-
-
AADD Moderators: Tronica
What would happen if drugs were legalised Part 1. MDMA
- Thread starter MazDan
- Start date
tinyturtle92
Greenlighter
Thats true, I guess i never really thought about that, So i guess the price would still stay quite similar, i guess it could just be the range of effects they have on different people.
Then again thats the same with alcohol. The government is insanely messed up though. It has backward policies.
Then again thats the same with alcohol. The government is insanely messed up though. It has backward policies.
Mr Blonde
Bluelighter
I imagine that the Government could produce them itself, they have the resources and that way they would be receiving all the profits from the sale of MDMA.
Mr Blonde
Bluelighter
^ Because the money the government would rake in from it would more then make up for the costs involved and could then be reinvested in health care, education, etc, things that benefit all tax payers.
tinyturtle92
Greenlighter
You know the government would though, its more money for them to spend on useless shit.
tinyturtle92
Greenlighter
They dont really do much to the health care system though do they, they put a little money into it, and then spend the rest advertising how good of a job they are doing. I dont really think enough of it comes back to the taxpayers.
yeah but theres all the inefficencies of government run businesses.
look at energy, transport, hospitals, schools none are run properly. Theres a reason why governments dont jump into any industry they think is profitable, we arent soviet russia. itd be much more effective for private companies to produce the drugs. theyd put money into research and development of new drugs something the a nationalised business wouldnt do.
Mr Blonde
Bluelighter
^ Maybe I'm a closet socialist though I really doubt it, but I would prefer to see the government running it or in that way setting up strict regulation for it. I think for me a bigger thing then us getting high is proper research finally getting done on a lot of compounds, and in that regard a private company may be better.
And governments can run things properly, just not ours.
And governments can run things properly, just not ours.
thestudent14
Bluelighter
We have one of the best health care systems in the world.
My brother broke his elbow not long ago, he was unable to work, had paid sick leave and didn't have to pay a cent for the operation needed to re-break his arm and let it heal properly.
And I do think if drugs became legalised the government would have every right to tax it, not everyone drinks but thats taxed. Same with cigarettes.
I think pre-scription meds they shouldn't have any tax for, but for all the social drugs (should they ever become legalised) I'd fully support them being taxed.
Also I was thinking, if drugs were legalised, crushing the black market. It would help the economy because instead of tens of millions of dollars (estimate) being shipped overseas for illegal drugs every month. We would see that cash going into other things.
ALSO... even though this probably isn't what the government want we would then have all the drugs, and instead of being big importers of drugs we would become big exporters giving us more cash here.
AND.... we would see a massive IMMEDIATE increase in tourism once again providing the country with more cash. And it would be tourism that the country wants... people who come to party and spend alot of cash $$$
Whatever country is first to legalise all drugs will get these boosts before other country's follow suit.
Sameria
Bluelighter
^ Maybe I'm a closet socialist though I really doubt it, but I would prefer to see the government running it or in that way setting up strict regulation for it. I think for me a bigger thing then us getting high is proper research finally getting done on a lot of compounds, and in that regard a private company may be better.
And governments can run things properly, just not ours.
I'm with you there. Governments generally have a less profit-oriented nature. We all know what greed does to companies. Too bad every single government in the world is incompetent.
The thing that depresses me most is that there is all this potential progress to society that is being held back due to the restrictions. There could be a cancer-demolishing drug that we are missing out on
thestudent14
Bluelighter
Some would view this as not freeing up, but as people losing jobs.
Having said that, then we would open up new jobs through drug making.
HAHAHA, just had a funny as thought, imagine if it became legal and one of my uni pracs was to make to make some Molly. The quicker it goes purple to black the better the mark. =)
peaked
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2004
- Messages
- 711
It really depends on to what extent the substance would be "legalised".
----------------------
In the first scenario, I'll consider what might happen should the substance have all laws against it revoked (assuming that Australia is the only country to legalise, while all others remain how they are currently). Consider each paragraph more of a dot point than a flowing argument.
