What would happen if drugs were legalised Part 1. MDMA

[thestudent14]

Firstly, I wanna say great posts everyone. Covered most of what I'd like to say so that cuts down my rant dramatically lol

Let me get this right. If you take a dangerous sailing trip you are heroic beyond all measures of reality. But if you take MDMA you are a criminal and deviant low life. Now that's logic of Darwinian proportions!

A great point I'd never even thought about, how society praises some dangerous activity's so highly, but look down so lowly on drug use.
But I think that largely comes down to dedication and something that is helpful.
Anyone can put a pill in their mouth or a needle in their arm, but how many people do you know that can sale around the world?

This whole thread to me entwines nicely with the "MDMA shortage contributing to city violence?" thread http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?t=496371&highlight=mdma+contributing+city+violence

The basic understanding was that the MDMA shortage is definately playing a role in the increase violence on the streets.

If MDMA was legalised....
It would start with a huge celebration by drug users.
And would meet an up roar by all the anti-drug people.
But I think they would all soon know someone who was gonna try MDMA, and do their bit to convince people to try it.

There would be an Instant shift in the behaviour on the streets but it would be met by the medias rant of some random person somewhere in the country who dies in the first few weeks, weather that be from purely from the MDMA or a substance they took with it, it would be no doubt take the blame.

As a few people have mentioned education is a vital key, MrIbis said some people are simply allergic to MDMA. Thats why I would proprose instead of someone having the job of distributing the MDMA to people and keeping track of how many they take, how often etc.

A better alternative in my opinion, would be if everyone first needed a test to make sure they aren't illegal and perhaps go to a one day session to be enlightened about the pro's and con's of MDMA and the risks.
Provided you do these things getting some sort of card "A licence to drugs" card or something of that sort, that would allow you to buy lets say two high level MDMA pills but the card would get scanned and you could only use it monthly.

I think if these things were done, I know the damage done would be significantly lower.

The reason I brought up the contributing to violence thread, was because if the government were getting serious about HarmReduction they would weigh the pro's versus con's of the person who sadly goes to hospital from having too much MDMA and being dehydrated versus the people who go to hospital from being beaten up by random drunks on the streets. As Syklik said a detailed survey over a two year period would be very interesting.

From Wikipedia
In the U.S MDMA is still a Schedule 1 drug.
(1) Schedule I.—

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision." [9]

No prescriptions may be written for Schedule I substances, and such substances are subject to production quotas by the DEA.

Under the DEA's interpretation of the CSA, a drug does not necessarily have to have the same abuse potential as heroin or cocaine to merit placement in Schedule I (in fact, cocaine is currently a Schedule II drug due to limited medical

A: It infact has limited potential for high abuse because as been stated the body is quick to build up a tollerance to it. I still believe It can be abused but I wouldn't call it high abuse.

B: True it has no currently accepted medical use... but it should. It has been proven to be the most successful treatment for Post Traumatic Stress sufferers, as well as still being helpful for people suffering from anxiety. The U.K re-opened trials a bit over a year ago for the first time in decades that were having very promising results

C: Perhaps thats true, but I would whole heartadly bet, that if it were trialed again it would be proven to be quite safe in most cases.


I do however wonder what would happen if everyone started trying MDMA. It really did change my life, but it alters the way you think aswell as the way you feel. I think about MDMA alot... far more then I do about alcohol or Weed. Do we really want the whole country thinking about MDMA all the time? Or would the novelty of it wear off after regular use on a large scale.


I've said this before and I'll say it again, my dad was once talking about drug use (he is very anti drugs). But he made a good point which was, Weed probably isn't as harmful as alcohol... but it's still harmful, so if it were legalised it's not gonna reduce harm, just increase it. Maybe weed should have been legal all along and Alcohol have been the banned one.
I Used to think this point applied to all drugs, but the difference with MDMA is if people are taking it when they are Instead of alcohol, then it is very much reducing harm to the people around them.

