NationStates Jolt Archive

I suspect that nearly everyone here is in favor of legalizing some drugs for responsible adults to use in recreation. Most people would be in favor of legalizing a drug like marijuana. But what about drugs like crack cocaine, which is far more addictive and harmful to people? Or how about Meth, which is responsible for many house explosions and deaths? How about club drugs such as ecstasy, which cause people to drop dead on the dance floor, or cause others to be taken advantage of?

Poll soon to come!!!

Marijuana is the only one I could support legalizing.

The other drugs you mentioned should stay illegal.

I agree with SaintB

Marijuana. The rest I don't know much about.

All of them.

Marijuana and Cocaine. The rest I don't know much about.

Cocaine is narcotic, and it causes violence, irrationality, can cause seizures.. etc.

Edit: Disclaimer by Narcotic I did not mean in the US Legal sense, I meant in the classic medicinal sense of: agents that benumb or deaden, causing loss of feeling or paralysis.

All of them.

Why would you allow all of them, knowing that some are more harmful than others?

Why would you allow all of them, knowing that some are more harmful than others?

Population control?

Why would you allow all of them, knowing that some are more harmful than others?

Because I consider the harm caused by the use of drugs, which is mostly self inflicted, to be far less than the harm caused by the trade in illegal drugs.

where's the opinion to vote none of them?

I said alcohol was ok... but it didn't register o.O

where's the opinion to vote none of them?

Whoops. I knew i forgot something.

They should legalize clown sex. *nod*

They should legalize clown sex. *nod*

Thats not a drug, and I don't remember any specific legislation barring it.

Thats not a drug, and I don't remember any specific legislation barring it.

It's addictive and if you do it right, a cop would probably arrest you just in case. ;)

It's addictive and if you do it right, a cop would probably arrest you just in case. ;)

You got a point, but that's any sex.

All. ya i voted that shit in:D

You got a point, but that's any sex.

Yeah, but every time I mention clown sex, I generate a mental image that damages another mind here on NSG. *nod*

Yeah, but every time I mention clown sex, I generate a mental image that damages another mind here on NSG. *nod*

I must be very damaged then because even the mental picture didn't bother me.

honestly, if you need drugs to enjoy life, you may as well just kill yourself now, cause, I'll give you a hint, but there are no drugs in heaven.

Only LG.

I must be very damaged then because even the mental picture didn't bother me.

I don't know, the mental picture I got was 2 hot chicks in clown make-up getting it on...

In theory, all of them.

In practise, it's stupid that ecstacy is illegal. Stupider still that it's Schedule I - it's not addictive, it's relatively safe, it's difficult to overdose on, and the deaths associated with it are caused by dehydration rather than the drug itself. Educated users don't die from taking pills.

I must be very damaged then because even the mental picture didn't bother me.

Well, I already knew you were damaged. You've been here a while. ;)

I don't know, the mental picture I got was 2 hot chicks in clown make-up getting it on...

I pictured bozo and some random female clown, still in their shoes going doggy style in the back of a clown car.

I vote damaged.


And I will probably get warned or banned for this so this is a preemptive see you later...

Well, I already knew you were damaged. You've been here a while. ;)

The damage comes from before I got here.

Drugs with a low addictive potential and those that don't typically create violent impulses in people.

Hence Maryjane, psychedelics, tobacco (highly addictive, but not much of an effect), and maybe an extremely highly regulated club drug trade.

With the rise of legals drugs though, the penalty for drugging someone up against their will should be much, much steeper.

The damage comes from before I got here.

It just feels that way because you're damaged. :)

Considering that there are many prescription drugs that remain legal yet are probably more dangerous than any of the above. I say legalize all of it. Tax all of it, and make sure they all have an age limit of 18-21.

In theory, all of them.

In practise, it's stupid that ecstacy is illegal. Stupider still that it's Schedule I - it's not addictive, it's relatively safe, it's difficult to overdose on, and the deaths associated with it are caused by dehydration rather than the drug itself. Educated users don't die from taking pills.

If by "safe" you mean "literally eats holes in your brain", then yeah, ecstacy is "safe".

Yeah, but every time I mention clown sex, I generate a mental image that damages another mind here on NSG. *nod*

Usually mine. :(

Usually mine. :(

Need a hug?
:fluffle:

Because I consider the harm caused by the use of drugs, which is mostly self inflicted, to be far less than the harm caused by the trade in illegal drugs.

This ^

In Switzerland, they'll vote for or against legalising hemp (cannabis, marijuana, the whole deal) this Sunday. Some left-wing proponents called for a botellón in front of the Parliament in case the people would vote no.

If by "safe" you mean "literally eats holes in your brain", then yeah, ecstacy is "safe".