The black market would rapidly shift from supplying the local users (which would no longer require the black market) to supplying other countries with commercial quantities of the substance. This would be due to the lack of consequences for anything related to MDMA, making Australia an ideal location for large scale manufacture. The black market itself would probably become bigger and more powerful than it had been prior.
The amount of users of the substance here would increase dramatically. Those who already experienced the product when it was illegal would flock towards it, eager for an entirely pure product. Those who hadn't experienced it would also flock towards it, due to it's portrayal as an exceptionally positive experience.
Those that had been against the substance when it was illegal would probably feel somewhat disgruntled to realise that, according to the new laws, they had been wrong all along. This could lead some to disregard all safety advice for the substance, and approach MDMA in a reckless manner under the guise of it being entirely harmless.
The older generations may be too stubborn to change their ideals about the substance, and still cling to the belief that the substance is too harmful for anyone. They would continue to discriminate against users, eventually becoming viewed by the general population in a similar manner to those that discriminate against race.
MDMA would become available over the counter in a similar manner to alcohol, and would quickly become a necessity for most clubs. Like bottle shops, specific shops for MDMA products would start to appear. It probably wouldn't be on your standard supermarket shelf, for the same reason alcohol isn't. It would be heavily taxed, as alcohol is, and probably wouldn't be too different in price to what it was with the black market. The high price would also reduce the chance of the product being collected by end users in abundance and then sold through the black market to places where it is still illegal.
Since the laws would not have changed in other countries, the larger pharmaceutical companies which operate there may not be allowed to produce MDMA for the Australian market. Instead, we could see a number of smaller labs open here that solely produce the substance. Many competing brands may appear, somewhat like the "Coke vs Pepsi" rivalry.
The quality of the substance may vary, depending on what type of laws are made regarding quality control, and whether the producers want to cut corners in order to increase profit.
Instead of being sold as pills, the substance may become available in a liquid form with a pleasant flavouring added. The reason for this is that it makes the act of physically consuming the substance more enjoyable. The amount of MDMA in each drink would be far less than most pills, so that people have to buy numerous drinks before they get the full effects. Theoretically this could make it harder to OD, though in practice it would really only serve to make the consumption part a more sociable experience (along with providing more profit for those that sell it).
Many commercial products would contain other substances than MDMA as a means to provide a slightly different experience to the end user. Caffeine would be a given, and having MDA and/or MDEA added in to give it an extra kick isn't unlikely. These substances would, of course, also be available by themselves (with no MDMA). It's also possible that the different isomers of MDMA would be used, also for the means of providing a different experience.
We may start to see advertisement for MDMA in a similar method to the beer advertisements that have been shown over the past decade. Or they might take the approach of cigarettes and have no advertising whatsoever - it's hard to say.
Tourism would increase drastically from those that reside in other countries where the substance is still banned. Australia would gain the reputation as the "drug capital" of the world (although some would argue that it already is!). It's also possible that there would be an increase in people that wish to migrate here and become Australian citizens.
Sadly, the ideals such as Harm Minimisation and "PLUR" would probably be ignored by the general population, and would only exist amongst those that had used in times of prohibition. As the substance becomes more and more normalised, many people would view MDMA as a substance to "get fucked up on" with a "go hard or go home" attitude to its consumption, completely ignoring the emotional and spiritual aspects.
It's difficult to guess how this might affect hospital admissions. On the one hand, the lack of contaminations and/or adulterants such as PMA would undoubtedly be far less. On the other hand, the substance would (as mentioned above) probably be approached in a more reckless manner.
The amount of tax generated by these substances, along with the decrease in spending on prohibition, would result in a far larger budget being available to the government. What they do with the extra money is anyone's guess, but by and large this would be a positive effect.
----------------------
Now, lets assume that they only partially legalise the substance, and make it available in a similar method to the methadone program, where it is tightly controlled and users only have access to a small amount at any given time.
