Should drugs be made Legal Like? (Page 5)

What you're suggesting wasn't it tried already. Opium used to be legal. So was cocaine and heroin when they were first discovered (and continued to be so for many years after that). They were manufactured by pharmaceutical companies, sold through medical shops with proper instructions and yet these drugs were banned mostly because of their addictive and behaviour altering nature which many times puts life at risk (both of others as well as the user's). So, shouldn't we take note of that because after all if we don't learn from it what's the use of history?

Poppy extracts, Coca extracts and cannabis extracts are perhaps the three oldest drugs. They existed long before they were banned. In fact in many tribal communities the usage of these is still prevalent. Prohibition came less of concern over addiction and behavior. Opium was initially banned due to the opium wars and in this case this was due to systematically induced addiction, and everyone jumped on the bandwagon. Opium has been smoked in hookahs and used recreationally for centuries without many concerns. Cocaine was banned due to its association with prostitution and pimps. It was more of an outcome of the prohibition movement. If we indeed have to look at history I would look at recreational drug use from the dawn of time to now. It is only in the 1900's we start seeing a push for banning, which has cosequently resulted in an underground drug market and designer drugs.

What you said is partly true that in an environment where a person receives emotional support s/he is less likely to succumb to substance abuse. But then even in such environments drug abuse does take place.

About responsible users of recreational drugs, isn't it why it's banned in the first place, because once a person gets hooked s/he ceases to be responsible. Yes the same can be said about alcohol also, but such an utter dependence on alcohol is very rare, whereas it's quite common among drug users.

Moreover, even after clear instructions what's the guarantee that the person will take only the prescribed dose and won't go overboard? Even if the drug is sold in a dilute form where addiction is not a possible outcome, won't it pose a problem of other kind? Once the user gets tolerant to the diluted form and ceases to feel the same euphoria, won't he seek a stronger form, essentially meaning that he'll revert to the underground supply where potency and quantity is not regulated?

If drugs are OTC they would just increase dosage right. Its like drinking a bottle of cough syrup instead of the two spoonfuls. Besides for legal substances there is always a less restricted market.  Even if they go to the underground supply eventually, it does cut out the influence and power of cartels.

Another aspect is the crime induced by substance abuse. Drugs not only make them feel exuberant but also make them feel more brave often making them do something rash (read illegal or criminal activity).

IMHO there is a big difference betwen feeling and acting. Just with alchohol most high people tend to resort to something silly like mooning or graffity, and few resort to violent acts like abuse etc and DUIs.

If the drug is made legal obviously more people will find that there's no problem with trying it and will do so. higher no. of triers means higher users which in turn means a higher number of addicts.

Legality does not always mean trying, and trying does not mean addiction and addiction does not mean crimes.

More addicts will obviously translate into more drug induced crimes.

But yes the proportion will increase.

Combating those crimes will cost the state. Apart from that overseeing that the control measures put in place are strictly followed will also be going to cost money to the state. Add to that the fact that once it is made legal, the medical expenses because of drug abuse are also going to be a state responsibility (in countries where medical care is free). The costs incurred obviously will be recovered by adding taxes on sales of drugs. After adding these taxes plus any other normal taxes can the price of the drugs be kept too low? If it can't be kept low then that'll mean only the affluent people will be able to enjoy it. Now where does the poorer section go? They'll obviously either still buy the legal stuff however expensive it might be or they'll revert to cruder drugs from the back alleys with all kinds of impurities added in. Even if they decide to go the legal way for how long will they be able to sustain it with their limited income once they get addicted and craves for more? So, once his means to support his cravings in a legalised manner gets over, he'll either return to the cruder drugs or he'll commit some crime to get the money to carry on his 'legal' pastime.

You raise excellent points here. However, I think the war on drugs is costing way more than it is worth. Lets not forget that the absuers and suppliers are not contributing a cent to this war on drugs. As far as I know rehab is funded by charities and not taxes in most countires, I could be wrong. Is it not better though to have the drug market contribute some tax money. Also if a drug is on the Wal-mart shelf, people will shoplift, if not pharmaceutical workers will start backdoor stoors like the Taiwanese who sell 2 GIG RAMS on ebay for dirt cheap. And even if they resort to crimes. Mugging and stealing and even occasional death is better than the mass destruction caused by cartels. 

If everything is taken care of, I've nothing against legalising drugs but the major question is can everything be taken care of? Can the pharmaceutical companies come up with a substance which even though induce similar exuberant feelings won't cause addiction? Can the govt. really take care of strict vigilance to ensure that the pharmacy owners and the users are not by passing the controls put into place? Even if the strictest vigil is put into place how can one ensure that the user won't use a concoction like snowball which might be fatal. Yes it's their personal choice but then don't we ban useful drugs (medicines) which can have fatal or debilitating side effects? Then why should we make an exception for this?

Isn't some form of control better than none. Drug dealers have no control measures at all. I think with medical drugs they are banned because they cause immediately fatal side effects. While opium and cocaine have long term side effects.