I only have one main point left. And thats whats happens to the black market.
I'm a firm believer that there is always going to be a black market, so if all drugs became legalised would this just mean they would move to something more serious like the illegal weapons trade? However I think most people feel alot more comfortable giving out drugs rather then weapons. Or would gangs no longer see the need for weapons because they're no longer defending the drug territory. Or do they change to become mercinary's for whatever reason, bashings, thefts etc.

 

[aero]

IMO MDMA has too many unknown variables to it.

1.) I'ts only been around a 'relatively' short time; thus long term effects are unknown.
2.) The connection between it and mental health issues; again these are relatively unknown.
3.) It's potential to be addictive; ie- adding another substance to the ranks of ciggarettes and alcohol.
4.) The inability for it to be regulated effectively.

Makeing it legal can only be done IMO through the use of MDMA clinics.

The government can then administer a set dose to individuals who want it.
This eliminates the crime aspect as it's cheaper/subsidised.
This eleminates the harm issue associated with non MDMA pils, and MDMA analogues.

Sure people might abuse the system, but they would be makeing an informed choice.
Better to keep the majority of user safe with this practice.

IMO it's irresponsible to force people to buy 'street' drugs. There potential poision < Ok not always but you get my drift.

 

[losthippy]

There is a broad band of Australians who consume illegal drugs in the privacy of their own homes alone or with friends and who generally don't step out on them and go crazy in public. The illegality of substance(s) of choice means they break the law procurring or producing them but under the spotlight is obviously where these folk don't want to be. I don't want to start a shitstorm defending one drug or another with straights and detractors, but I do believe ecstasy deserves a special mention.

MDMA effects are well catalogued and I don't think anyone can argue that users are prone to violent or anti-social behaviour, otherwise it might be called 'aggro' rather than 'ecstasy'. Of course the honeymoon period is well and truly over in Oz and the authorities have done a pretty good job reducing imports of MDMA powder, pills and chemicals needed to press pills domestically. My point is that a consequence of such efficient policing and some fairly blatant media misinformation has led to an upsurge in violent crime acted out against Joe and Jane Citizen. Unable to get what they want, users are also switching to other more potentially harmful substances. I'm sure there would be some stats somewhere to back this up.

Subscribers to this site and others talk of the club scenes, music and cultural events favoured by E users falling into decline or at least changing for the worse. The vibe is fading. Those who do find decent pills seem to be in the minority and even then supply is haphazard. Everyone knows noxious MDMA/ecstasy substitutes are making people sick, and worse. Fact! So, maybe some non-E-users might chime in and add their two bob's worth here. The Nancy Regan era 'just say no' catchcry has failed just as miserably as prohibition has. People will always to rail against draconian social controls, period. Its human nature.

So, that being said, is it defensible to keep crushing a comparativley benign substance like ecstasy, used (and yes, probably abused) by millions worldwide, when the laws of supply and demand guarantee other less user-friendly substances will continue to be pedalled to meet consumer needs? Be brave. Have a say.

 

[zookie1]

There is a broad band of Australians who consume illegal drugs in the privacy of their own homes alone or with friends and who generally don't step out on them and go crazy in public. The illegality of substance(s) of choice means they break the law procurring or producing them but under the spotlight is obviously where these folk don't want to be. I don't want to start a shitstorm defending one drug or another with straights and detractors, but I do believe ecstasy deserves a special mention.

MDMA effects are well catalogued and I don't think anyone can argue that users are prone to violent or anti-social behaviour, otherwise it might be called 'aggro' rather than 'ecstasy'. Of course the honeymoon period is well and truly over in Oz and the authorities have done a pretty good job reducing imports of MDMA powder, pills and chemicals needed to press pills domestically. My point is that a consequence of such efficient policing and some fairly blatant media misinformation has led to an upsurge in violent crime acted out against Joe and Jane Citizen. Unable to get what they want, users are also switching to other more potentially harmful substances. I'm sure there would be some stats somewhere to back this up.