Many regular users would switch from the black market to the "MDMA program" where the quality is guaranteed. The price would probably also be less than it's black market counterpart, similar to the price difference of heroin vs methadone. As a result, the black-market may see a decrease in size, however it would not disappear entirely. Since information on those using the program would probably be tied into medical records, users may prefer to stick to the black market where there is more discretion, and no limits on the amount purchasable at once. There may also be people who are on the program whilst simultaneously using the black market, so they can obtain more quantity than the program itself makes available.
The program would have a heavy stigma associated with it, making it unlikely for a large amount of the non-using population to decide to take up the habit. Many people still wouldn't use drugs, and would discriminate against those that do. Users would have to remain discrete in their use and would be no more open about it than currently.
Since the black market would still exist, there wouldn't be any large effect on taxes spent towards prohibition. Large amounts of money would still be spent on law enforcement and anti-drug messages. Taxes on the MDMA program would probably be minimal due to it being more along the lines of a health / pharmaceutical product and not a commercial product.
As the product would be distributed in a medical setting, the message of Harm Minimisation could be presented at a face to face level by doctors and nurses, giving weight to the message that some might otherwise choose to ignore when presented from other sources. As such, more users may end up being educated about safety than they would under the current situation.
It would be unlikely that having this program would result in any noticeable increases in tourism, nor any increase in the reputation of Australia as a drug hotspot.
--------------------
There are many pro's and cons to either approach, and I can't really determine which I think would be more beneficial overall. Having said that, both would be a definite improvement over our current approach, which in my opinion really has no positive benefits at all.
It may still be a long way off, but I think it's inevitable that eventually prohibition will end in its current form. The internet is playing a huge part in this, where any given drug story on media websites will generally have several well thought out comments by advocates highlighting the dangerous of our current legislation. Compared to even a mere 10 years ago, there certainly seems to be more public awareness about the argument from the point of view of users. It may not happen soon, but I remain confident that at some stage in my lifetime I'll be able to buy drugs without the worry nor expense nor stigma that comes with the black market.
----------------------
In the first scenario, I'll consider what might happen should the substance have all laws against it revoked (assuming that Australia is the only country to legalise, while all others remain how they are currently). Consider each paragraph more of a dot point than a flowing argument.
The black market would rapidly shift from supplying the local users (which would no longer require the black market) to supplying other countries with commercial quantities of the substance. This would be due to the lack of consequences for anything related to MDMA, making Australia an ideal location for large scale manufacture. The black market itself would probably become bigger and more powerful than it had been prior.
The amount of users of the substance here would increase dramatically. Those who already experienced the product when it was illegal would flock towards it, eager for an entirely pure product. Those who hadn't experienced it would also flock towards it, due to it's portrayal as an exceptionally positive experience.
Those that had been against the substance when it was illegal would probably feel somewhat disgruntled to realise that, according to the new laws, they had been wrong all along. This could lead some to disregard all safety advice for the substance, and approach MDMA in a reckless manner under the guise of it being entirely harmless.
The older generations may be too stubborn to change their ideals about the substance, and still cling to the belief that the substance is too harmful for anyone. They would continue to discriminate against users, eventually becoming viewed by the general population in a similar manner to those that discriminate against race.
MDMA would become available over the counter in a similar manner to alcohol, and would quickly become a necessity for most clubs. Like bottle shops, specific shops for MDMA products would start to appear. It probably wouldn't be on your standard supermarket shelf, for the same reason alcohol isn't. It would be heavily taxed, as alcohol is, and probably wouldn't be too different in price to what it was with the black market. The high price would also reduce the chance of the product being collected by end users in abundance and then sold through the black market to places where it is still illegal.
Since the laws would not have changed in other countries, the larger pharmaceutical companies which operate there may not be allowed to produce MDMA for the Australian market. Instead, we could see a number of smaller labs open here that solely produce the substance. Many competing brands may appear, somewhat like the "Coke vs Pepsi" rivalry.
The quality of the substance may vary, depending on what type of laws are made regarding quality control, and whether the producers want to cut corners in order to increase profit.