Care to provide a citation for that? Or how about a comparitive study on the effects of alcohol versus mdma on the human brain? I can pretty categorically say there's been no studies on humans that result in "holes in the brain". The studies you're referring to were on animals (and not even primates).

Governments spout shit that mdma depletes 30%+ of the serotonin in the brain, causing it to rot. Rubbish. It depletes something like 5%, and only in heavy, regular users. This level can also be normalised in a few months without use. (I'll look for a link to the study, I'm pretty sure it was German).

This myth seems to have started with Oprah, harping on about it causing holes, then displaying a picture of a supposedly destroyed brain. Sucks that the comparision images were taken using different scanning techniques, meaning they could not be compared effectively.

Here is another quote from TheDEA.org:

“In spite of appearances, those aren’t holes. This is some form of PET scan; the colors may indicate blood flow or sugar uptake or some more exotic measurement. Where things get tricky is that these renderings don’t show all the data. Instead, the technician will choose which ranges of data are rendered. If they decide to render blood flow from 99%-101% of normal, then an area with 98% of normal blood flow will show up as a gaping hole. The result is that minor differences can be made to look very dramatic.“

http://thedea.org/neurotoxicity.html#holes

All of them, provided that their use doesn't necessarily involve harming anyone but the user.

They should legalize clown sex. *nod*

I disagree. Without the risk of being arrested it loses some of its appeal.

I honestly can't see how GHB and Ketamine are in the same "class" as MDMA. MDMA minus all the shit that gets added to pills shouldn't be anywhere as near as dangerous as GBH or Ketamine. I'm in favour of legalised marijuana. I have worries regarding other currently illegal drugs because of the deaths they can cause. However, I believe that if MDMA was regulated it would be more safe.

In the end though, the government doesn't have the right to tell us what we can and can not put in our bodies.

Care to provide a citation for that?

You bet...emphasis mine.

Summary

High or repeated-dose MDMA regimens can produce long-term changes in indices of serotonergic and axonal functioning in animals. Increasing evidence supports the view that these changes are at least partially the result of damage. The magnitude of these serotonergic changes varies with dose, species, and route of administration. Rodent studies have shown that changes in the core temperature of animals can increase or decrease MDMA neurotoxicity. While some recovery does occur, a study in squirrel monkeys suggests that there may be permanent changes in axonal distribution in some areas of the brain. Oxidative stress appears to play an important role in MDMA neurotoxicity, although the exact mechanisms are poorly understood. The sustained acute pharmacological effects of MDMA may exhaust neuronal energy sources and antioxidant defenses, leading to damage. Metabolites of MDMA are another possible source of oxidative stress. Very few behavioral correlates of MDMA exposure have been found in drug-free laboratory animals, despite dramatic serotonergic changes, alterations in neurofunctioning, and changes in response to drugs. A growing number of studies describe differences between ecstasy users and nonusers. These studies have serious limitations, but suggest that some ecstasy users experience serotonergic changes and cognitive alterations. In contrast to studies of illicit users, the few controlled clinical trials with MDMA in healthy volunteers have reportedly not found evidence of cognitive changes, despite cerebral blood flow alterations in one study. The possible risks of neurotoxicity must be considered when assessing the potential administration of MDMA to humans.

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_neurotoxicity1.shtml

Also...

http://www.ecstasydata.org/

So...you don't have to call the damage "holes" if you don't want to, but I've seen what ecstacy does to people who use it frequently over a long period of time....brain damage is brain damage.

Voted every option.

Provision of drugs to minors should remain illegal (all drugs) and administering a drug to another without their informed consent should remain illegal.

If there is some drug (not listed) which is highly addictive from one standard dose, I would consider banning it, or at least making it available only under medical supervision. Otherwise, the management of addiction is still a matter of personal choice.

nothing should be unlawful to possess in personal quantities.

i don't consider anyone entirely a rational adult who wants to impare their judgement recreationally, but i equally consider the costs of trying to ban anything completely, and i'm not just talking about monetary costs either, just as irrational and irresponsible.

banning the sale, mass production, or wholesale importation of anything is another matter entirely, and one to which, depending on the article or substance, i would have no objection to at all.

Why would you allow all of them, knowing that some are more harmful than others?

Yep all of them. As to why, well is it the the bussiness of the state to say which dangerous persiuts it's citerzens can and cannot take part in?

Can the law for example declare skydiving as to dangerous to take part in and outlaw?

Alchol is one of the most dangerous drugs around, and all the time it is leagel, then logicaly speaking the dangerous substances argument just has not got a leg to stand on.

Tabbaco kills, many, many people every year, yet it still remains leagal, not it makes no sense to me.

Either legistate for all recreational drugs to be illeagal, or leagalise them all, any other stance is just illogiocal (captian!)

