if drugs were legal, would drug use increase or decrease?

[kamikazikid]

Also, I totally forgot. Has anybody here read the Aldoux Huxley book called "Brave New World?" In it, the evolution of humanity lead to the breeding of humans and the creation of a single drug that included narcotic, stimulant and hallucinogenic properties (called Soma), so that people could be whisked into another world any time they felt the slightest bit of stress. Basically people lived in that book by going about their very minimal business and taking as much time off of reality as they wanted to by dropping a few Somas. That is a real possibility for how the world could end up. I'm not sure, but I think it was Shulgin who stated that "if a drug that could consistantly induce ++++ experiences in all its subjects was created....." than humans could totally stop doing anything. We (humanity) could just make life so that everybody had a small job to support growing food and stuff, and producing the miracle drug, and everybody could just stay extremely high and happy on this "miracle drug" all the time except for a few hours of work a week.

 

[Invalid Usename]

Where I see a flaw in your logic is why you're asserting that it's the government's responsibility to regulate a part of your life as personal as the substances that you put into your own body.

I understand what you are getting at, and [in part] I agree with you.

But I think that regulation of intoxicants needs to be done by government in these areas:

1. Access control based on age -
   Children should not use chemical intoxicants. The primary reason for this [IMO] is that their neurological systems are still developing, and the introduction of a perception altering substance can be damaging both physically and psychologically.
2. Restricted use where the safety of others is at stake -
   Current DUI/DWI laws should and must be applied to all mind altering substances. And this should also apply to boating, operating heavy machinery, fire arms use, and other activities where should laws already apply to alcohol consumption.
3. Quality control -
   Just as the FDA and ATF control the quality of consumables being sold, the quality, manufacturing standards and distribution of recreational drugs must be controlled. I feel, if prohibition is ever eliminated, that the DEA's mission should be redefined in a similar way that the ATF is now. The agents could exchange their hand guns for pens, and know that when they kiss their wife and kids goodbye in the morning that they will be home for dinner that evening.

We already have a working model in the way of alcohol. Recreational drugs should be regulated in a similar manner.

 

[B9]

^ Your idea of an ideal system more or less mirrors my own ideas. The one thing i would say differently is that the money should go to the health service in general and not just drug users as the amount of revenue generated is likely to be substantial.
Zophen

 

[panicthedigital]

Just because a drug is legal does not lead to a greater amount of use. You can go to Britain of Holland and buy some shrooms and peyote in a smart shop, but is everyone walking around tripping balls? If drugs were legalized, there are several ways to control their use. As mentioned earlier, local governemnts can ban their usage. Also, drug treatment paid for by increased tax revenues is an option. European countries have much better policies in deealing with these problems, and we need to jump on the bandwagon. Also, just because a drug is legal doesn't mean it still can't be stigmatized. Just look at tobacco. Society ultimately decides what drugs are of value, they just need to understand that prohibition only makes the problem worse. As far as creating a nation of drug addicts is concerned, if people do go fucking crazy and retarded on drugs, that's natural selection and we are a better world for weeding people out. Just make the penalties very stiff for people involved in drug related car crashes, etc. As far as the Brave New World theory goes, you should start looking at prescription antidepressants as a means of social control. Most people are too afraid of psychedelics for such a situation to occur, and if they are used properly, such worries are unwarranted.

 

[cannabis sativa]

i dont think anyone thinks that legalizing drugs would destroy society or anything, only a small % of the population would take drug abuse to the negative extreme. it's just that alcohol is legal and alcohol abuse represents a significant problem in america. same with tobacco, despite any stigma attatched to it. thus its reasonable to think that if crack and meth were legal the nation would also suffer from high rates of addiction to those substances. not that this is the worst thing in the world, afterall prohibition doesn't seem like a good solution either. thats why i also like the idea of profits going to educate and help addicts. i think if drugs were legal some type of program to educate people about the dangers would need to be put in place. i also like the idea of special "psychedelic centers" so people who wanted to trip could go someplace where they wouldn't interfere with or be disturbed by the rest of society. people knowledgeable about psychedelics could be on hand to help people through bad experiences and small amounts of psychedelics could be dispensed to people who wished to have the experience in the comfort of their own homes. i think thats a better idea than selling powerful psychedelics at the corner store.