Instead of being sold as pills, the substance may become available in a liquid form with a pleasant flavouring added. The reason for this is that it makes the act of physically consuming the substance more enjoyable. The amount of MDMA in each drink would be far less than most pills, so that people have to buy numerous drinks before they get the full effects. Theoretically this could make it harder to OD, though in practice it would really only serve to make the consumption part a more sociable experience (along with providing more profit for those that sell it).
Many commercial products would contain other substances than MDMA as a means to provide a slightly different experience to the end user. Caffeine would be a given, and having MDA and/or MDEA added in to give it an extra kick isn't unlikely. These substances would, of course, also be available by themselves (with no MDMA). It's also possible that the different isomers of MDMA would be used, also for the means of providing a different experience.
We may start to see advertisement for MDMA in a similar method to the beer advertisements that have been shown over the past decade. Or they might take the approach of cigarettes and have no advertising whatsoever - it's hard to say.
Tourism would increase drastically from those that reside in other countries where the substance is still banned. Australia would gain the reputation as the "drug capital" of the world (although some would argue that it already is!). It's also possible that there would be an increase in people that wish to migrate here and become Australian citizens.
Sadly, the ideals such as Harm Minimisation and "PLUR" would probably be ignored by the general population, and would only exist amongst those that had used in times of prohibition. As the substance becomes more and more normalised, many people would view MDMA as a substance to "get fucked up on" with a "go hard or go home" attitude to its consumption, completely ignoring the emotional and spiritual aspects.
It's difficult to guess how this might affect hospital admissions. On the one hand, the lack of contaminations and/or adulterants such as PMA would undoubtedly be far less. On the other hand, the substance would (as mentioned above) probably be approached in a more reckless manner.
The amount of tax generated by these substances, along with the decrease in spending on prohibition, would result in a far larger budget being available to the government. What they do with the extra money is anyone's guess, but by and large this would be a positive effect.
----------------------
Now, lets assume that they only partially legalise the substance, and make it available in a similar method to the methadone program, where it is tightly controlled and users only have access to a small amount at any given time.
Many regular users would switch from the black market to the "MDMA program" where the quality is guaranteed. The price would probably also be less than it's black market counterpart, similar to the price difference of heroin vs methadone. As a result, the black-market may see a decrease in size, however it would not disappear entirely. Since information on those using the program would probably be tied into medical records, users may prefer to stick to the black market where there is more discretion, and no limits on the amount purchasable at once. There may also be people who are on the program whilst simultaneously using the black market, so they can obtain more quantity than the program itself makes available.
The program would have a heavy stigma associated with it, making it unlikely for a large amount of the non-using population to decide to take up the habit. Many people still wouldn't use drugs, and would discriminate against those that do. Users would have to remain discrete in their use and would be no more open about it than currently.
Since the black market would still exist, there wouldn't be any large effect on taxes spent towards prohibition. Large amounts of money would still be spent on law enforcement and anti-drug messages. Taxes on the MDMA program would probably be minimal due to it being more along the lines of a health / pharmaceutical product and not a commercial product.
As the product would be distributed in a medical setting, the message of Harm Minimisation could be presented at a face to face level by doctors and nurses, giving weight to the message that some might otherwise choose to ignore when presented from other sources. As such, more users may end up being educated about safety than they would under the current situation.
It would be unlikely that having this program would result in any noticeable increases in tourism, nor any increase in the reputation of Australia as a drug hotspot.
--------------------
There are many pro's and cons to either approach, and I can't really determine which I think would be more beneficial overall. Having said that, both would be a definite improvement over our current approach, which in my opinion really has no positive benefits at all.
It may still be a long way off, but I think it's inevitable that eventually prohibition will end in its current form. The internet is playing a huge part in this, where any given drug story on media websites will generally have several well thought out comments by advocates highlighting the dangerous of our current legislation. Compared to even a mere 10 years ago, there certainly seems to be more public awareness about the argument from the point of view of users. It may not happen soon, but I remain confident that at some stage in my lifetime I'll be able to buy drugs without the worry nor expense nor stigma that comes with the black market.
