3 ms·

If something has no legal uses to speak of, but has illegal ones - especially, profitable illegal ones - then that's good enough reason to ban it as I see it.

If something has no legal uses to speak of, but has illegal ones - especially, profitable illegal ones - then that's good enough reason to ban it as I see it. And that's definitively where novel analogs of pharmaceuticals, ordered in bulk from dodgy Chinese suppliers, fall.

ttyprintk 4y ago
This logic makes “date rape” drugs the most dangerous of all. But they’re not treated like that, are they? Possession of such is almost certainly probable cause to commit kidnapping, sexual assault, or conspiracy to lure people into those. Yet people sentenced to life for drug trafficking would have been better off selling the actual assault drug.
- johtso 4y ago
  I'm not sure if even that's such a straightforward argument to make. I've recently been looking into buying some reagents for fungal microscopy, and supposedly Melzer's reagent is awkward to get hold of (particularly in the USA?) because chloral hydrate is a "date rape drug". Another chemical branded as a date rape drug is GHB, but it is also popular as a recreational drug. Again, not something you can say possession of implies some intention to commit rape.
  - arbitrary_name 4y ago
    I believe GHB is also one of the few known drugs that can treat narcolepsy, and is therefore prescription only in the US.
- eru 4y ago
  Also note that alcohol is the most common 'date rape' drug.
- vintermann 4y ago
  Specialized date rape drugs are largely a fiction. It's just regular recreational drugs used in an especially evil way, and the vast majority that regular recreational drug is just alcohol. It's also probably a regular event that young people experience blackout for the first time, haven't been taught about blackout, and assume they must have been fed something more sinister than alcohol. Alcohol is treated much better than its danger would suggest, for cultural reasons (that most people, use it recreationally, and often in high prestige contexts). If you want more restrictions on alcohol, especially restrictions on profiting from it, I'm all on your side. But I think it's a bad argument to be nicer to importers of novel drug analogs.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
esperent 4y ago
> If something has no legal uses to speak of, but has illegal ones We are talking about making chemicals illegal as soon as they are discovered, or even before they are discovered. There's no way to know what legal uses they might have if no one gets to use them. Due to this kind of stigma it's taken decades for people to accept that ketamine is one of the safest and most effective forms of treatment for depression, for example, while many migraine sufferers report that low doses of psychedelics are an effective treatment - something very dear to me as a sufferer of migraines, although unfortunately I haven't found that these work for me. Psychedelics are also a potential treatment for depression that needs further research. Then there's THC, an amazing drug for chronic pain sufferers and cancer patients, again mired in stigma because it's "illegal". Sadly because reactionary politics it's taken decades to start to get legitimate testing done on these. > dodgy... suppliers Yes, when something is made illegal that's the only way to get hold of it.
- vintermann 4y ago
  If you want to do research on legitimate uses for something that presently only has profitable illegal uses, then you can seek permission to do that in an organised manner. I'm not terribly worried that we miss out on the "personal research" of recreational users.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - data_maan 4y ago
    It seems weird how you stress the profitability aspect in your two previous comments. As if something that is profitable increases its illegality - whereas when something is legal but really unhealthy, like nicotine, it can be as profitable as you want. Double standards, where being legal takes precedent over health. > then you can seek permission to do that in an organised manner. And how do you think that people suffering from <migraine> (insert illness of choice) will go about that? Wait a few years until a regulatory body approves their case, all while suffering from <migraine>? What if the regulatory body desidea that only people with degrees in chemistry (but not molecular biology) are allowed to do such research? Such a bureaucratic processes are textbook examples really bad policy that pushes people to black markets. But certain northern European countries just love that approach, I know.

ttyprintk 4y ago

This logic makes “date rape” drugs the most dangerous of all. But they’re not treated like that, are they? Possession of such is almost certainly probable cause to commit kidnapping, sexual assault, or conspiracy to lure people into those. Yet people sentenced to life for drug trafficking would have been better off selling the actual assault drug.

johtso 4y ago
I'm not sure if even that's such a straightforward argument to make. I've recently been looking into buying some reagents for fungal microscopy, and supposedly Melzer's reagent is awkward to get hold of (particularly in the USA?) because chloral hydrate is a "date rape drug". Another chemical branded as a date rape drug is GHB, but it is also popular as a recreational drug. Again, not something you can say possession of implies some intention to commit rape.
- arbitrary_name 4y ago
  I believe GHB is also one of the few known drugs that can treat narcolepsy, and is therefore prescription only in the US.
eru 4y ago
Also note that alcohol is the most common 'date rape' drug.
vintermann 4y ago
Specialized date rape drugs are largely a fiction. It's just regular recreational drugs used in an especially evil way, and the vast majority that regular recreational drug is just alcohol. It's also probably a regular event that young people experience blackout for the first time, haven't been taught about blackout, and assume they must have been fed something more sinister than alcohol. Alcohol is treated much better than its danger would suggest, for cultural reasons (that most people, use it recreationally, and often in high prestige contexts). If you want more restrictions on alcohol, especially restrictions on profiting from it, I'm all on your side. But I think it's a bad argument to be nicer to importers of novel drug analogs.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

esperent 4y ago

> If something has no legal uses to speak of, but has illegal ones We are talking about making chemicals illegal as soon as they are discovered, or even before they are discovered. There's no way to know what legal uses they might have if no one gets to use them. Due to this kind of stigma it's taken decades for people to accept that ketamine is one of the safest and most effective forms of treatment for depression, for example, while many migraine sufferers report that low doses of psychedelics are an effective treatment - something very dear to me as a sufferer of migraines, although unfortunately I haven't found that these work for me. Psychedelics are also a potential treatment for depression that needs further research. Then there's THC, an amazing drug for chronic pain sufferers and cancer patients, again mired in stigma because it's "illegal". Sadly because reactionary politics it's taken decades to start to get legitimate testing done on these. > dodgy... suppliers Yes, when something is made illegal that's the only way to get hold of it.

vintermann 4y ago
If you want to do research on legitimate uses for something that presently only has profitable illegal uses, then you can seek permission to do that in an organised manner. I'm not terribly worried that we miss out on the "personal research" of recreational users.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- data_maan 4y ago
  It seems weird how you stress the profitability aspect in your two previous comments. As if something that is profitable increases its illegality - whereas when something is legal but really unhealthy, like nicotine, it can be as profitable as you want. Double standards, where being legal takes precedent over health. > then you can seek permission to do that in an organised manner. And how do you think that people suffering from <migraine> (insert illness of choice) will go about that? Wait a few years until a regulatory body approves their case, all while suffering from <migraine>? What if the regulatory body desidea that only people with degrees in chemistry (but not molecular biology) are allowed to do such research? Such a bureaucratic processes are textbook examples really bad policy that pushes people to black markets. But certain northern European countries just love that approach, I know.