You bet...emphasis mine.



http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_neurotoxicity1.shtml

Also...

http://www.ecstasydata.org/

So...you don't have to call the damage "holes" if you don't want to, but I've seen what ecstacy does to people who use it frequently over a long period of time....brain damage is brain damage.

Did you actually read your own source? The source backs up exactly what I said above: that there have been limited clinical evaluations of mdma in humans, that mdma effects vary wildly among species and therefore trials on animals cannot be held equal with trials on humans, that (and I quote) "[i]n contrast to studies of illicit users, the few controlled clinical trials with MDMA in healthy volunteers have reportedly not found evidence of cognitive changes, despite cerebral blood flow alterations in one study."

Depends on consumption and effects.

Consumed in a fashion affecting bystanders ('Smoking') - Fucking illegal
Consumed in a fashion only affecting the initial consumer; effects highly likely to cause addiction and deteriorating health (Usually to be paid by public health services) - Illegal, but eh
Consumed in a fashion only affecting the initial consumer; effects relatively unlikely to cause addiction and deteriorating health - Legalise it

id legalize three and those only for medical reasons. depressants and anti-depressant and then Methamphetamines .that and i really dont think we should even be worrying about something like sex unless your populations getting out of control

1 if a law cannot be effectively enforced - it is a stupid law
2 the "war on drugs" appears a total failure
3 therefore the laws making drugs illegal would appear to be stupid

1 if a law cannot be effectively enforced - it is a stupid law
2 the "war on drugs" appears a total failure
3 therefore the laws making drugs illegal would appear to be stupid

1) If a law cannot be enforced it is an ineffectual law.
2) Yes it does, for the amount of drugs readily avaliable.
3) Therefore prohibition against recreational drugs is ineffectual.

I suspect that nearly everyone here is in favor of legalizing some drugs for responsible adults to use in recreation. Most people would be in favor of legalizing a drug like marijuana. But what about drugs like crack cocaine, which is far more addictive and harmful to people? Or how about Meth, which is responsible for many house explosions and deaths? How about club drugs such as ecstasy, which cause people to drop dead on the dance floor, or cause others to be taken advantage of?

Poll soon to come!!!

Legalize all of them except script drugs. If people want to fuck themselves up/get addicted, that's their choice. People do it with alcohol every single day.

If all drugs were legal except the scripts, that would be a huge loss to the black market, there would be no market left. The government could regulate the drugs and tax the hell out of em. It would be a gold mine; no more war on drugs (that doesn't work) and along with that money, there would be more money coming in from taxes.

I am assuming US libertarians would naturally be pro legalising all drugs - am I right in thinking that?

1) If a law cannot be enforced it is an ineffectual law.
2) Yes it does, for the amount of drugs readily avaliable.
3) Therefore prohibition against recreational drugs is ineffectual.

1) then what is the point in having these stupid laws? bar costing the taxpayer millions each year
2) no it really does not effect street availability drugs are very easy to get hold of.
3) so legalise educate and tax

I object to powder cocaine being put in the same category as crack! crack is evil! cocaine is well, fun.

for your consideration I present the official ranking of relative harm caused by individual drugs. It makes me wonder who the hell makes decisions about this kind of thing and how stupid they actually must be.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5230006.stm

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41949000/gif/_41949092_drugs_graph_416.gif

I'd keep everything above alcohol illegal with sharp penalties for dealing and cash rewards for giving information which leads to arrests (but allow medical research into there practical uses) and legalise everything below that with a ban on smoking in public places (except coffee shops for weed!)

Weed and alcohol.

If by "safe" you mean "literally eats holes in your brain", then yeah, ecstacy is "safe".

How many clubbers use their bran anyway?

How many clubbers use their bran anyway?

Regular ones :D

Can the law for example declare skydiving as to dangerous to take part in and outlaw?


Skydiving has one of the lowest rates of injury or death of any sport.

Where for instance plenty of innocent people are killed by people using Crystal Meth.

Regular ones :D

From the one or two times I have been to a club, I saw no evidence of this :p

all of them..because making them illegal did such a great job to stop it. the people that aren't gonna do drugs aren't gonna do them, people that are are.

Skydiving has one of the lowest rates of injury or death of any sport.

Where for instance plenty of innocent people are killed by people using Crystal Meth.

Roughly 100% of murderers have used DHMO(aka 'water').

From the one or two times I have been to a club, I saw no evidence of this :p

you've been going to lame clubs then, I regularly attend several clubs and illegal raves and well, the people who attend them use there brains far more than most people.

stop being a bigot

you've been going to lame clubs then, I regularly attend several clubs and illegal raves and well, the people who attend them use there brains far more than most people.

stop being a bigot

There is a difference between a bigot and a joker, I am a joker.

