Proper Use of Drugs

Post Reply New Topic

It is obvious that a lot of people use a lot of different chemicals in their lives, and these include the legal chemicals such as alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, and perhaps other chemicals that can impact us from our food, as well as illegal chemicals such as those in marijuana and other things. The question then is when drugs are proper? When and why should something be illegal or not illegal? It is clear that in different time frames, people had different opinions:
http://www.erowid.org/library/books_onl ... _man.shtml

Could the same kind of reasoning over legality ever apply to personal behaviors, such as for example video games and MMOs?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD69PAIqiYo[/youtube]

What ultimately drives why something is illegal? When is drug use good and proper? Let's say that in the future there are mental enhancing drugs that have very bad side effects? Should these be legal? Should they be illegal? Are they really different than steroids such as those that athletes use? Are there any drugs you want to take for any reason? Does the war on drugs work? If not, then should we have a mass legalization, or what should we do?

No doubt even legal drugs can be misused and destroy lives. The illegal drugs are now a major worldwide industry worth many billions of dollars and legalizing them would be an economic disaster for those in the industry. To assume governments, including the US government, does not benefit economically by keeping the drugs illegal is naive. Surely government officials are getting their cut to keep prices high. Too much money is involved not to believe that.

The prohibition of drugs doesn't really have much to do with how "dangerous" they are. A lot of the most dangerous drugs are legal. People should be able to do what ever they want to their own bodies, it should be their prerogative and they have to deal with the consequences whatever they may be. As long as I don't have to pay for their medical care.

Well, the answer is going to vary considerably depending upon a number of factors, including your view about the purpose of government, your view about the scope of the courts to exercise judicial review, and your view about what constitutes a public harm.

Most importantly, many people are quite prepared to run roughshod over their theory of government when that theory runs contrary to their own self interest.

For example, I believe that the courts have an important role to play in assessing the legitimacy of statute, and taking a purposive interpretation to statute. However, many so-called, "strict constructionists" are quite content to rubbish the role of the Courts in thwarting the will of the legislature until it comes to statutes that impede their perceived privilege to manufacture, possess and use controlled substances.

My legal view is that our social policy is arbitrary. Alcohol has significant health, safety and economic productivity implications, but attempts at prohibition were laughably ineffective. Tobacco use presents significant health risks, but no credible attempt to prohibit its use has ever been made. We have effectively "grandfathered" these two harmful substances by reason of long social use.

The jury is out on marijuana--the pot smoker's lobby will claim no studies demonstrating harm, and medical benefits. Some public health studies are showing increased lung cancer rates for habitual smokers, others are not. There are some studies showing correlation between cannabis use and psychotic disorders--but no causal links have been identified (do you have schizophrenia because you smoke pot, or do you smoke pot because you have a schizoid disorder?)

For my part, there is no medical benefit that I have seen demonstrated by marijuana that could not be replicated through other drug therapies. However, I am most assuredly seeing increased risk profiles. Marijuana producers are successfully hybridizing the plant to increase the THC levels, while diminishing some of the protective components of the drug.

My medical view is more nuanced. If a patient presents risk behaviours, whether they be smoking, drinking, poor diet, lack of exercise, recreation drug use or abuse of prescriptions, I am going to intervene. But if a patient is managing risk behaviours reasonably, then I'm more likely to take a longer view. You want to have a few drinks on Saturday evening, don't let me stop you. You need a few drinks to get yourself out of bed and into work on Monday morning, and I'm going to suggest that you have a problem. Going to roll a joint with friends on the weekend, I'm not going to have an issue. Rolling yourself a few a day, and I'm going to start to look at your dependency profile, your blood gasses and your lung capacity.

Unfortunately, lawyers, police officers and judges don't have the privilege of taking the nuanced view that physicians can. Is there a legitimate public interest in drug use? Yes, there assuredly is. Frankly, if alcohol and tobacco were discovered today, they would never get regulatory approval for use. But the existence of a public interest does not mean that legislation can effectively address that interest.

when your culture says its ok, thats when. i watched a facinating documentry on native peoples use of hullucinagenic plants, some gave it to babies and it wasnt a taboo but normal place. so if your culture says its bad, its bad.

I can see you have never almost been destroyed by SOMEONE ELSE'S drug problem.

People are not islands. If one's drug habits did not affect others then no one would care to make drug use an issue.

Drug addicts quite frequently lie, neglect their work responsibilities, neglect their children, endanger the lives of others, steal, act inappropriately in public, harass family and friends, generally ruin things for others, and so on.

That's pretty much all prohibited substances. The "war on drugs" is being lost. Mainly because it's a stupid concept. Making criminals of people with problems won't fix the problem, it'll just create more crime and poverty.



Also have to wonder if they distinguish between sativa and indica since they produce different kinds of highs. Sativa is more of a head high while indica is more of a body high.

And such people are normally the worst because they have little to no clue what's going on, only the emotional distress they've gone through and not the overall effects or causes.

It's about as valuable as a MADD representative at every drunk driving hearing: it only serves to make the problem worse and punish much more harshly and never actually analyze the problem.

I'm afraid I don't see your logic. However you're quite welcome to explain it.

I avoid consuming anything that will significantly alter my physiology for anything other than medical reasons.

Drugs should be totally legalized. Drug prohibition is a total disaster; perhaps the single most destructive project ever initiated in a (broadly) free, democratic society.

.

There are large psychological forces at play with regards to the legality of drugs. Its legal state tends to effect:

Consumption: one tends to consume more of something if they think the availability is less than reliable. This is true not only of substances but of any consumable good whether it's a christmas run on tickle-me elmo's or the unreliability of your dealer who may or may not be busted and out of the game for the time.

Other crimes: once one gets into the mental state that they are effectively a criminal, it makes committing other crimes much easier. A psychological barrier has basically been cheated from its rightful position via an act that, for all intents and purposes, does not feel illegal when you're doing it. it's very self-contained when it starts out so while it doesn't start out feeling like a crime, the person will quickly subconsciously realize that they are committing criminal acts, though, rather passively. It's what makes the jump to theft or mugging so much easier. It's also why booze bums on the streets don't mug you as much as bums who are on illicit substances.

Getting help: this goes back to the legal status because it makes it that much harder to admit that you're doing it because you'll eventually realize it's a crime and something to be hidden from people who would be the most likely to help you. It makes the whole getting over the drug harder because it creates a harder isolation. It also can mean that the person will go to jail rather than getting the counseling they need to psychologically get over the drug problem properly (drug problems are normally a case of self-medicating a psychological problem).

With your state as a personal involvement, you'll claim expertise on the matter because the victim was in front of you but you also aren't especially invested in the mechanics because you're worried about your family member/friend and their effects on everyone around them. Those effects are made worse by the phenomena that occur above thanks to the legal status of the drugs. Personal involvement tends to blur one's judgement of the whole situation. It's why doctors can't date patients, why senior military aren't allowed to fraternize with subordinates, and so on and so forth. You may know very well all the dirty tricks that a junkie will pull on his family but that doesn't mean you know the big picture of what's going on...maybe at most you figured out what was going on with your family member and hopefully he got help.

Drugs are dangerous, and are capable of destroying so many lives, because they are illegal, not in spite of it. This is not to say that they are safe, and I wouldn't recommend any of them (including the legal ones like alcohol), but the destructive power of drugs comes from their illegality and the problems it creates, not from the drugs themselves.

.

You do realize that people do all of the above without drugs, too....right?