 

[Slay]

Uh, alcohol is quite an intoxicating drug and is legal.

I disagree, your wrong. Alcohol is crap. And I believe its designed for the sober people who cant get real shit.

 

[clinto84]

i think dealers would still exist, hey kid got some (incert brand here eg - coco-cola) lsd which information like dosage/time to hit, peak time etc would be available - which i think would be on pakaging. the dealer then would get the attention of who ever is intersted with his goods, meanwhile gangs are getting this stuff "fell off the back of the truck" or by road blocking and stealing goods while in delivery to these new "drug stores" but the gangs would then take these stolen goods to their dealers where it would be sold a slightly but lower price. there fore still leaving a "black market" T.vs are legal but those still get stolen and sold by people ILLEGALY possibly aka dealers

 

[redeemer]

^^
From whom would you rather buy your acid?
Some gang to save a few pennies or a certified drug store where you know exactly what you get?

 

[Invalid Usename]

i think dealers would still exist, hey kid got some (incert brand here eg - coco-cola) lsd which information like dosage/time to hit, peak time etc would be available - which i think would be on pakaging. the dealer then would get the attention of who ever is intersted with his goods, meanwhile gangs are getting this stuff "fell off the back of the truck" or by road blocking and stealing goods while in delivery to these new "drug stores" but the gangs would then take these stolen goods to their dealers where it would be sold a slightly but lower price. there fore still leaving a "black market" T.vs are legal but those still get stolen and sold by people ILLEGALY possibly aka dealers

You're thinking "prohibition prices" (prohibition prices are artificially high due risk).

The prices would be far too low for it to be worth selling drugs on a black market.

Who is going to be standing on a corner trying to sell cocaine or methamphetamine for $3.00 to $5.00 per gram?

 

[paradoxcycle]

Merging with the "if drugs were legal..." thread.
-Pdx

 

[twominds]

Would stay about the same. I use the drugs I do regardless of them being illegal.

 

[eagleplatinum]

Mine would incerase by a very sufficient amount. I am not able to find the drug I prefer to use when I want to use it. I rarely ever find it actually. So if it were legal, I would be using waaaay more often.

 

[Roger&Me]

businesses would go under over night.

Enron.

buildings would literally crumble.

World Trade Center.

gang wars would develop between the conservative and liberal.

Hardball with Chris Matthews.

All that bad shit that you mentioned happens already on a regular basis; find a new argument that causes our situation to actually change and maybe you could prove your point.

 

[Tryptamine*Dreamer]

Originally posted by skiforlife



I do think that there would have to be a limitation on the sales of psychedelics and other very powerful drugs though so people don't fry their brains by tripping or rolling every day. Perhaps tag it to your driver's lisence and limit it to one sale a week or something.

If someone chooses to use a drug to excess and is harmed by it that is their right. The government does not need to protect us from ourselves. Very few people would use psychedelics that frequently for long enough to cause serious problems.

Psychedelic drugs should not be treated any differently by law than any other drugs. You should be allowed to buy as much as you want.

Psychedelic centers where people can go to trip and be in the presence of experienced trippers sounds like a good idea for those who would prefer to trip in that setting.

Personally I think the best way to go in our society would be to decriminalize the drugs for personal, home use... as a first step to test the waters. Keep the drugs illegal but make them violations akin to parking or speeding tickets as a deterrent for excessive or irresponsible use.

If drugs were decriminalized but still illegal it would not reduce the crime associated with drug dealing because they would still be on the black market. The price of drugs would still be just as high
so just as many addicts would turn to crime to support their addiction.

The purity and identity of the drugs would still be unknown. Drug use might increase but it would be just as dangerous. There would be just as many, if not more overdoses and deaths.

This kind of decriminalization could backfire. The crime rate would be just as high, there would be just as many deaths, and drug use would probably increase at least slightly. It would look like decriminalization was a failure and there would likely be a push to re-criminalize drugs.

Originally posted by MaDMAn_Project


Free registration of drug users by doctors, if you want to access the drugs you must be a registered user, think healthcare card. This puts users in front of medical professionals who can help those who may need other assistance with addiction etc and allow productive recreational users to enjoy their lives.