Last edited:
ayjay
Bluelighter
I've been meaning to post on this thread for a while - if only to link to a thought-provoking document published last year by Transform in the UK. Their raison d'etre is to promote the end of prohibition so it's worth checking out their "Blueprint for regulation". They detail a number of approaches between blanket prohibition and laissez faire complete market deregulation.
As for my own opinion - for a start I think it is outrageous and a crime against humanity that I and others are criminals, purely for the substances we choose to introduce into our own bodies. So for all drugs I would like to see possession and self-administration removed from the criminal code. That's the libertarian in me speaking.
Now the rampant anti-capitalist in me is also completely opposed to allowing the market to self control - hey that's basically what we get under prohibition, with the big players viewing law enforcement as an unavoidable, yet trifling cost of business. We need strict control, including on branding and advertising.
Finally the cynical anti-Marxist in me says that revolutionary change is a recipe for disaster. Whatever we do, it's best to take it slowly - incremental change with a lot of careful evaluation along the way.
As for MDMA itself: In the first instance, it should probably first be available on prescription for use in therapy. Then we can look at prescription for recreational use. That puts a lot of extra work on GPs - nevertheless we need gatekeepers on supply. Eventually we can farm out that role but GPs hold that position currently in our health system so it is a natural fit.
In the long term I'd like to live in a society where I can get whatever I want with a minimum of hoop-jumping - but I'm prepared to wait as we move through a gradual process towards that goal.
As for my own opinion - for a start I think it is outrageous and a crime against humanity that I and others are criminals, purely for the substances we choose to introduce into our own bodies. So for all drugs I would like to see possession and self-administration removed from the criminal code. That's the libertarian in me speaking.
Now the rampant anti-capitalist in me is also completely opposed to allowing the market to self control - hey that's basically what we get under prohibition, with the big players viewing law enforcement as an unavoidable, yet trifling cost of business. We need strict control, including on branding and advertising.
Finally the cynical anti-Marxist in me says that revolutionary change is a recipe for disaster. Whatever we do, it's best to take it slowly - incremental change with a lot of careful evaluation along the way.
As for MDMA itself: In the first instance, it should probably first be available on prescription for use in therapy. Then we can look at prescription for recreational use. That puts a lot of extra work on GPs - nevertheless we need gatekeepers on supply. Eventually we can farm out that role but GPs hold that position currently in our health system so it is a natural fit.
In the long term I'd like to live in a society where I can get whatever I want with a minimum of hoop-jumping - but I'm prepared to wait as we move through a gradual process towards that goal.
netcrusher
Bluelighter
The ideal situation is that the people that want to have MDMA ( every 3 months ) need to apply for it and showcase that they are responsible with drug use. Then they are issued a card where they can collect 150 mg every 3 months. You would actually see more love in society and less crime as a result. many people would decide to give up drinking and reward their hard work into society with a dose of mdma every 3 months and inspire themselves with love and positive thoughts about the ppl around them
thestudent14
Bluelighter
Whilst that could be true, it could also flip the other way.
With MDMA suddenly being legal to try once every three months there would be a big increase in people trying MDMA and then wanting to get their hands on more.
This could very well make the black market thrive instead of cutting it down.
internettoughguy
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2010
- Messages
- 99
I very briefly want to bring up the environmental impact that legalizing MDMA would cause. I'm not sure on the science behind producing MDMA apart from the main precursor is Safrol which mostly comes from Cambodia; from my understanding there is mass deforestation happening in Cambodia to produce our current blackmarket MDMA. Is there another method of producing MDMA that doesn't involve Safrol? Would the pharma industry be forced to find a new more environmentally way to produce the mass amounts of MDMA that Australia would no-doubt need? I do not know enough about this subject to comment, but it's definitely a concern that needs to be taken into account.
This I agree with, I agree that this is how the government would approach legalization and how legalization should be done.