Are you bigoted against people with a sense of humor?

you've been going to lame clubs then, I regularly attend several clubs and illegal raves and well, the people who attend them use there brains far more than most people.

stop being a bigot

Dude, learn2recognise humour.

Roughly 100% of murderers have used DHMO(aka 'water').

So do roughly 100% of all people. There is a much higher rate of violence among people that use crystal meth than there is of people that are high on Dihydromonoxide.

There is a difference between a bigot and a joker, I am a joker.

Are you bigoted against people with a sense of humor?

as a matter of fact yes, all people with a sense of humour should be rounded up and shot

So do roughly 100% of all people. There is a much higher rate of violence among people that use crystal meth than there is of people that are high on Dihydromonoxide.

Is that because they use crystal meth, or because they resort to crime to fund their habit?

Is that because they use crystal meth, or because they resort to crime to fund their habit?

probably to fund the habit

Is that because they use crystal meth, or because they resort to crime to fund their habit?

They are even more likely to do it while using.

All of them!

They are even more likely to do it while using.

In your opinion, or is there evidence to back this up?

Yeah, but every time I mention clown sex, I generate a mental image that damages another mind here on NSG. *nod*

That's right, your post created a horrible mental image in my head. I'm gonna have nightmares.

Booze, fags and anything medical.

That's right, your post created a horrible mental image in my head. I'm gonna have nightmares.

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c326/alacartoona/Evil_clown_love.jpg

In your opinion, or is there evidence to back this up?

Its called Google.

Common Immediate Effects

* Euphoria
* Increased energy and alertness
* Diarrhea and nausea
* Excessive sweating
* Loss of appetite, insomnia, tremors, jaw-clenching
* Agitation, irritability, talkativeness, panic, compulsive fascination with repetitive tasks, violence, confusion
* Increased libido
* Increased blood pressure, body temperature, heart rate, blood sugar levels, bronchodilation
* Constriction of the walls of the arterties
* In pregnant and nursing women, methampetamine crosses the placenta and is secreted in breast milk

Effects Associated with Chronic Use

* Tolerance (needing more of the drug to get the same effect)
* Drug craving
* Temporary weight loss
* Withdrawal symptoms including depression and anhedonia
* "Meth Mouth" where teeth rapidly decay and fall out
* Drug-related psychosis (may last for months or years after drug use is discontinued)

Effects of Overdose

* Brain damage
* Sensation of flesh crawling (formication)
* Paranoia, hallucinations, delusions, tension headache
* Muscle breakdown (rhabdomyolysis) which can lead to kidney damage or failure
* Death due to stroke, cardiac arrest or elevated body temperature (hyperthermia)


Linky: http://chemistry.about.com/od/medicalhealth/a/crystalmeth.htm


All the proof you need to know that people using crystal meth are more prone to violence while using it. That and the number of people I have encountered using the shit, its the popular drug in these parts.

its the popular drug in these parts.
Ahahaha pleb.

As with alcohol, criminal prosecution for drugs should be limited to additional sentencing for crimes committed under the influence of the drugs. Also possession while under you nation's age of legal majority could feasibly be a crime.

In a free market system, the drugs would be less dangerous because under the present system there's no quality control whatsoever. For example, as it stands now, Meth (certainly bad) is manufactured with very unpleasant chemicals in unsafe and unsanitary conditions with no concern for quality as long as it gets you high (even worse).

Free access to booze hasn't made the world population a mass of drunken sots. Neither would free access to drugs make the world a mass of near-zombie dopeheads.

Ahahaha pleb.

Never tried to deny I'm chronically broke.

Amen brother

Never tried to deny I'm chronically broke.
Crystal meth, though. Sad times :(

Crystal meth, though. Sad times :(

Indeed. Meth labs are all over the place. Three raids against meth pushers in town this year :(

If any type of government told their their citizens that they were not aloud to drink alcohol then I would call that government insane. Doing this would only result to conflicts. Plus this would take away from a major economical resource. And anyways we tried that once and I'll tell you now it didn't work out one bit. The drugs that should be legalized that are not are marijuana. Marijuana is used as a medicine in many nations and helps to heal the injured.

If any type of government told their their citizens that they were not aloud to drink alcohol then I would call that government insane. Doing this would only result to conflicts. Plus this would take away from a major economical resource. And anyways we tried that once and I'll tell you now it didn't work out one bit. The drugs that should be legalized that are not are marijuana. Marijuana is used as a medicine in many nations and helps to heal the injured.

The US DID make booze illegal. Remember the prohibition? It didn't work well at all. Moonshine & speakeasys for the win!

On one hand, only prescription drugs should be legal (from the list in the poll).
On the other, it would be impractical to ban currently legal drugs, and it is currently impractical to continue bans on some of the illegal ones.

where's the opinion to vote none of them?Not voting in the poll?