I disagree with requiring registration of drug users, I think it is a horrible idea. I think that drugs should be regulated just like alcohol and tobacco and sold over the counter. Advertising of drugs including alcohol should be banned.

If somebody needs help for an addiction they can seek the help of a doctor on their own.

Drugs only prescribed by doctors this also allows for continual monitoring of people using and intervention if required.

It would be a violation of their privacy to have a doctor monitoring their drug use. I sure as hell don't want anyone monitoring my drug use.

A forced intervention would be a violation of their rights and IMO should be illegal. If someone wants to use excessive amounts of drugs they should be allowed to do so.

If you have to get a prescription then the doctors could refuse to give you the drugs you want. They could limit the quantity that you consume. That is wrong, you should be allowed to put whatever you want into your body.

Registration seems useless unless it is going to be used to deny certain people the right to use drugs, limit the amount you are allowed to use, or force people into treatment. Registration could also be used to discriminate against drug users.

Realistically free availability will result in more problems than it's worth, look at the currently available drugs like alcohol, a fairly innocuous substance in relation to many others but the more available it is the more widely it is used without safeguards and the more damage it causes...

Alcohol has always been the most popular drug in the USA, even before drug prohibition. Drug use was not a huge problem before prohibition. If/when drugs are legalized alcohol will probably remain the most popular for a very long time.

Alcohol is more dangerous than many illegal drugs. People under the influence of alcohol are more likely to become violent than someone high on weed or opiates. Alcohol is more damaging to the body than most other drugs. The intoxication produced by alcohol is stronger than most illegal drugs if enough is used.

I think if use of currently illegal drugs increases then alcohol use will decrease. Instead of getting high only on alcohol, they would choose other drugs sometimes. If you include alcohol as a drug then the total amount of drugs used will increase very little and the overall harm will probably decrease a lot.

Originally posted by clinto84
i think dealers would still exist, hey kid got some (incert brand here eg - coco-cola) lsd which information like dosage/time to hit, peak time etc would be available - which i think would be on pakaging. the dealer then would get the attention of who ever is intersted with his goods, meanwhile gangs are getting this stuff "fell off the back of the truck" or by road blocking and stealing goods while in delivery to these new "drug stores" but the gangs would then take these stolen goods to their dealers where it would be sold a slightly but lower price. there fore still leaving a "black market" T.vs are legal but those still get stolen and sold by people ILLEGALY possibly aka dealers

This did not happen when alcohol prohibition ended and there is no reason to believe that it will happen with any other drugs, unless the government taxes them excessively.

 

[MaDMAn_Project]

If somebody needs help for an addiction they can seek the help of a doctor on their own.

This isn't working all the time currently, there are still a lot of at risk users not seeking help.

Registration seems useless unless it is going to be used to deny certain people the right to use drugs, limit the amount you are allowed to use, or force people into treatment. Registration could also be used to discriminate against drug users.

Someone presenting to a doctor showing obvious signs of damaging drug use would benefit from a step down in dosage or counselling. Doctors currently have the powers to limit dosage on most drugs on the market. A doctor patient privilege would be in place as it is currently to protect the rights of users.

you should be allowed to put whatever you want into your body

In a utopian society we could all do whatever we wanted all the time but I'm trying to propose a workable model for our society.

Alcohol is more dangerous than many illegal drugs... Alcohol is more damaging to the body than most other drugs.

The lethal dose (LD50) for Alcohol is 10.6g per Kg
The lethal dose (LD50) for THC is 670mg per Kg
The lethal dose (LD50) for Heroin is 80mg per Kg
The lethal dose (LD50) for Cocaine is 80mg per Kg
The lethal dose (LD50) for Methamphetamine is 55mg per Kg
The lethal dose (LD50) for MDMA is 50mg per Kg

 

[redeemer]

Drugs only prescribed by doctors this also allows for continual monitoring of people using and intervention if required.

The government is already trying to monitor every addict in every way they can and this isn't working. I believe that if someone wants to be a drug addict, there's nothing you can do to stop them. Intervention will just cause the addict to seek drugs elsewhere.
Free availability is the only viable solution.

This isn't working all the time currently, there are still a lot of at risk users not seeking help.

And there will always be. You will never find a solution that is "working all the time". There will always be addicts and neither your solution nor legalization will fix this.