MDMA has been slandered by the government in just about every country, how it is dangerous and deadly. They are not entirely wrong but just like most propaganda they shoot out they have overly sensationalized it all. MDMA is still a relatively new drug that hasn't been researched enough for the long term effects on our health; aswell as next to no research on long term effects on our society which I didn't see brought up in this thread.
A lot of people have suggested, such as Drug_Mentor, that restricting the sale of MDMA is still in a way taking away our freedom, that we should be able to buy however much we want any time we want.
I am on the fence about this, as much as I agree in an ideal world where people were responsible and could manage their drug intake, this just isn't the case in our world. Having watched my friends form habits of abusing MDMA and my own abuse of MDMA it was clear to me that myself, who'm has been depressed since an early age and constantly has negative emotions and thoughts, very quickly started indulging in MDMA far too often, it just made me so happy and feel so good, i'd stop feeling so negatively that I wanted to be high on MDMA all the time. This very quickly led to myself spending every cent I earnt on buying MDMA and becoming obsessed with it. It is easy to see that this would come into a common occurrence with not just me but many people who might be depressed.
We need to take into account those people who will abuse the drug because of it's magical ability to make the world seem not so bad afterall, those people who wether they choose to or not, ignore the warnings and teachings that we may throw at them.
The approach that I think the government should take in legalizing MDMA should be a step by step system that slowly opens up the availability and distribution of MDMA to the public.
To put the step by step program briefly and leaving some room for personal interpretation on how these steps would be applied; I feel it should go something like this.
The price of MDMA? That would have to be up to the government how much tax they put on it.
This is also an issue I feel must be raised, for 30 years now we have been told to just say no. The government have thrown at us many anti-drug campaigns, one of the main ones has been the, 'You don't know where it's been made' and 'You never know what will be in it'. These adverts have taken a more realistic step towards reality then previous efforts by the government and I have no doubt that they have contributed to less people trying drugs thinking that if they are going to be smoking meth then they are basically going to be smoking battery acid from your car (i'm guilty into thinking this was true for a while).
But if the pharma companies start selling medical grade MDMA, then they can't tell us 'you dont know where it's made' and 'you dont know what's in it'. Instead of scaremongering us, they can start new campaigns that informs us of the actual risks associated with MDMA use.
How the government chooses to introduce MDMA into the public will be the biggest factor in how reckless people will be in MDMA use. Give them limited availability and maybe, just maybe people will horde their stash of MDMA and use is sparingly.
I have mostly covered on HOW I think the government should approach MDMA legalization. I strongly believe that we need to take a long and slow approach with heavy monitoring to see how society adjusts to this shift. We all agree that a drop in violence would occur, the government would gain money from taxing MDMA (would they loose money from drop of alcohol sales due to MDMA?) and that the blackmarket for pills would dramatically change (would gangs start focusing more on producing amphetamines or opiates?). These things need to be monitored and reviewed to see the trends that the country is taking.
I wanted to write a lot more on this subject, but I already feel that I wrote way too much then I should have. Hopefully some of you understand my concept and can add or remove it. Everything is open for discussion!
skatkid said:
This I agree with, I agree that this is how the government would approach legalization and how legalization should be done.
MDMA has been slandered by the government in just about every country, how it is dangerous and deadly. They are not entirely wrong but just like most propaganda they shoot out they have overly sensationalized it all. MDMA is still a relatively new drug that hasn't been researched enough for the long term effects on our health; aswell as next to no research on long term effects on our society which I didn't see brought up in this thread.
A lot of people have suggested, such as Drug_Mentor, that restricting the sale of MDMA is still in a way taking away our freedom, that we should be able to buy however much we want any time we want.
I am on the fence about this, as much as I agree in an ideal world where people were responsible and could manage their drug intake, this just isn't the case in our world. Having watched my friends form habits of abusing MDMA and my own abuse of MDMA it was clear to me that myself, who'm has been depressed since an early age and constantly has negative emotions and thoughts, very quickly started indulging in MDMA far too often, it just made me so happy and feel so good, i'd stop feeling so negatively that I wanted to be high on MDMA all the time. This very quickly led to myself spending every cent I earnt on buying MDMA and becoming obsessed with it. It is easy to see that this would come into a common occurrence with not just me but many people who might be depressed.
