• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

Why r some drugs illegal and some not?

B

blufluffybunny

Guest
I have always wondered (I am kind of repeating myself after posting in social, but it is relevant to drug discussion MORE so I think) Why drugs are legal EVEN THOUGH they cause SO much amage to the human body. Compare MDMA (one example) and the CONFIRMED damage to the body. There are MANY legal drugs that we KNOW do extensive damage to the body, yet we continue to sell and prescribe them. WHY? because some would say the have more positive effects and those OUTWEIGH the negative.
OK, but why is MDMA illegal (or No plans to make legal) when -
1: we DO NOT KNOW the damage it causes to the body and not enought testing is being done to find out
2: It MAY have positive effects on humans (?) Some may disagree, but there is no evidence to say whether or not the POSITIVE outweigh the NEGATIVE, if there is or there isn't!
I find this very strange. Should we not endevour to find out if these illegal drugs have some sort of purpose in society, not just getting us off our pickles? I always think of the young man I saw with Parkinsons who, when given MDMA, would loose ALL symptoms of the disease.. regaining FULL motor skills. Unfortunately he would later revert to his former self, sometimes worse.
But would his taking MDMA to lead a normal life outweight the fact that it "MAY" cause damage to his brain? Legal drugs do that. ie: ROACCUTANE: It cures acne! great! But causes - kidney problems - liver problems - blood noses - blurred vision - sore joints - DEPRESSION.. These symptoms can be short term and permanant. Yet it is READILY available.
Now Im not sure what tests are being done, except for the ones that they constantly tell us : It kills brain cells in rats etc etc where they FORGET to mention they give the rats a dose HUNDREDS of times higher than what a human would have. also, DO I LOOK LIKE A FRIGGIN RAT?
One of the conclusions I can come to is, even though it MAY have positive effects and POSSIBLY lesser negative effects of legal drugs available, it WILL NEVER be legal because.... it makes us have fun? Could it be that a drug that makes us open our minds and out hearts is being ingnored for positive medical reasons for that alone?
Or can anyone else think of a reason/s?
 
Cause they can easily be abused and then cause more damage...
Also, MDMA does a lot of damage to your brain, i dont know if it does to everyone, but it sure fucks me up...
 
Its cultural. Alchohol and tobacco are so ingrained within western society they can never be legislated against. New drugs must be proven to have some medical benefit, decided by a government body and limited for appropriate treatment by prescription.
 
There have been a number of tests dune on Humans with MDMA. It was exctually used up untill the early 1980's in psyche wards to releave problems in the mentally ill.
There is already evidence that proves the good effects out way the bad.
Sadly the drug was made illegal because it simply makes people to uncontrollable for the worlds construction. It would change the world as we know it.
But now, with the small amount of testing that is being dune, it will only take another 10 or 20 years to prove what they already know. This drug should be legalized!!!
Also there is a limit to what good it can do. I mean, you can have to much of a good thing, as for every other thing that holds good value...
Perhaps if they controlled its use in Humans it would stop all the killing and fighting in this world we have created.
BUT THE SAD TRUTH IS, IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!!!
 
Also financial. It's quite apparent that if the global drug trade somehow disappeared, the world economy would collapse overnight. Organized crime represents roughly a trillion dollars a year; it is an integral aspect of our financial system.
It is the illegality of certain drugs that makes them so vastly profitable - to criminals. Just imagine what could be done with drug profits if they were instead drug taxes - and returned to society, rather than to finance the extravagances of another drug cartel. The sad reality is that it is not a situation of "criminals" versus "government" - the two are intimately related. Anyone with a grain of intelligence can see that arbitrarily making one drug legal, and another illegal, goes beyond the bounds of rationality and into vested interest.
This quote is from the latest Nexus magazine - an interview with a former LA policeman named Mike Ruppert:
"...It's not a War on Drugs. It's a War on People. Consider this....In 1972, when Richard Nixon started the War on Drugs, the annual federal budget allocation was 110 million dollars a year for enforcement. In fiscal year 2000, 28 years later, the budget allocation was 17 billion dollars a year, and yet, in the year 2000, there are more drugs in this country, they are cheaper, and they are more potent than they were in 1972. That has to tell you that there's some other agenda going on here."
Agenda and a half...
smile.gif
 
The jumble of emotion and ignorance shields present government drug policy from objective appraisal. The current policy approach in australia is one of strict control and stiff penalties. Yet although there is significant evidence that such an approach does more harm than good, the present policy remains virtually unquestioned. Desmond Manderson 1987
Proponents of continued prohibition argue that legalisation would lead to an increase in the prevalence of use of the drug and that the drug has substantial adverse physical and psychological effects.
I cant say they are wrong...
Just because there are prescribed drugs that are more harmful does not negate the fact that MDMA can cause problems.
Just because it hasn't been absolutely proven that MDMA is harmful, doesn't lesson the possibility that it can be.
I would love to see pharmaceutical grade MDMA put on the market. Prescribed via a database, at a maximum rate of once a month.
WIth harm minimisation heavily promoted.(I'm not holding my breath.)
Just so that the risks could be lessoned..
Whenever you put a drug in your system you are playing the odds..It just depends how hard and often you want to play......
 
entrenched and diversified pharmaceutical/petroleum/tobacco/alcohol cartels making billions from sales of products approved would hate to have their revenue streams diverted, hence many efficacious pharms/technologies, legal and otherwise, remain controlled/scheduled and never see the light of day.
were drugs to be legalised and taxed, as some suggest, the CIA would have no leverage for propagating US policy and strengthening the $$$ in geopolitical areas of interest, and contrary to expected logic, the US and allied govts would make less money than they do now.
 
