6 ms·

And these shenanigans, too, would be entirely unnecessary if known drugs were legal and regulated, and people could take controlled risks instead of playing Rus

And these shenanigans, too, would be entirely unnecessary if known drugs were legal and regulated, and people could take controlled risks instead of playing Russian roulette with newly synthesized drugs.

Havvy 12y ago
Yeah, it looks like the entire legislative approach is wrong and doing more harm than good. It'd be nice to see more focus on education and building up knowledge. Perhaps even a well designed website (including first-class mobile support) that we could link drug users to that describe the effects in an easy to search and digest format. If people want to do stupid things to themselves, let them. We've found that legalizing marijuana has so far been helpful. I just hope it's not the last step.
- lostgame 12y ago
  https://www.erowid.org/ https://www.erowid.org/
- campbellmorgan 12y ago
  http://www.talktofrank.com/ http://www.talktofrank.com/
Nursie 12y ago
There is a minority that are interested in novelty for its own ends. But you're right, most people that buy these things would be safer and happier with well-known, illegal drugs.
- bigiain 12y ago
  I think there's a majority into "novelty for it's own ends". Art, jazz, comedy, movies - they're all often used as sources to satisfy that need for "novelty".
- syllogism 12y ago
  But how do you propose they buy them, when the legal highs are indistinguishable from them at a glance, and are cheaper and easier for dealers to buy?
  - Nursie 12y ago
    I don't personally propose to buy them, but I do propose that society legalises and regulates several more drugs after cannabis, and that it legalises and regulates research into less harmful recreational substances.
    - makomk 12y ago
      Yeah, without drugs laws as an impetus, these new legal highs might never have been created in the first place and certainly wouldn't be mass-produced in the amounts they have been.
refurb 12y ago
That's actually a great point. Most illegal drugs have known safety profiles since they used to be (or still are) prescription drugs. Even those that were never prescriptions drugs (e.g. LSD) have been used long enough and by enough people that we have a pretty good sense of their safety. People are taking a big risk with some of these designer drugs. Just because a drug looks like an illegal drug doesn't mean a dam thing. Sometimes a simple modification of a molecule (methyl changed to ethyl or a hydrogen replaced by a bromine) can completely change the safety profile of a drug.
paulhauggis 12y ago
Cigarette companies are still being sued to this day for causing cancer in users. There were public, social, campaigns saying that these companies were evil for knowing the effects of their product..yet still selling them to consumers that knew the risks (I'm taking in the last 20 years or so). The same thing is starting to happen to the fast-food companies like Mcdonalds. They are starting to take the blame for a person's free choice to consume their unhealthy food. How can a company (or government) possible allow the legalized consumption of something like Cocaine/heroin/Meth? Will there be tort reform so a company can't be sued for deaths or addiction? Until we have a little more personal responsibility, I don't think illegal drugs should be legalized. It's even apparent in your comment: "And these shenanigans, too, would be entirely unnecessary if known drugs were legal and regulated, and people could take controlled risks instead of playing Russian roulette with newly synthesized drugs." It's your personal choice to play roulette with drugs. They aren't required to live and the ones you are talking about have almost no health benefits (we aren't talking about weed here). Yet, you someone blame the government for forcing a person to make this choice. Complete and utter bullshit. We see big companies frequently taking part in tax avoidance by going overseas. Should we also blame the US government for having taxes that are too high? It's the same logic you are using.
- MrScruff 12y ago
  It's your personal choice to play roulette with drugs. They aren't required to live and the ones you are talking about have almost no health benefits (we aren't talking about weed here). Yet, you someone blame the government for forcing a person to make this choice. Complete and utter bullshit. The government is the organisation that chooses to regulate the behaviour of it's citizens. Why should the citizen need to make a case for need? Shouldn't it be the other way round?
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  > Cigarette companies are still being sued to this day for causing cancer in users. All the big cases I'm aware of are the ones stemming from their decades-long lies that smoking was not a health risk.
- ekianjo 12y ago
frogpelt 12y ago
Its hard for me to wrap my mind around this. Are you a person is willing to risk losing their intellect, health, usefulness to society and even their life but is afraid of the legal repercussions of that decision? That doesn't make sense to me.
- austerity 12y ago
  With many substances the legal risks are incomparably higher than the health risks. But it's not even the point. The illegality simply makes safer/more predictable substances much harder to obtain.
- MarkPNeyer 12y ago
  You've never been extremely depressed, I take it? Most people pursuing altered stars of consciousness are deeply unhappy and don't feel like they are risking anything.
  - innguest 12y ago
    You shouldn't have been downvoted - your comment is pertinent.
- cmdkeen 12y ago
  Drink driving laws? Plenty of people seem very happy to take the risk that they are still a "good driver" after a few drinks, but many are deterred by the legal consequences.
- cubancigar11 12y ago
  The problem is that drug control started with banning rather harmless drugs - marijuana, peyote, shrooms. And these are still the gateway drugs for most people. So the first thing one learns is that drugs aren't really risky (and much less than alcohol that everyone is tasting!), and that media is lying. From there it is a slippery-slope. Only some users feel confident enough to try riskier drugs. Also, as MarkPNeyer said, a lot of drug users are rather depressed.
hristov 12y ago
Or maybe people just shouldn't take drugs.
- praptak 12y ago
  Maybe. But how well has forcing this decision on worked so far?
- raintrees 12y ago
  I am still looking for arguments I agree with that would argue to keep illegal drugs illegal for any adult. I have not found any positions yet that outweigh my belief that adults ought to be allowed to take responsibility for their own actions. Likewise, putting myself in this driver's seat, an overdose on my part is my own fault: If I chose to gamble in such a fashion, it does not seem fair that medical staff should have to labor over rescuing me. I made a decision, it only seems fair that I abide by the consequences. Assuming I had not previously entered into a contractual agreement that was pre-financed, an insurance of sorts, premiums paid up, expectations laid out (DNI/DNR, etc.). I guess the rub would be if the dosage was administered to me without my consent, or a substance included (cut in) that I did not authorize... With the same preface, this would logically extend to some other "for your own good or the lesser financial burden on others" laws, possibly like helmet laws. I get the overall feeling that we have short-circuited the benefits of natural selection/survival of the fittest/most able to adapt. Which probably explains my enjoyment of the Darwin Awards books...
- kbart 12y ago
  Or maybe people just shouldn't get cancer, get old and kill each other? Common, that's simply too naive for anybody over 5 years old to think of as a solution.
- MrBuddyCasino 12y ago
  How extraordinarily bland. Even animals are known to take drugs, and not just primates. Eating fermented fruits, licking psychedelic caterpillars, all of that has been documented. Many drugs are harmless compared to alcohol.
  - 12y ago
NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
Some will always want to experiment, but I agree that legalization of the typical drugs would reduce this significantly. Few are going to huff gasoline if cocaine is available on a liquor store shelf.