We need to take into account those people who will abuse the drug because of it's magical ability to make the world seem not so bad afterall, those people who wether they choose to or not, ignore the warnings and teachings that we may throw at them.
The approach that I think the government should take in legalizing MDMA should be a step by step system that slowly opens up the availability and distribution of MDMA to the public.
To put the step by step program briefly and leaving some room for personal interpretation on how these steps would be applied; I feel it should go something like this.
- Government approve the use of MDMA in therapeutic studies and clinical trials for uses that MDMA can be used for, e.g. PTSD
- A research institution choose a selected group of healthy individuals of a wide range of ages/sexes/backgrounds/wealth are approved for a restricted amount of recreational doses of MDMA. Each person must log their use and report to reaserch institute who make a general assessment on how these people responded to the recreational trials.
- If research indicates that MDMA is to a degree safe for recreational value, then the government approve MDMA for personal and recreational use under strict guidelines that first you must attend a GP who examines you to see if you are healthy and mentally stable to be approved for MDMA use. In this GP Exam, you'd have your history of depression looked at, your cardio health looked at (making sure you have a stable and healthy heart) and other areas that MDMA might prove to influence in your health. If you checkout and your GP gives the A-OKAY for you, then you must attend a mandatory information session on the associated risks of using MDMA (such as what drugs are safe to use with it, which aren't, health risks, impact on lifestyle etc). After completion of all this you will receive a identification card that you can show at a MDMA dispensary (which could simply be your local discount chemist) where your purchase is logged in a global database across the country of how much MDMA you buy, with a set limit of maybe 300mg a month. A relatively low amount to begin with while the country adjusts to this HUGE change in recreational drug availability.
- With data recorded, after a 2-3 year trial of this then the government can decide if they want to open up the limit to 500mg a month or more if they feel satisfied with their results.
- Government closes any restrictions on how much you can buy.
- ???
- Profit!
The price of MDMA? That would have to be up to the government how much tax they put on it.
peaked said:
This is also an issue I feel must be raised, for 30 years now we have been told to just say no. The government have thrown at us many anti-drug campaigns, one of the main ones has been the, 'You don't know where it's been made' and 'You never know what will be in it'. These adverts have taken a more realistic step towards reality then previous efforts by the government and I have no doubt that they have contributed to less people trying drugs thinking that if they are going to be smoking meth then they are basically going to be smoking battery acid from your car (i'm guilty into thinking this was true for a while).
But if the pharma companies start selling medical grade MDMA, then they can't tell us 'you dont know where it's made' and 'you dont know what's in it'. Instead of scaremongering us, they can start new campaigns that informs us of the actual risks associated with MDMA use.
How the government chooses to introduce MDMA into the public will be the biggest factor in how reckless people will be in MDMA use. Give them limited availability and maybe, just maybe people will horde their stash of MDMA and use is sparingly.
I love this idea, MDMA drinks!peaked said:
I have mostly covered on HOW I think the government should approach MDMA legalization. I strongly believe that we need to take a long and slow approach with heavy monitoring to see how society adjusts to this shift. We all agree that a drop in violence would occur, the government would gain money from taxing MDMA (would they loose money from drop of alcohol sales due to MDMA?) and that the blackmarket for pills would dramatically change (would gangs start focusing more on producing amphetamines or opiates?). These things need to be monitored and reviewed to see the trends that the country is taking.
I wanted to write a lot more on this subject, but I already feel that I wrote way too much then I should have. Hopefully some of you understand my concept and can add or remove it. Everything is open for discussion!
ayjay
Bluelighter
^ re Cambodia - there is massive deforestation in the Cardomom Mountains, and some of that is due to MDMA precursor manufacture. BUT most of it is due to logging and farming. It is good to consider the environmental impact of our consumption, but downright disingenuous to jump on illicit drug users when the whole of western capitalism is based on raping the planet...