Subscribers to this site and others talk of the club scenes, music and cultural events favoured by E users falling into decline or at least changing for the worse. The vibe is fading. Those who do find decent pills seem to be in the minority and even then supply is haphazard. Everyone knows noxious MDMA/ecstasy substitutes are making people sick, and worse. Fact! So, maybe some non-E-users might chime in and add their two bob's worth here. The Nancy Regan era 'just say no' catchcry has failed just as miserably as prohibition has. People will always to rail against draconian social controls, period. Its human nature.

So, that being said, is it defensible to keep crushing a comparativley benign substance like ecstasy, used (and yes, probably abused) by millions worldwide, when the laws of supply and demand guarantee other less user-friendly substances will continue to be pedalled to meet consumer needs? Be brave. Have a say.

OUSTANDING post there! This needs to put out further than the walls of BL. Excellent reading!

 

[Jordan`]

With respect to these other substances which people turn to if they can't get a reasonable quality product, just look at 4-MMC and at how popular it became, it was the drug of choice for a lot of my friends a while ago. I'm judging my opinion on my own anecdotal evidence as you can see, I wouldn't even bother quoting stories in the media as they tend to be extremely sensationalised when it comes to mephedrone, e.g. people turning into cats etc. :S

 

[mushi mushi 88]

My opinion on the pros and cons to legalising MDMA are:

Pros:
1. Less violence at social night spots and a lot more friendlier people in general within society.
2. A stronger economy due to the government taxing MDMA.
3. People being able to express their feelings a lot easier and hence therapists having an easier job along with relationships lasting longer.
4. Criminal organisations would have to look into another area for their fundings.
5. There would be a pure product so less people ODing/dying from other crap that is put into pills these days.
6. Less people going to jail for selling MDMA, (this could be variable because they might turn to other drugs to sell).
7. More HR would be said about the use of it instead of the governments silly scare tactics they use at the moment.


Cons:
1. A lot of mental health problems in the future including memory loss which would lead to higher taxes to compensate for these.
2. Kids starting to experiment with MDMA at a younger age so their brains may not develop properly.
3. More people bingeing on it and could cause problems for their career/work because they would get scattered and not go to work.


I think all in all MDMA could be made legal but it would have to be used in a sensible manner as to not cause serious health issues. If it was to be made legal I think it would have to only be given to people over a certain age, ie. 18 or 21 years old..

 

[drug_mentor]

One huge thing here I have to disagree with is people talking about limits, like once a month or once a fortnight, thats just straight up fucking bullshit imo. For starters, the number one argument for the legalisation of drugs is personal fucking freedom, if you are going to tell me I am free then I should be fucking well FREE to put whatever substance I choose in MY body to achieve effects I deem desirable. There is not a limit on freedom, you are either free to do something or you are restricted in one way or another, just because a limited supply is better than prohibition does not mean that translates into true freedom.

Also, eliminating the black market created by drugs causing criminals to profit is one of the most important reasons for legalisation. So long as you limit the amount a person can legally take there will ALWAYS be a black market because there will be non users who took advantage of the freedom to sign up for their monthly supply and then sell it off for a profit. It probably wouldn't be very long before a set of organised individuals had a large network of people obtaining their monthly or fortnightly supply for them to be crushed, cut and repressed as weaker and possibly adulterated pills. The only way to completely eliminate the black market is to give the end user total freedom to purchase and use the substance, except whilst working, driving or operating heavy machinery ofcourse.

When it comes to recreational substances it is all or nothing imho. There isn't a limit of a 6 pack of beer per week per person just because it isn't healthy to drink, there isn't a limit of one Macca's drive through a fortnight or one packet of cigarettes a month. Some people choose to indulge occassionally, others abuse while others completely abstain. The decisions we make help define us as individuals and while some decisions may have negative impacts on us it does not mean we need a parent figure (eg. the Government) to tell us we are not allowed to make such decisions and punish us if we chose to disregard them.