From the one or two times I have been to a club, I saw no evidence of this :pUsually evidence of regular bran usage isn't on the club floor itself. I suppose if someone used too much, though...

I honestly can't see how GHB and Ketamine are in the same "class" as MDMA. MDMA minus all the shit that gets added to pills shouldn't be anywhere as near as dangerous as GBH or Ketamine.

My thoughts exactly.

Currently legal drugs should also remain legal, and marijuana and LSD should become so, in addition to MDMA/"ecstasy."

LSD should be legal with a liscense

The opening question is vague.

Does it mean they should be de-criminalized or just allowed free reign all together? I think the latter makes more sense with the heavier drugs. Pot for sure, only an idiot would want to criminalize that, but even other drugs. A nanny state can go straight to hell. I know some people would try to argue that banning drugs is no different than having product safety standards, but that's stupid. It's not all or nothing, you don't either officially endorse something or ban it completely, that makes no sense and it's a waste of resources.

What they need to do is de-criminalize all drugs, at least, totally disregard the law as far as possessing them and consuming them when you're just harming yourself. At that point, special laws with special, perhaps harsher penalties to crime by the crackheads that would no doubt come out of the woodwork; maybe make it legal to bash one over the head or shoot if they get near you. No more drug businesses making millions, no more millions wasted on the "war on drugs"; it would be the "war on drugees".

The drugs I prefer to use recreationally should be decriminalized and legalized.

The ones I don't, shouldn't.

Hallucinogens should have a license and a safety course requirement.
pot should be roughly controlled as alcohol.
some minor pain pills and minor ups should be legal.
The latter two should be watch more closely. it is easier for ups and downs to kill you then for hallucinogens and pot to.

Its called Google.
It's called making your point, not getting me to make it for you.

Linky: http://chemistry.about.com/od/medicalhealth/a/crystalmeth.htm


All the proof you need to know that people using crystal meth are more prone to violence while using it. That and the number of people I have encountered using the shit, its the popular drug in these parts.
Well, on that basis it seems reasonable to keep crystal meth illegal.
The US DID make booze illegal. Remember the prohibition? It didn't work well at all. Moonshine & speakeasys for the win!

I doubt many people remember the 20s and early 30s :tongue:

I'm going to say alcohol, weed and tobacco should be legal, the others illegal. Instinctively I think that harder drugs should be banned, though I'll admit to not being quite sure why I think this. Probably because I'm generally in support of that whole "nanny state, the government should look after its people and stop them from hurting themselves" thing. Also, in practical terms, knowing how many of us Brits behave after taking alcohol, I wouldn't really want crack cocaine to be readily available

My thoughts exactly.

Currently legal drugs should also remain legal, and marijuana and LSD should become so, in addition to MDMA/"ecstasy."

LSD could be slightly less dangerous if it were more regulated, but in my experience with people who do LSD, it really does mess them up. I've always wanted to try it, though. And shrooms as well. Although mushrooms would be very difficult to regulate.

I would be tempted to legalise them all, mainly as a way of stopping them being a source of funding for criminals and terrorists. However I would only allow things other than alcohol and cannabis to be used in licensed clubs - a bit like a gun club, you can buy and consume drugs on the premises but cannot take any off the premises. Driving while intoxicated or being helplessly intoxicated in public would still be offences.

All drugs should be taxed to the maximum amount that still prevents a rhobust black market. After all making something illegal dosnt work so take as much money possible to pay for the prior education, police, repairs and healthcare when an idiot eventually misuses it and behaves like an idiot

well taxing is all well and good for the drugs that r hard to get but you can grow pot with abolutly no problum....it would b veary hard to tax somthing like that...(gasp) THATS WHY IT ISNT ALREADY LEAGEL!!
(im sorry i cant spell)

well taxing is all well and good for the drugs that r hard to get but you can grow pot with abolutly no problum....it would b veary hard to tax somthing like that...(gasp) THATS WHY IT ISNT ALREADY LEAGEL!!
(im sorry i cant spell)

I use Firefox (http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/). Cutting and pasting the above, and replacing the words it underlines, with the first suggestion it offers gives this:

well taxing is all well and good for the drugs that r hard to get but you can grow pot with absolutely no problem....it would b vary hard to tax something like that...(gasp) THAT'S WHY IT ISN'T ALREADY LEA GEL!!
(I'm sorry I cant spell)

"Legal" and "veary" failed. "r" and "b" failed. Yes, you would still need to improve your spelling, but frankly a bit more effort is required as well ("are" and "be" you can spell, you just didn't bother.)

As to your point: tobacco is pretty easy to grow too. Alcohol is easy to brew or distil. Overwhelmingly, people are prepared to pay the high taxes on both, to get a quality product.

