4 ms·

I have one friend in his late 60's who just bought a new motorcycle. His wife was displeased with his decision though might be tempted to ride along sometimes.

by jrapdx3 12y ago

I have one friend in his late 60's who just bought a new motorcycle. His wife was displeased with his decision though might be tempted to ride along sometimes. Another friend decided to stop riding a few years back because he felt it was too risky for him to continue. Point is with motorcycles, cars, scuba, yes, even horses, the risks are more or less known and probability of various outcomes, including harm, can be reasoned about. With drugs the estimation of probable outcomes is orders of magnitude more difficult to compute. To say it again, all drugs have numerous effects which vary greatly among recipients, and even for established agents most drug effects have received little or no study. However we do have a systematic track record of the AEs encountered, and after millions of cases we have a pretty good idea of how to use the agent safely. Legal status notwithstanding, a drug with potent enough effects to be interesting is asymptotically guaranteed to have adverse effects in some members of the population of potential users. It means effects of a new and arcane product are no more than a total crap shoot. Since even low frequencies of AEs may disqualify a drug as "safe", regulatory bodies require testing sufficiently large number of subjects under tightly controlled conditions to show evidence that it's safe enough to justify its proposed uses. Without such study it is impossible to evaluate the use of an unvetted drug in the same way as riding a motorcycle. The information about benefits and risks is just not known. There is simply no basis for making a rational decision. As a clinician and scientist questions of prohibition are largely beside the point. People will continue to do stupid things laws aside. However, laws/rules exist as a benchmark, and optimally serve as a statement of our communal ethical stance. Not that it's going to stop people who are determined to use a prohibited drug anyway, but maybe it supports restraint in some people who are "on the edge". In respect to designer drugs, I'm very reluctant to say let's have no regulations at all, that anything goes, because logically lack of safety data leaves us to assume the risk of harm is significant. The burden of proof ought to be on the shoulders of those who assert use of the drugs is just harmless diversion.

zipfle 12y ago
I think that where this falls apart is "laws and rules exist as a benchmark". That should be true, but the conduct of the US criminal justice system suggests it isn't.
couchand 12y ago
Point is with motorcycles, cars, scuba, yes, even horses, the risks are more or less known and probability of various outcomes, including harm, can be reasoned about. Which is why we should legalize and regulate the drugs that we do understand. The risks of cannabis and LSD are also more or less known, and the (remarkably low) probability of harm (particularly compared with motorcycles, cars, etc) can be reasoned about. The harm in making these well-understood substances criminal is far greater than the harm in regulating them. Indeed, as the GP points out, the harm in making the well-understood substances illegal is exacerbated by the harm from designer analogs. As a clinician and scientist questions of prohibition are largely beside the point. You're simply pulling the wool over your eyes if you believe that to be true. Prohibition is a causal factor in the danger of substance abuse.

by jrapdx3 12y ago

zipfle 12y ago

I think that where this falls apart is "laws and rules exist as a benchmark". That should be true, but the conduct of the US criminal justice system suggests it isn't.

couchand 12y ago

Point is with motorcycles, cars, scuba, yes, even horses, the risks are more or less known and probability of various outcomes, including harm, can be reasoned about. Which is why we should legalize and regulate the drugs that we do understand. The risks of cannabis and LSD are also more or less known, and the (remarkably low) probability of harm (particularly compared with motorcycles, cars, etc) can be reasoned about. The harm in making these well-understood substances criminal is far greater than the harm in regulating them. Indeed, as the GP points out, the harm in making the well-understood substances illegal is exacerbated by the harm from designer analogs. As a clinician and scientist questions of prohibition are largely beside the point. You're simply pulling the wool over your eyes if you believe that to be true. Prohibition is a causal factor in the danger of substance abuse.