 

[Demanufacturer]

I predict an enormous drop in faith that the general public has for the government.

People will begin to see the government's war on drugs as the farce it really is and the government will have to admit to being wrong.

Due to this reason alone legalisation will not happen. It is nice to speculate though

 

[Jordan`]

One huge thing here I have to disagree with is people talking about limits, like once a month or once a fortnight, thats just straight up fucking bullshit imo. For starters, the number one argument for the legalisation of drugs is personal fucking freedom, if you are going to tell me I am free then I should be fucking well FREE to put whatever substance I choose in MY body to achieve effects I deem desirable. There is not a limit on freedom, you are either free to do something or you are restricted in one way or another, just because a limited supply is better than prohibition does not mean that translates into true freedom.

Also, eliminating the black market created by drugs causing criminals to profit is one of the most important reasons for legalisation. So long as you limit the amount a person can legally take there will ALWAYS be a black market because there will be non users who took advantage of the freedom to sign up for their monthly supply and then sell it off for a profit. It probably wouldn't be very long before a set of organised individuals had a large network of people obtaining their monthly or fortnightly supply for them to be crushed, cut and repressed as weaker and possibly adulterated pills. The only way to completely eliminate the black market is to give the end user total freedom to purchase and use the substance, except whilst working, driving or operating heavy machinery ofcourse.

Proper research must be done first. We can't have a country consuming MDMA without the health effects being partially known at least. The cost in the future might not be worth it. In saying this I agree with what you say, there's no point limiting anything as you're still effectively feeding the black market which mind you is thriving at the moment...

To add if all drugs were legalised they would have to be taxed rather fairly, the illegal tobacco and alcohol trade is booming at the moment considering how expensive the stuff is. I guess what I'm trying to say is just because something is legal doesn't mean the black market doesn't exist for the product, an attractive enough price must be met without the urge to overtax.

 

[drug_mentor]

^ It is some tricky business, there isn't much of a black market for alcohol though as far as profits go just people making super strong spirits for themselves and their friends, the thing is there is no quality control on the product and stills can blow up so it is obviously bad to have people doing this. If you could buy pure alcohol though then these people probably wouldn't brew their own, so its still an example of restrictions feeding into a black market which proves my point really.

Tobacco does have a black market but lets be honest, its taxed to the EXTREME and to be honest I think it is overtaxed but thats a different argument. I don't imagine most drugs would be taxed to the level of tobacco because the long term health impacts for those drugs wouldn't be as great. Tobacco does have a black market but only because it is ridiculously cheap to produce and overtaxed so much. I do concede it would likely be impossible to completely eliminate a black market but creating restrictions like once a month will make the black market rife.

I disagree about research needing to be done first. Peoples individual freedom takes priority and if down the line some hard decisions have to be made in regards to what to do to those with self inflicted medical conditions that they can't pay for then they may have to do without treatment, it is my opinion that is the price of such freedom.

There are plenty of things that are incredibly bad for ones health but we as individuals expect the freedom of choice to do them if we want, drugs are no different and there will definately be negative consequences but that is the price of a mature, free and non judgemental society.

 

[aero]

One huge thing here I have to disagree with is people talking about limits, like once a month or once a fortnight, thats just straight up fucking bullshit imo. For starters, the number one argument for the legalisation of drugs is personal fucking freedom, if you are going to tell me I am free then I should be fucking well FREE to put whatever substance I choose in MY body to achieve effects I deem desirable. There is not a limit on freedom, you are either free to do something or you are restricted in one way or another, just because a limited supply is better than prohibition does not mean that translates into true freedom..

Yeh but who should pick up the cost of MDMA related medical issues?

The GOV? In that case you are not free to do what you want unless you intend to be totally responsible for all your actions.

IMO not everyone is willing to do that

 

[drug_mentor]

^ Who picks the cost of all other medical procedures? I would like to think the cost wouldn't reflect a "say no to drugs" attitude but rather a realistic and fair cost for whatever care/procedures are neccessary.