Having said all that, it was a really nice argument by you. It's very convincing.

Thanks! You to raise many relevant points. For me this was a school assignment, that I have just chosen to stick to. Otheriwse, I'm mostly ambivalent.

However, I do think that we can allow marijuana, coca teas and other milder forms of drugs as they were used in ancient times. But I could care less if they dont. Sometimes laws can be just silly how USA bans absinthe and most states ban Everclear.

What you're suggesting wasn't it tried already. Opium used to be legal. So was cocaine and heroin when they were first discovered (and continued to be so for many years after that). They were manufactured by pharmaceutical companies, sold through medical shops with proper instructions and yet these drugs were banned mostly because of their addictive and behaviour altering nature which many times puts life at risk (both of others as well as the user's). So, shouldn't we take note of that because after all if we don't learn from it what's the use of history?

Poppy extracts, Coca extracts and cannabis extracts are perhaps the three oldest drugs. They existed long before they were banned. In fact in many tribal communities the usage of these is still prevalent. Prohibition came less of concern over addiction and behavior. Opium was initially banned due to the opium wars and in this case this was due to systematically induced addiction, and everyone jumped on the bandwagon. Opium has been smoked in hookahs and used recreationally for centuries without many concerns. Cocaine was banned due to its association with prostitution and pimps. It was more of an outcome of the prohibition movement. If we indeed have to look at history I would look at recreational drug use from the dawn of time to now. It is only in the 1900's we start seeing a push for banning, which has consequently resulted in an underground drug market and designer drugs.

You're right that it was only in the 1900s that drugs started to get banned in most countries. And I agree that a major reason was their association with prostitutes, pimps and criminals (which is not entirely correct but not entirely false either). However, I feel one more aspect should also be considered. Until the 1850s, all the drugs that were used were natural products, like chewing or smoking tobacco leaves or coca leaves or cannabis flowers/ resin or opium. Since they were natural, the proportion of the narcotic substance used to be less, whereby reducing the chances of addiction. Also there were no cartels at that time trying to increase addiction so as to maximise sales. But since 1850, purer forms of drugs have started emerging which are much more potent because of the presence of absolute proportion of the narcotic substance. Add to this the rise of cartels which started dens to increase addiction and therefore more sales. Previously whatever recreational drugs were taken, used to be taken inside one's house or among a group of friends and there were no extremities involved like very high potency or administering intravenously.

Moreover, opium was not banned because of the Opium Wars. Opium Wars were fought because Chinese govt. wanted to ban opium. But once the British came out victorious, opium usage and addiction in China increased after those wars. British East India Company was a version of the present day drug cartel.

So, if seen overall, it's the emergence of cartels and highly potent drugs that led to bans and not the other way around.

What you said is partly true that in an environment where a person receives emotional support s/he is less likely to succumb to substance abuse. But then even in such environments drug abuse does take place.

About responsible users of recreational drugs, isn't it why it's banned in the first place, because once a person gets hooked s/he ceases to be responsible. Yes the same can be said about alcohol also, but such an utter dependence on alcohol is very rare, whereas it's quite common among drug users.

The irresponsibility of drug users is an image painted by conservatism. Call centers in the United States are notorious for having no drug or background testing. You see tons of junkies some even reeking of their substances come to work every day and perform just as well as other operators do. IMHO thats what gets them through the torture everyday. In fact one of my operators was going clean and was getting so cranky and annoyed with customers that he was a much better person doing his stuff. From personal obervation I can vouch that junkies can be completely responsible and accountable. I did not have absenteeism issues, quality issues - they were leading 100% normal lives.

But thats personal opinion and observation.

Personal opinion and observation is perfectly fine. Afterall, every study is the result of someone's personal observation. Even what I'm writing is only my opinion based on what I've read. But I'd like to know one thing. Were they working in a drugged state or were they taking drugs after work? Because if they were smoking joints or snorting cocaine then it's different but if they are doing depressants or hallucinogens then it can be difficult to work.

In 1928 Assistant Surgeon General of United States Thomas Kolb conducted a study through the Public health service on 119 persons addicted to opiates. 90 had good industrial and social records. At 76% that is not much less than the ordinary human average.

There are some substances like cannabis (moderate dosage) or cocaine which does not hamper productivity. Cocaine in fact can increase it (in turn producing an addict). However, what about the other types of drugs?

Moreover, even after clear instructions what's the guarantee that the person will take only the prescribed dose and won't go overboard? Even if the drug is sold in a dilute form where addiction is not a possible outcome, won't it pose a problem of other kind? Once the user gets tolerant to the diluted form and ceases to feel the same euphoria, won't he seek a stronger form, essentially meaning that he'll revert to the underground supply where potency and quantity is not regulated?

If drugs are OTC they would just increase dosage right. Its like drinking a bottle of cough syrup instead of the two spoonfuls.

I'm not sure I understood this part.

