoholic/ex speed addict and I know for a fact that if I had kids I would drop everything for them. I would cut off my dick and balls for them and live with the pain constantly if it was necessary. It is probably the only thing at this point and time that I would stop using for. No one deserves a childhood like that.

 

[opi8]

As a father, I am more depressed because of my drug use than many others may be. That doesn't mean that I'm going to stop, it's not that fucking easy. And if you think it is, well, maybe one day you'll learn more about yourself.