IMO if someone isn't willing to undertake some responsibility for possible medical costs incurred by their own behaviour then they forfeit the freedom. It is their choice, you don't HAVE to pay the medical costs you can simply be left with whatever condition untreated. I am NOT talking about total privatisation of the healthcare system here but depending on the overall burden on the healthcare system an approach where those who can't pay for serious self inflicted conditions go untreated or possibly euthanised may be neccessary.

I think people should have the freedom to do whatever they want to their bodies, I don't believe that if one knows the risks, chooses to completely disregard them and causes themselves harm they have the right to have everyone else foot the bill for their treatment.

 

[De quincy]

Apologies for the length and personal angst in the following, I’ve just received painful news with regard to a loved one and really need something else to focus on. Please bare with me. I first used MDMA in the late 70s in India; once I’d realized the existence of this magical substance I quickly discovered it in Australia! I think back over that period of 30 odd years and the drug still holds for me an almost mystical status in how I feel about it today as it did all those years ago even though I haven’t touched the drug in years.

If used within ideal circumstances; drug, set and setting considerations and with no issues, it is in my opinion one of the most incredible pharmacological agents that we know of and holds the most incredible potential for the human species. I used to scheme with my academic supervisor at uni the thought of contaminating the worlds water supply with the drug for at least one day and watch what happened. I realise now we didn’t have to, there was a whole generation of people doing it to themselves anyway. If ever there was a pill for all ills, it could be speculated that this is probably the closeted drug that we currently know of that can compare to Huxley’s analogy of ‘Soma’ in his account of a future world in, a Brave New World.

With regard to the law, I find myself saying that we need to do controlled studies and significant research with regard to the existing data etc, with a comprehensive literature review of the evidence, all the things I’ve been trained do in my 20 odd years of working in the alcohol and other drugs field. Always a sense of reservation, considerations of worse case scenarios, ramifications of problem users and subsequent health related issues. Risks and more risks, better the beast we know than to let the genie out of the bottle.

But when I reflect upon it we’ve done the research on a global level despite my anally retentive scientific reservations to the contrary. Sadly as much as I might like to think working for government doesn’t change one’s thinking, it is at time’s sole destroying and can stifle one’s passions and sense of better judgment. I am a product of my environment. I don’t get paid to think outside the box even though you’re recruited to do just that and it’s all too easy for bureaucrats like me to place policy over principles, particularly when the money is good and the dogma makes for such a great fairy tale. In addition when you become a government official you sign a frightening piece of legal documentation that disqualifies you from criticising government policy within one’s role and the delivery of your duties. Prohibition is off limits! We’re paid to be the experts but are gagged in our roles in implementing and commenting on ideal harm reduction initiatives in favour of questionable policies that toe the company line. Enough said I’m probably in breach of such dogma.

Over the last 30 odd years humans have used MDMA as a species with millions of people every weekend consuming various examples of the drug, some good, some not so good ... Prohibition! We’ve had small gathering s of people through to gigantic gatherings of like minded individuals, e.g. The German, ‘Love Parade’, where it could be speculated that hundreds of thousands were experiencing ecstasy at the one event, worldwide every weekend millions where indulging! Despite the fact that most of this global phenomenon was largely illegal, it provides us with a fascinating snapshot of human behaviour with regard to drug using behaviour. The MDMA story is staggering in how it exploded onto the world arena and became a statement for a whole generation of people. We have as actors in this display of public deviance participated in this amazing cultural phenomena and despite Nancy Reagan’s mantra, just saying no didn’t mean squat. At the end of 1999 as the world faced the new millennium millions of people celebrated this occasion with a healthy dose of MDMA and the world didn’t fall into an the abyss of moral despair.