Havvy 12y ago

Yeah, it looks like the entire legislative approach is wrong and doing more harm than good. It'd be nice to see more focus on education and building up knowledge. Perhaps even a well designed website (including first-class mobile support) that we could link drug users to that describe the effects in an easy to search and digest format. If people want to do stupid things to themselves, let them. We've found that legalizing marijuana has so far been helpful. I just hope it's not the last step.

lostgame 12y ago
https://www.erowid.org/ https://www.erowid.org/
campbellmorgan 12y ago
http://www.talktofrank.com/ http://www.talktofrank.com/

Nursie 12y ago

There is a minority that are interested in novelty for its own ends. But you're right, most people that buy these things would be safer and happier with well-known, illegal drugs.

bigiain 12y ago
I think there's a majority into "novelty for it's own ends". Art, jazz, comedy, movies - they're all often used as sources to satisfy that need for "novelty".
syllogism 12y ago
But how do you propose they buy them, when the legal highs are indistinguishable from them at a glance, and are cheaper and easier for dealers to buy?
- Nursie 12y ago
  I don't personally propose to buy them, but I do propose that society legalises and regulates several more drugs after cannabis, and that it legalises and regulates research into less harmful recreational substances.
  - makomk 12y ago
    Yeah, without drugs laws as an impetus, these new legal highs might never have been created in the first place and certainly wouldn't be mass-produced in the amounts they have been.

refurb 12y ago

That's actually a great point. Most illegal drugs have known safety profiles since they used to be (or still are) prescription drugs. Even those that were never prescriptions drugs (e.g. LSD) have been used long enough and by enough people that we have a pretty good sense of their safety. People are taking a big risk with some of these designer drugs. Just because a drug looks like an illegal drug doesn't mean a dam thing. Sometimes a simple modification of a molecule (methyl changed to ethyl or a hydrogen replaced by a bromine) can completely change the safety profile of a drug.