Illegal drugs ARE taxed. Their prices are inflated to compensate producers, traffickers and dealers for the risk of being fined or jailed. They use that money to bribe cops and customs agents, they use it to fortify their houses and buy weapons, and they use it to pay for far more serious crimes (eg murder) against their competitors.

If government takes that tax instead, it can be spent on education, on rehabilitation, and perhaps even in commissioning more enjoyable and less harmful recreational drugs from the pharmas.

Bringing us to another issue. Nothing stops pharmaceutical companies from manufacturing recreational drugs (heroin, barbiturates, amphetamines and all the synthetic psychedelics were released as medical drugs) ... and the requirement to market them as "medically necessary" is corrupting psychiatry, corrupting the drug-testing regimes of the pharmas themselves, and corrupting government in that they have a clear motive to legalize any drug which makes people more content.

Let's just recognize that if a drug makes a person less depressed, it is a recreational drug, not a cure for some putative disease. That's exactly what illegal drug users use for: to feel good.

Illegal drugs ARE taxed. Their prices are inflated to compensate producers, traffickers and dealers for the risk of being fined or jailed. They use that money to bribe cops and customs agents, they use it to fortify their houses and buy weapons, and they use it to pay for far more serious crimes (eg murder) against their competitors.

If government takes that tax instead, it can be spent on education, on rehabilitation, and perhaps even in commissioning more enjoyable and less harmful recreational drugs from the pharmas.

While most of the above is true I wouldn't call keeping a drug illegal a tax per se.

Bringing us to another issue. Nothing stops pharmaceutical companies from manufacturing recreational drugs (heroin, barbiturates, amphetamines and all the synthetic psychedelics were released as medical drugs) ... and the requirement to market them as "medically necessary" is corrupting psychiatry, corrupting the drug-testing regimes of the pharmas themselves, and corrupting government in that they have a clear motive to legalize any drug which makes people more content.

Let's just recognize that if a drug makes a person less depressed, it is a recreational drug, not a cure for some putative disease. That's exactly what illegal drug users use for: to feel good.

Do you question the concept of mental diseases in general or specific mental diseases in particular? While it is true that anti-depressants and anti-anxiety meds will probably boost the mood and lower the anxiety level of anyone there is a difference between feeling depressed on occasion and having a depressive disorder.

Also, I don't see how it corrupts any of the above institutions. Psychiatry relies on the fact drugs they prescribe need a licensed professional to prescribe them since ,after all, they are only to be used when medically necessary. If looser requirements for what constitutes medical necessity corrupt governments then isn't even looser standards for drug intake even more corrupting? You'll have to explain to me how it corrupts the pharmas.

While most of the above is true I wouldn't call keeping a drug illegal a tax per se.

From the user's point of view, it is a tax. Imposed by government, but collected by black-marketeers.

Enforcement of anti-drug laws inflates the price. No benefit flows to anyone, unlike a real tax.

Do you question the concept of mental diseases in general or specific mental diseases in particular? While it is true that anti-depressants and anti-anxiety meds will probably boost the mood and lower the anxiety level of anyone there is a difference between feeling depressed on occasion and having a depressive disorder.

Well, certainly. I think it is clear, as a greater and greater proportion of people are considered to have one or another "disorder" ... that doctors themselves are being corrupted.

Throughout DSM-IV is the criteria "causes distress to the patient" to define disorder. While admirably patient-centric, and permissive of patients having a choice in their treatment, this also opens the door for doctors to be drug dealers. The patient keeps coming back for more of that good shit. If the patient doesn't perceive benefit from the drug treatment, they likely complain about the side-effects ... in which case the psychiatrist prescribes an alternative drug.

I question whether the psychiatrist is needed in this equation at all.

Also, I don't see how it corrupts any of the above institutions. Psychiatry relies on the fact drugs they prescribe need a licensed professional to prescribe them since ,after all, they are only to be used when medically necessary. If looser requirements for what constitutes medical necessity corrupt governments then isn't even looser standards for drug intake even more corrupting?

"Medically necessary" is an oxymoron in this context. The patient's self-reporting, for instance their reporting of suicidal ideation, is the main prognostic tool of the psychiatrist.

I.e. whether the drug is "working" or not cannot be tested by a blood-pressure reading, or examination of their blood or stools. It isn't medical in that sense, it relies heavily on the patient's own perception of their health.

You'll have to explain to me how it corrupts the pharmas.

Suppose they devise the best recreational drug ever (the "Soma" of Brave New World.) Won't they want to market it? Lotsa money, very few law suits.

But they can't sell it directly to the public. They must find a "medical need" for the drug. No doubt, if it's such a great "feel good with no come-down" drug ... it will be prescribed for depression, mild or acute.