Someone presenting to a doctor showing obvious signs of damaging drug use would benefit from a step down in dosage or counselling.

We all know this. The problem is getting the user to do what you say. If you deny him drugs he will just get some from his non-user friend.

In a utopian society we could all do whatever we wanted all the time but I'm trying to propose a workable model for our society.

No. There is a huge difference in a person putting a substance in his own body and only (potentially) hurting himself compared to "eveyone doing eveything they want all the time".

The lethal dose (LD50) for Alcohol is 10.6g per Kg
The lethal dose (LD50) for THC is 670mg per Kg
The lethal dose (LD50) for Heroin is 80mg per Kg
The lethal dose (LD50) for Cocaine is 80mg per Kg
The lethal dose (LD50) for Methamphetamine is 55mg per Kg
The lethal dose (LD50) for MDMA is 50mg per Kg

The LD50 does in no way reflect the damage nor dangers associated with a certain drug.
The LD50 compared to the ED50 might be a good indicator of the risk of an OD, but there are many other dangers and kinds of damage than those caused by ODs.

 

[2oclockbeanfiend]

there would be a very minor increase, would be my guess. but shortly after (maybe even 10 years), i think it would return back to the way it is now. most people who dont do drugs now, wouldn't do them if they were legal(think the marority of our parents.)

 

[Tryptamine*Dreamer]

Originally posted by MaDMAn_Project
This isn't working all the time currently, there are still a lot of at risk users not seeking help.

Of course there are users who need help but do not seek it. Some of them just choose to try to deal with their addictions on their own. That is their right. Some are afraid of legal trouble, reaction of family members, and losing their jobs.

Someone presenting to a doctor showing obvious signs of damaging drug use would benefit from a step down in dosage or counselling. Doctors currently have the powers to limit dosage on most drugs on the market. A doctor patient privilege would be in place as it is currently to protect the rights of users.

We're probably just going to disagree on this. It is true that someone who is abusing drugs to the point that it causes obvious damage would benefit by reducing the dosage but I believe that people have the right to cause harm to themselves as long as they don't hurt anyone else.

Doctors prescribe medications to treat medical conditions, not to get people high. Most people would not know what drug or the dose needed to treat their condition. And even now there are doctors who will not prescribe medications that can get you high even to people who need them. Many pain patients do not get adequate treatment because doctors will not prescribe enough.

The doctor patient privilege would prevent doctors from giving our information to anyone else but it would do nothing to protect our right to consume the drugs we choose.

In a utopian society we could all do whatever we wanted all the time but I'm trying to propose a workable model for our society.

I think both of our ideas would work better than prohibition but I think that regulating all drugs the way alcohol and tobacco are now would be best. Drugs would be taxed and the money would be spent on drug education and voluntary treatment. Some of it could be spent on after school programs to give kids and teens something to do besides using drugs or getting involved in other negative activities.

Maybe I am wrong and your ideas would be a better solution but I just disagree with the involuntary restrictions on drug use and any involuntary treatment. I also don't like the idea of doctors monitoring our drug consumption. I can't support anything that prevents people from making personal decisions like what drugs they use and the amounts. As long as you hurt nobody but yourself you should be able to do what ever you want.

Another possible problem with restricting the amount of drugs that you can consume is that it would create a demand for drugs on the black market. Drug addicts are going to get the drugs whether it is legal or not. If the restrictions are big enough then there would be enough of a market to cause the same kind of problems associated with prohibition.

The lethal dose (LD50) for Alcohol is 10.6g per Kg
The lethal dose (LD50) for THC is 670mg per Kg
The lethal dose (LD50) for Heroin is 80mg per Kg
The lethal dose (LD50) for Cocaine is 80mg per Kg
The lethal dose (LD50) for Methamphetamine is 55mg per Kg
The lethal dose (LD50) for MDMA is 50mg per Kg

The LD50 may be higher for alcohol but that has nothing to do with how much damage the drugs cause.

A better indication of toxicity is the therapeutic index. This is the LD50 divided by the effective dose. It is well known that alcohol can cause severe liver damage. Alcohol was responsible for 110,000 deaths in 1996 in the USA. Average annual tobacco deaths 1990-1994 was 430,700. Total for all other drugs in 1998, legal and illegal, was 16,926. Even taking the lower rates of use of illegal drugs they still are not as deadly as alcohol and tobacco. The number of deaths from illegal drugs would probably be cut in half if they were legalized.