paulhauggis 12y ago

Cigarette companies are still being sued to this day for causing cancer in users. There were public, social, campaigns saying that these companies were evil for knowing the effects of their product..yet still selling them to consumers that knew the risks (I'm taking in the last 20 years or so). The same thing is starting to happen to the fast-food companies like Mcdonalds. They are starting to take the blame for a person's free choice to consume their unhealthy food. How can a company (or government) possible allow the legalized consumption of something like Cocaine/heroin/Meth? Will there be tort reform so a company can't be sued for deaths or addiction? Until we have a little more personal responsibility, I don't think illegal drugs should be legalized. It's even apparent in your comment: "And these shenanigans, too, would be entirely unnecessary if known drugs were legal and regulated, and people could take controlled risks instead of playing Russian roulette with newly synthesized drugs." It's your personal choice to play roulette with drugs. They aren't required to live and the ones you are talking about have almost no health benefits (we aren't talking about weed here). Yet, you someone blame the government for forcing a person to make this choice. Complete and utter bullshit. We see big companies frequently taking part in tax avoidance by going overseas. Should we also blame the US government for having taxes that are too high? It's the same logic you are using.

MrScruff 12y ago
It's your personal choice to play roulette with drugs. They aren't required to live and the ones you are talking about have almost no health benefits (we aren't talking about weed here). Yet, you someone blame the government for forcing a person to make this choice. Complete and utter bullshit. The government is the organisation that chooses to regulate the behaviour of it's citizens. Why should the citizen need to make a case for need? Shouldn't it be the other way round?
ceejayoz 12y ago
> Cigarette companies are still being sued to this day for causing cancer in users. All the big cases I'm aware of are the ones stemming from their decades-long lies that smoking was not a health risk.
ekianjo 12y ago

frogpelt 12y ago

Its hard for me to wrap my mind around this. Are you a person is willing to risk losing their intellect, health, usefulness to society and even their life but is afraid of the legal repercussions of that decision? That doesn't make sense to me.

austerity 12y ago
With many substances the legal risks are incomparably higher than the health risks. But it's not even the point. The illegality simply makes safer/more predictable substances much harder to obtain.
MarkPNeyer 12y ago
You've never been extremely depressed, I take it? Most people pursuing altered stars of consciousness are deeply unhappy and don't feel like they are risking anything.
- innguest 12y ago
  You shouldn't have been downvoted - your comment is pertinent.
cmdkeen 12y ago
Drink driving laws? Plenty of people seem very happy to take the risk that they are still a "good driver" after a few drinks, but many are deterred by the legal consequences.
cubancigar11 12y ago
The problem is that drug control started with banning rather harmless drugs - marijuana, peyote, shrooms. And these are still the gateway drugs for most people. So the first thing one learns is that drugs aren't really risky (and much less than alcohol that everyone is tasting!), and that media is lying. From there it is a slippery-slope. Only some users feel confident enough to try riskier drugs. Also, as MarkPNeyer said, a lot of drug users are rather depressed.

hristov 12y ago

Or maybe people just shouldn't take drugs.

praptak 12y ago
Maybe. But how well has forcing this decision on worked so far?
raintrees 12y ago
I am still looking for arguments I agree with that would argue to keep illegal drugs illegal for any adult. I have not found any positions yet that outweigh my belief that adults ought to be allowed to take responsibility for their own actions. Likewise, putting myself in this driver's seat, an overdose on my part is my own fault: If I chose to gamble in such a fashion, it does not seem fair that medical staff should have to labor over rescuing me. I made a decision, it only seems fair that I abide by the consequences. Assuming I had not previously entered into a contractual agreement that was pre-financed, an insurance of sorts, premiums paid up, expectations laid out (DNI/DNR, etc.). I guess the rub would be if the dosage was administered to me without my consent, or a substance included (cut in) that I did not authorize... With the same preface, this would logically extend to some other "for your own good or the lesser financial burden on others" laws, possibly like helmet laws. I get the overall feeling that we have short-circuited the benefits of natural selection/survival of the fittest/most able to adapt. Which probably explains my enjoyment of the Darwin Awards books...
kbart 12y ago
Or maybe people just shouldn't get cancer, get old and kill each other? Common, that's simply too naive for anybody over 5 years old to think of as a solution.
MrBuddyCasino 12y ago
How extraordinarily bland. Even animals are known to take drugs, and not just primates. Eating fermented fruits, licking psychedelic caterpillars, all of that has been documented. Many drugs are harmless compared to alcohol.
- 12y ago

NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago

Some will always want to experiment, but I agree that legalization of the typical drugs would reduce this significantly. Few are going to huff gasoline if cocaine is available on a liquor store shelf.