Then people who are struggling with mild depression, seeking a self-determining solution by investigating the causes (like maybe they have the wrong partner, or their job sucks) see their friends in a similar situation get on the latest "anti-depressant" and get happy. So they accentuate their symptoms (self-reporting, patient-centric) to their doctor and get that great new stuff.

I think it would be more honest if new drugs were marketed directly to consumers, to judge for themselves. On the one hand, the pharmas hide from legal responsibility for the full effects (lifestyle effects, long-term effects) behind "medical necessity" which is a responsibility borne by doctors ... and on the other hand, consumers hide from what is really their choice (to be drug-happy) behind the same "medical necessity" -- that a doctor prescribed and continues to prescribe a drug which makes them happy.

Of all the corruptions, it is the corruption of the role of Doctor which concerns me most.

my wife's issues with her self dicipline observably (my observation, no hers, though i am by no means any sort of medical professional or even medically educated) increase when she fails to take her klonapin and mellorill, (which by no means 'cure' them!)

that aside, i entirely aggree with buggsie's points above.

LSD should be legal with a liscense

*lights a stick of lincense*

===========

my wife's issues with her self dicipline observably (my observation, no hers, though i am by no means any sort of medical professional or even medically educated) increase when she fails to take her klonapin and mellorill, (which by no means 'cure' them!)

I talk a lot of "your body, your choice" but I must admit, a person's state of mind is not only 'their problem.' It affects their loved ones too.

That isn't something that law can make better.

that aside, i entirely aggree with buggsie's points above.

I like being "buggsy" :)

BSB, bunny, NH, I'm fine with. But being bugged, and bugging others ... it's very nearly my true name.

Marijuana, LSD and mushrooms (hallucinogenic ones) should all be legal.

They should all be legal. Being stupid is not illegal.

I suspect that nearly everyone here is in favor of legalizing some drugs for responsible adults to use in recreation. Most people would be in favor of legalizing a drug like marijuana. But what about drugs like crack cocaine, which is far more addictive and harmful to people? Or how about Meth, which is responsible for many house explosions and deaths? How about club drugs such as ecstasy, which cause people to drop dead on the dance floor, or cause others to be taken advantage of?

Poll soon to come!!!

Pot, shrooms, prescription drugs and caffeine.

Alcohol isnt a drug.

All of them. It's none of my business how people want to treat their bodies.

Alcohol is illegal? Since when? I could've sworn there was an Amendment somewhere...

Alcohol isnt a drug.

In what way is alcohol not a drug? Unless you define drug to mean "illicit drugs," as if something becomes a drug or not based on whether it's illegal somewhere.

Pot, shrooms, prescription drugs and caffeine.

Alcohol isnt a drug.

a recreational drug is an artificially produced substance taken into the body to alter the users state of mind

alcohol fits all of those criteria

alcohol is one of the most evil of drugs

thousands of people end up in a&e because of it every day, I've never seen someone in an a&e from any other drug before

legalise the lot and tax them, use the tax to spend on law and order

legalise the lot and tax them, use the tax to spend on law and order

First, repeal the 21st Amendment of the US Constitution.

Should be easy, if my research is correct.

Marijuana and alcohol. Ban tobacco.

Hold on, hold on, hold on. Why do I keep seeing posters writing that alcohol should be legalized? Isn't it? Because as far as I was concerned, it is legal.

I believe in legalising pot, because I believe we can remove the criminal element and safety concerns around it by enforcing strict government regulation, which can only be achieved if it is legal.

From the user's point of view, it is a tax. Imposed by government, but collected by black-marketeers.

Enforcement of anti-drug laws inflates the price. No benefit flows to anyone, unlike a real tax.

True, but just because the governments conflates the price of a good or service does not mean its a tax. This is like calling all government actions that make certain things illegal, like murder, theft or driving on the wrong side of the road, taxes.

Well, certainly. I think it is clear, as a greater and greater proportion of people are considered to have one or another "disorder" ... that doctors themselves are being corrupted.

Or it could mean that the standard of mental health have increased and more people seek relief for afflictions that either had no treatment or were supposed to be stoically endured

Throughout DSM-IV is the criteria "causes distress to the patient" to define disorder. While admirably patient-centric, and permissive of patients having a choice in their treatment, this also opens the door for doctors to be drug dealers. The patient keeps coming back for more of that good shit. If the patient doesn't perceive benefit from the drug treatment, they likely complain about the side-effects ... in which case the psychiatrist prescribes an alternative drug.

"Causes distress to the patient" is a bad diagnostic criteria? Some psychological states like anxiety or depression,in the sense of feeling sad, are things everyone feels from time to time. They become disorders when they become sufficiently distressing to the patient that the patient seeks treatment.