Besides for legal substances there is always a less restricted market.  Even if they go to the underground supply eventually, it does cut out the influence and power of cartels.

I don't entirely agree with this. Yes the power of the cartel will drastically reduced initially. However, if people keep on returning to the underground supply in search of more potent drugs, the cartels would soon return to their full customer base and power.

Another aspect is the crime induced by substance abuse. Drugs not only make them feel exuberant but also make them feel more brave often making them do something rash (read illegal or criminal activity).

IMHO there is a big difference betwen feeling and acting. Just with alchohol most high people tend to resort to something silly like mooning or graffity, and few resort to violent acts like abuse etc and DUIs.

Agree with that. However, there do exist quite a substantial chance of harming oneself or others.

If the drug is made legal obviously more people will find that there's no problem with trying it and will do so. Higher no. of triers means higher users which in turn means a higher number of addicts.

Legality does not always mean trying, and trying does not mean addiction and addiction does not mean crimes.

If it becomes included in the popular culture, then surely the chances of trying increases. And trying does lead to addiction, although not in every case. And even though addiction does not necessarily means crime, but it can lead to it.

More addicts will obviously translate into more drug induced crimes.

But yes the proportion will increase.

Combating those crimes will cost the state. Apart from that overseeing that the control measures put in place are strictly followed will also be going to cost money to the state. Add to that the fact that once it is made legal, the medical expenses because of drug abuse are also going to be a state responsibility (in countries where medical care is free). The costs incurred obviously will be recovered by adding taxes on sales of drugs. After adding these taxes plus any other normal taxes can the price of the drugs be kept too low? If it can't be kept low then that'll mean only the affluent people will be able to enjoy it. Now where does the poorer section go? They'll obviously either still buy the legal stuff however expensive it might be or they'll revert to cruder drugs from the back alleys with all kinds of impurities added in. Even if they decide to go the legal way for how long will they be able to sustain it with their limited income once they get addicted and craves for more? So, once his means to support his cravings in a legalised manner gets over, he'll either return to the cruder drugs or he'll commit some crime to get the money to carry on his 'legal' pastime.

You raise excellent points here. However, I think the war on drugs is costing way more than it is worth. Let's not forget that the abusers and suppliers are not contributing a cent to this war on drugs. As far as I know rehab is funded by charities and not taxes in most countries, I could be wrong. Is it not better though to have the drug market contribute some tax money? Also if a drug is on the Wal-mart shelf, people will shoplift, if not pharmaceutical workers will start backdoor stoors like the Taiwanese who sell 2 GIG RAMS on ebay for dirt cheap. And even if they resort to crimes. Mugging and stealing and even occasional death is better than the mass destruction caused by cartels.

Yes at present there are charitable organisations running drug rehab centres, but I'm talking about if drugs are made legal then the expenses of running these rehab centres will become a govt. responsibility.

And as far as mass destruction is concerned, gang wars between drug lords rarely affect common people apart from a few areas where they're extremely powerful. The most prominent effect is through spreading addiction in the population, which IMO will remain same even if drugs are legalised.

If everything is taken care of, I've nothing against legalising drugs but the major question is can everything be taken care of? Can the pharmaceutical companies come up with a substance which even though induce similar exuberant feelings won't cause addiction? Can the govt. really take care of strict vigilance to ensure that the pharmacy owners and the users are not by passing the controls put into place? Even if the strictest vigil is put into place how can one ensure that the user won't use a concoction like snowball which might be fatal. Yes it's their personal choice but then don't we ban useful drugs (medicines) which can have fatal or debilitating side effects? Then why should we make an exception for this?

Isn't some form of control better than none. Drug dealers have no control measures at all. I think with medical drugs they are banned because they cause immediately fatal side effects. While opium and cocaine have long term side effects.

Yes some control is good and that is what Narcotics department are usually doing. Trying to control drugs from producing more addicts, though in a completely different way than what you're suggesting. It might be possible that your suggestion can also work, afterall there's more than one way to achieve something.

And I was talking about lethal concoction, which can be fatal and not about the long term effects (though long term effects can't be ignored either).

Having said all that, it was a really nice argument by you. It's very convincing.

Thanks! You to raise many relevant points. For me this was a school assignment, that I have just chosen to stick to. Otheriwse, I'm mostly ambivalent.

However, I do think that we can allow marijuana, coca teas and other milder forms of drugs as they were used in ancient times. But I could care less if they dont. Sometimes laws can be just silly how USA bans absinthe and most states ban Everclear.

I agree with this part. Apart from marijuana and coca teas, I'd like to add coca wine, charas (hashish) and opium to the list. If they can be legalised but controlled that'll be good.  However, I'm completely against legalising derivatives like morphine, heroin, cocaine etc. As for synthetic drugs, like LSD or ecstacy, most are not that addictive, but it'll take a very strict vigilance system to ensure that people don't overdose so as not to pose a threat to oneself (considering that usually these drugs don't induce aggressive behaviour and only causes hallucinations).