^^ Conspiracy Theorists UNITE!
[This message has been edited by blufluffybunny (edited 24 October 2001).]
 
Jo Average comes home after a rough day at work and what soothing options does he have open to him? A scotch and a cigar... both drugs which a going to relax and somewhat anaesthetize Jo Average, not make him question why he is stressed, why he hates his job, his boss, the government which is taxing him, so and so forth. Psychotropic substances aren't legal because if they were the government would be opening the proverbial floodgates and creating a potential risk to the power they have worked on consolidating for centuries. It would be suicidal for the state to allow every man and his dog access to mind expanding substances rather than ones which dumb us down.
------------------
One more hour.
 
Illicit drug deaths only make up about 3.5% of all drug related deaths. Tobacco making up around 63%
 
I've been considering the thought that once the next generation (& maby even the one after) start to become old and pass away, the terrible effects of long term somking my become more apparent and realistic. While it is already known that cigs can cause a slow and painful death, the government can't brand it illegal because it has taken off in such a huge fassion and the kind of money that it reaps in is enourmous. Do they pay the gov to keep it legal or does the gov make enough money from the tax that it dosen't care?? Probably both but what I'm getting at is that eventually smoking will effect soooo many ppl's health and be the cause of soooo many deaths that it must become illegal. I'm not surprised that cig companys are aiming to get the youths hooked on their product, they would want to squese as much money out of the market while they still can. Then when the day comes, it will be the drug cartels who produce and distribute the worlds main supply, leaving them even more rich and powerful.
I could be far off the track as their is a lot of money in these little cancer sticks for a lot of different ppl but I think all they can do is prolong the inevitable..?
------------------
If you meet someone without a smile, give them one of your own.
 
personally i can never see ecstacy being legalised.. decriminalised maybe, but never legalised..
simply because pharmaceutical(spelling) companies aren't interested in MDMA.. they would be a pretty big lobbying group for politicians.. no matter how many doctors kick up a fuss it wont change.. because you build up a tolerance to mdma.. pharmaceutical companies are only interest in drugs that they can continue to pump into people 24/7.
 
^^
yeah he's right, the multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry is a massive lobby group. not just for governments, but for medical groups as well. there are numerous examples of drug companies resisting the use of existing treatments in favour of expensive drugs they've developed themselves. Drug companies are the real deal when it comes to being corporate arseholes.
 
Quote from "my" 3000 word project
The German drug company Merck first synthesised 3,4 Methylene-dioxy-N-methamphetamine (MDMA) in 1912 and patented the drug in 1914.1 Use of the drug in the several decades following the patent was sparse until a reemergence in the psychedelic therapy community in the 1970’s as an adjunctive treatment in psychotherapy. At the beginning of the 1980’s, the potential for abuse of MDMA was becoming apparent with a significant increase in the non-medical use of the drug. In the middle of the 1980’s, as a direct result to the abuse of MDMA, the United States congress passed a new law allowing the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) to put an emergency ban on any drug that they believed was a potential danger to the public. On the first of July 1985, they used this law for the first time, banning MDMA and placing it into the most restrictive category classified as drugs described as being damaging and addictive without a medicinal use.2 Approximately one year later, this ruling was overturned and a hearing was set up to decide a permanent classification of the drug. The Judge at this hearing recommended MDMA to be listed as a schedule three drug that would allow manufacture and further research. The DEA however, ignored this recommendation, placing MDMA into schedule one permenantly.2 Applications to have this decision reversed were forwarded by groups of scientists who had collected data from animal toxicology studies required by the FDA. These applications were rejected due to a hypothetical risk of neurotoxicity, even though some studies failed to demonstrate neurotoxicity at therapeutic doses.1
Coupled with the stringent restriction laws, MDMA was off patent making the drug financially unattractive to the pharmaceutical industry. Government funding for MDMA was also sparse due to controversy over the drugs ever increasing illegal abuse. Despite the restrictions, the potential for medicinal use has been shown through the reported effects following both the illegal ingestion and clinical application of MDMA. From these results, and from clinical trials that have been documented both prior to and following 1985, the potential for this drug to be used in a medical content is sufficient for the need for further controlled clinical trials.
 
I know you've bowed out of social... but this is social stuff really. It relates to drugs, but there's no informative stuff here... just philosphoical, theoretical, social stuff.
Sorry but I'm gonna move it over.
It'll make for a discussion in that that's actually interesting tho
smile.gif

[This message has been edited by entropope (edited 24 October 2001).]
 
^^^ I though MrLSD (from a itchee & scratchee track right) made a great point in illustrating the story of MDMA. Basically the government claim it caused damage & addiction. I believe this rationale has been applied in each and every prohibition drug. Hell there is no other rationale you could apply.

Why r some drugs illegal?

I thought that society outlawed certain drugs due to their addictive and harm potential. This is what I’ve worked out from government agencies (Aus & US).

Why some drugs are legal

Because society thinks that the addictive and harm qualities of these drugs do not outweigh the benefits they provide, perhaps.

I don't believe any government has a definitive statement on drugs, why they are legal and why some aren't. Obviously if it did then it would even easier (not that it isn't already) to highlight contradictions and hypocrisy in a government policy. Better to simply look at everything on a "case-by-case basis" right, stay conservative and push forward the hyperbole "drugs are bad" and use it as the odd political football during pre election lead up.

I believe until the creation of powerful psychedelics can be conducted by the average Joe (safely), using banal everyday substances (essentially a supply situation with no realistic possibility of control) the world will remain in the dark ages.....
 
Wow that is a blast from the past =D

Interesting stuff.
 
Top