Drug dealers are, in a sense, what doctors are. One needs a prescription for certain drugs and doctors are the ones that prescribe them. If one drug doesn't treat or cure an illness other drugs are used.

I question whether the psychiatrist is needed in this equation at all.

They may not be necessary, but to call what essentially is there profession corruption of said profession is silly.


"Medically necessary" is an oxymoron in this context. The patient's self-reporting, for instance their reporting of suicidal ideation, is the main prognostic tool of the psychiatrist.

I.e. whether the drug is "working" or not cannot be tested by a blood-pressure reading, or examination of their blood or stools. It isn't medical in that sense, it relies heavily on the patient's own perception of their health.

Psychiatry may not be as hard a science as most of medicine but that does not mean it isn't a branch of medicine just because it relies heavily on patient self-reporting any more than giving out pain medication isn't medicine because it relies heavily on self-reporting.

Suppose they devise the best recreational drug ever (the "Soma" of Brave New World.) Won't they want to market it? Lotsa money, very few law suits.

But they can't sell it directly to the public. They must find a "medical need" for the drug. No doubt, if it's such a great "feel good with no come-down" drug ... it will be prescribed for depression, mild or acute.

Then people who are struggling with mild depression, seeking a self-determining solution by investigating the causes (like maybe they have the wrong partner, or their job sucks) see their friends in a similar situation get on the latest "anti-depressant" and get happy. So they accentuate their symptoms (self-reporting, patient-centric) to their doctor and get that great new stuff.

I think it would be more honest if new drugs were marketed directly to consumers, to judge for themselves. On the one hand, the pharmas hide from legal responsibility for the full effects (lifestyle effects, long-term effects) behind "medical necessity" which is a responsibility borne by doctors ... and on the other hand, consumers hide from what is really their choice (to be drug-happy) behind the same "medical necessity" -- that a doctor prescribed and continues to prescribe a drug which makes them happy.

Of all the corruptions, it is the corruption of the role of Doctor which concerns me most.

Yeah. I still see no corruption. Pharmas make drugs they think they can get a profit out of, doctors use their power to grant prescriptions to treat illnesses, governments regulate. The argument that many more drugs should be available without prescription is reasonable. The rest is not.

I suspect that nearly everyone here is in favor of legalizing some drugs for responsible adults to use in recreation.

In the "other" category, I'd like to add caffeine, theophylline, and theobromine. Them all being alkaloids (xanthines) and stupefiants.

Alcohol isnt a drug.

Alcohol is a drug. You are wrong.

True, but just because the governments conflates the price of a good or service does not mean its a tax. This is like calling all government actions that make certain things illegal, like murder, theft or driving on the wrong side of the road, taxes.

It's tricky isn't it?

Some things, murder or theft, almost everyone agrees are social ills and almost everyone is OK with government spending money to discourage. By jailing criminals, an expensive process with dubious returns in each case.

Other things, we find to be social ills but are OK with government gaining revenue from (extra taxes on unhealthy products like tobacco or alcohol.) Government is OK with putting a price on the social cost, and taking that out in tax.

Yet other things, many of us are OK with government gaining revenue from (by taxing) even though they are social goods (payroll tax, or taxes on commodities.)

And in the fourth case, self-treatment or suicide or drug use, a few of us are in favour of protecting people from their own actions. Even at net government expense.

Perhaps there is some level of legitimate self-interest where some actions are permitted even though they cause harm to others. A sort of cost/benefit reckoning: costs to others justified by far greater benefit to the perpetrator.

Or it could mean that the standard of mental health have increased and more people seek relief for afflictions that either had no treatment or were supposed to be stoically endured

There is a third option, and it's what psychiatry consisted of before the drug options were available. It's to talk with the patient, sometimes endlessly and fruitlessly,


"Causes distress to the patient" is a bad diagnostic criteria? Some psychological states like anxiety or depression,in the sense of feeling sad, are things everyone feels from time to time. They become disorders when they become sufficiently distressing to the patient that the patient seeks treatment.

Drug dealers are, in a sense, what doctors are. One needs a prescription for certain drugs and doctors are the ones that prescribe them. If one drug doesn't treat or cure an illness other drugs are used.

They may not be necessary, but to call what essentially is there profession corruption of said profession is silly.

Psychiatry may not be as hard a science as most of medicine but that does not mean it isn't a branch of medicine just because it relies heavily on patient self-reporting any more than giving out pain medication isn't medicine because it relies heavily on self-reporting.

Yeah. I still see no corruption. Pharmas make drugs they think they can get a profit out of, doctors use their power to grant prescriptions to treat illnesses, governments regulate. The argument that many more drugs should be available without prescription is reasonable. The rest is not.

I will answer this. Not right now.