This is the therapeutic indexes of the drugs you listed and a few you didn't for a 180 pound person:

Alcohol=20.4 - This is using a dose of 42 grams of alcohol, the amount in 3 beers
THC=3,653.7 - This is for an oral dose of 15mg THC
Heroin=109 - This is for 60mg IV
Cocaine=I could not find dose size
Methamphetamine=45 - This is for 100mg IV
MDMA=20.45 - This is for 200mg oral

Caffeine=61.35 - This is for 400mg oral
DMT=150 - for 60mg smoked
Ketamine=42 - for 150mg I.M.
LSD=2,700 - for 500ug oral
Psilocybin=763.4 - for 30mg oral / equal to around 7.5gram dried mushrooms

Don't assume that it is safe to take extremely high doses just because the therapeutic index or the ld50 is high. They are based on animal experiments, not human use. Some of them could be way off due to that.

Some drugs could have a high therapeutic index and still cause physical damage over time. Even drugs that are nearly harmless physically can cause mental problems or make it easier to accidentally injure or kill yourself while high.

 

[TheIcarusEffect]

I think we need to look at places where there is no legislation or legislation and no police to enforce the laws. For example, South America or even Thailand. There are drug addicts but when have you ever heard any of these nations being labeled as a "nation lost to drugs." Extremely addictive drugs like heroin and cocaine are even produced in these countries, where you would think the prices would be lowest, and they have very little problems. And if you think American Poverty is bad, and I know that it can be bad, imagine their poverty in third world nations. So I think you'd have to question the argument of massive amounts of the population turning to drugs and being adversely effected.

You would also have to look at the bottom of American society. Many of the lower classes are not members of the lower classes necessarily because of drug or alcohol use, some are, but most of them were born into poverty and will die in poverty. This is usually do to lack of education. I have met many people who were born into low-income families and they had no idea the opportunities that were available to them, such as student financial aid. Many end up using and abusing alcohol to cope with their situation and often use it as an excuse why they are not bettering themselves. I believe when it comes down to it, it's just another excuse we use -

"I'm addicted to opiates, I can't succeed until I get clean and I just <i>can't</> get clean."
"Nobody is going hire an alcoholic."
"I can't afford my coke habit and go to school, and I'm addicted to coke..."

I may be wrong, hell, I guarantee a portion of what I just said isn't true, that's how things are, and you can never nail them directly on the head. But I do know that I've heard people use all of these excuses, more than once and from different people. I don't think it would change anything other than improve the quality of life for some people for a short time.

If they're legalized it'll be nice to get an eighth of pot for a dollar instead of twenty. It'd be nice to walk into a store and pay five bucks instead of fifty for a line of coke.

But there would still be addicts, and there would still be problems. It wouldn't perfect the world, but I think it would make it a place with less excuses to succeed. Because that's the reason people who have problems with drugs have problems with drugs, the excuse drugs offer. They're hiding from something, be it life, a miserable childhood, poverty, whatever. Those things they're hiding from is what should be faced to move on in their life. But in life, people <i>do</i> eventually move on, they do get over drugs or whatever excuse had blocked their path.

So yes, drugs should be legalized. And no, I don't think it will solve the problems we have no. But it'll make the world a little easier, and it just may help some.

 

[Bored2Hel]

I like drugs but I don't want them made legal, I could look at it in the way that I could walk into a shop pick up a bag of good quality pills at a reasonable price but if it's that easy for me to get them then I'm going to end up binging for longer than I do now. I don't find it particularly easy to get drugs at the best of time (no regular suppliers) and I always want more when my stash runs out. The way it is now I don't get any more and at the time it sucks but I'm glad eventually because it would just fuck me up too much in the long run.

Another thing is if all these drugs that are harder to find at the moment became widely available then I'd end up trying lots of new drugs that I really don't need to be trying. When things are legal it gives you the idea that it's "ok" to do them, imagine if I could walk into a store and there were pills, coke, LSD and meth available. I might think well it's ok to mix drinks so it must be fine with drugs and after all they are all legal and legal means they are fine. I'd end up doing far more drugs in one night and in the long term than usual which there's really no need for!