I suppose the point at the end of all of this rant is that there is a consistent theme in many of the threads on Bluelight. Sadly they increasingly sound like a eulogy or homage to the death of a loved one. For the participants of the ecstasy phenomenon there appears to be a sense of loss. The realisation that as a cultureal phenomenon the ecstasy using generation are going through a grieving process about something that has been taken away from them and a whole generation is grieving that loss.

But for what it's worth I still think change will happen for the better in the future.

 

[thestudent14]

^ It is some tricky business, there isn't much of a black market for alcohol though as far as profits go

If you're in a business of selling alcohol (e.g club owners, restaurant owners) then there is a big black market for it. I know a guy who "disappeared" for threatening to out someone for selling stolen alcohol.

 

[thestudent14]

My condolences De_quincy.
Top post.

 

[Jordan`]

^ Who picks the cost of all other medical procedures? I would like to think the cost wouldn't reflect a "say no to drugs" attitude but rather a realistic and fair cost for whatever care/procedures are neccessary.

IMO if someone isn't willing to undertake some responsibility for possible medical costs incurred by their own behaviour then they forfeit the freedom. It is their choice, you don't HAVE to pay the medical costs you can simply be left with whatever condition untreated. I am NOT talking about total privatisation of the healthcare system here but depending on the overall burden on the healthcare system an approach where those who can't pay for serious self inflicted conditions go untreated or possibly euthanised may be neccessary.

I think people should have the freedom to do whatever they want to their bodies, I don't believe that if one knows the risks, chooses to completely disregard them and causes themselves harm they have the right to have everyone else foot the bill for their treatment.

Agreed!!

 

[MilliVanilli]

De quincy, great post. Enjoyed reading that. I too have thought that 'Soma' could well be a direct comparison to MDMA when I read Brave New World, or Island. One of them anyway. Always thought that that Huxley character could see into the future. Too bad it's looking more like Brave New World and not Island. Not to be pessimistic or anything..

Condolences to for your loved one. Hope everything works out brother. Peace

 

[phase_dancer]

MDMA fell short of what I imagined soma to be and it certainly hasn't the same range of effects from different dosages.

there is always soma, delicious soma, half a gramme for a half-holiday, a gramme for a week-end, two grammes for a trip to the gorgeous East, three for a dark eternity on the moon; returning whence they find themselves on the other side of the crevice, safe on the solid ground of daily labour and distraction, scampering from feely to feely, from girl to pneumatic girl, from Electromagnetic Golf course to ..."

Chapter 3 BNW

 

[skatkid]

hmm im for the legalisation of drugs for the simple reason that banning them doesn't work and hasn't worked in many examples throughout history. The annoying thing is there seems to be a common agreement amongst people tha prohibition doesn't work (as exemplified by arguments made by the media and commentators against banning smoking) however so ingrained is the anti drug propaganda, that it overrides this logic.

If drugs were to ever be legalised it would only happen in a very slow and gradual process possibly with certain classes of drugs with much regulation. I could only see any attempts being successful in 20-30 years time when the generation most influenced by the anti drug message have become elderly and the younger generation holds more social power.

I don't think anyone attempts to argue that legalising drugs would eliminate the problems they cause but i think a convincing case can be made that the social harm caused by their legalisation is less than the social harm caused by prohibition. Important points include transferring the quality control of drugs from criminals to pharmaceutical companies, removing the social stigma of drug use allowing those addicted greater access to physical and emotional support and giving liberty back to the people.

I think tho that if u make drugs legal, we should move to a largely privately funded health care system to decrease the burdern on the public system. By exercising ur right to use a drug u have to except the responsibility and consequences of drug use including increase likihood of falling sick and thus being held financially responsible.

 

[tinyturtle92]

As nice as it would be if the government made them legal, can you imagine how much tax they would just slam on them, make them more expensive then they already are, you would have massive manufacturers selling them, and then in 10-20 years they would realise it was a bad idea and try to knock them out again like they are trying to do with cigarettes, and just spend millions of taxpayers dollars telling us how bad they were for us. Again. Its a vicious circle.
Thats what i think would happen anyways.