6 ms·

It's a slippery slope to pick one drug as OK and another as not. Putting substances into your own body should not be illegal, regardless of the substance. We

by snarfy 12y ago

It's a slippery slope to pick one drug as OK and another as not. Putting substances into your own body should not be illegal, regardless of the substance. We would do a lot better if we focused on education, addiction, and rehab than focusing on prohibition.

stereosteve 12y ago
As things stand today, drugs need to be whitelisted one at a time, and this campaign focuses on two drugs that are safe and could have real benefits for many people. Incremental changes are the only ones with any chance for success. I myself used to see it as a "slippery slope", but many laws and rules exist as gradients. Using "slippery slope" is reductive - it forces everything to black and white.
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
  If one of your goals is to cripple the thriving black market and all of its accompanying ills (mainly violence) then you can't continue with prohibition because it allows the black market to continue to thrive by generating scarcity. Drug prohibition has been poisonous to social harmony, civil rights, and the rule of law since its inception. It was never a good idea; and it is time to admit that and move forward.
- escape_goat 12y ago
  I am relaying what I have learned as an experienced layperson, but I think you must say that these drugs are "relatively safe". Putting chemicals with noticeable medical effects into your body is something that is rarely 'safe' in an absolute sense. Many drugs can be used safely, but there are very few drugs that cannot be used dangerously. There are even medicines that cannot be used safely that are nonetheless used in situations where they offer better odds than the alternative. All drugs are either excreted renally (by the kidney) or metabolized (and possibly excreted) by the liver. Both of these can cause damage to the organ involved if the cumulative load of chemicals that need processing exceeds safe limits; the former is especially serious. In some cases with the latter, there can be cascading consequences due to the toxic nature of the metabolic products (as is dramatically illustrated by the metabolization of methanol). This is why recreational drug use poses a quandary for regulation. If one is placed in the position of being responsible for determining that a substance is "safe enough" for unregulated use, it is very hard to determine a standard for making that decision. Ethanol, for instance, is clearly not "safe enough" for unregulated use. It is toxic, addictive, socially destructive, and causes thousands of deaths a year. Articulating a standard whereby one should, on one's authority, permit that people should be able to get themselves killed using some chemical one has never heard of: this is a difficult task. A regulatory structure that leans too heavily on authority --- rather than precedent, tests of merit, and community consensus decisions, for instance --- is destined to produce extremely conservative results. I think that what these people are doing is great, and it is possibly a huge boon to large areas of psychiatric, neurochemical, and psychological research. It is clear at this point that some traditionally 'recreational' psychotropic drugs can have therapeutic effects in some situations. This will allow researchers to develop concrete evidence about specific protocols. However, I am not sure that this is a first case for stepwise liberalization of drug policies: these are drugs that are medically interesting because of their specific effects, rather than due to the misrecognition of their actual harm. In my opinion, North American society is still at a point where we are just beginning to discuss marijuana seriously in term of harm, and the meaning of noticeable psychedelic & sensual effects are being mooted. There is already a cultural framework available for understanding and accepting recreational drug use, but it needs a lot of poking, prodding, and testing before it will be adapted by society at large. In order for drug policy liberalization to occur, there would need to be significant structural changes in policy, regulatory bodies, societal doctrines of use, and the social systems that deal with the social consequences of drug use, self-medication for dysphoric personal experiences, and non-self-supporting individuals. For the record, have used and did enjoy psilocybin: based purely on the subjective experience, would use again, but it would be medically unadvisable for me at this time.
evo_9 12y ago
Not really, have you ever tried Lsd or other similar hallucinogens? They have a hugely positive value unlike virtually all other 'bad drugs'.
- jqm 12y ago
  Eh... that's relative as well. Some people would argue these "bad drugs" have positive value. And others would argue what you are calling "positive value" is anything but. And in specific cases, all these arguments might be correct.
  - evo_9 12y ago
    Hmm... not really, is there any value - medicinal or otherwise - from heroin, crack, meth or cocaine?
    - aianus 12y ago
      > Heroin Palliative care, for one. > Meth FDA-approved to treat ADHD and obesity. Lots of people use amphetamines to great effect when working/studying. > Cocaine Used as a local anesthetic in nose surgery.
      - auxym 12y ago
        Sorry for being a bit off-topic, but re: heroin for palliative care, I was reminded of The Barbarian Invasions. Just a movie rec for you HN'ers, it's really great (IMHO).
    - Zigurd 12y ago
      Drugs don't have to have positive value to argue for them being legal. For example, cheap distilled spirits have little or no redeeming value. But it would be more harmful to make that illegal than otherwise. Methamphetamine (Desoxyn) is used to treat obesety and ADHD, and similar treatments for ADHD have similar potential for recreational use/abuse. But the whole Drug War is so harmful, it doesn't matter if there are therapeutic or harmless recreational uses of a drug. It would be less expensive, more effective, and more compassionate to treat addicts than to continue the Drug War, even if more people became addicted.
PublicEnemy111 12y ago
Judging by the abuse of prohormones, legalizing steroids would be a terrible idea. You can recover from cocaine, crack, heroin, etc. but damaging your HPTA can ruin your life not to mention rendering you infertile. And that is just one class of drugs.
- digitalzombie 12y ago
  Steroids as medicine is already in use. IIRC they're also use in medicinal skin cream. Steroids abuses are rampant in the Bodybuilding world already. Hell, they talk about it so casually in BB forums and in the subreddits as if it's common. This just highlight the fact that even if it's a ban substance they're still going to use it regardless.
  - danudey 12y ago
    The corticosteroids used in medicinal applications (e.g. skin cream, for eczema) are different than anabolic steroids used in bodybuilding. (A 'steroid' is just a type of molecule; other examples of steroids are Vitamin D and estrogen.)
    - codesuela 12y ago
      I think he was referring to testosterone gel ( http://www.drugs.com/cdi/testosterone-gel.html http://www.drugs.com/cdi/testosterone-gel.html ) Also testosterone is used in anti ageing procedures ( http://fusion.net/story/42619/why-testosterone-is-the-drug-of-the-future/ http://fusion.net/story/42619/why-testosterone-is-the-drug-o... )
      - ddispaltro 12y ago
        I actually interpreted it as the parent comment. For instance if you have a really bad poison oak they prescribe prednisone ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prednisone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prednisone )
  - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
xalloc 12y ago
> Putting substances into your own body should not be illegal Why is this so? By axiom? Any parent will forcibly forbid her child to put any substance in his body. We make things illegal exactly because we recognize that a sufficiently large portion of the population is unable to handle a certain freedom. Now what exactly made you conclude that a sufficiently large percentage of the population can handle their use of drugs?
- soylentcola 12y ago
  Because arguably, the reason you shouldn't put these substances in your body is because doing so can be unhealthy. Criminal charges and prison are definitely unhealthy. Making a person's diet a matter of law just goes against the values of many people. I'm well aware of the fact that some compounds lend themselves to addiction/habituation but so do many legal ones. You don't see people throwing winos and pack-a-day smokers in prison unless they otherwise break the law in a way that infringes the rights of someone else. Likewise, if someone fails to use intoxicants or other recreational drugs responsibly and develops a debilitating habit, it makes more sense to do as we do for people who want to quit drinking or smoking, not as we do for people who rape and murder.
  - xalloc 12y ago
    > Criminal charges and prison are definitely unhealthy. Making someting illegal does not mean you have to put people in prison. You do understand that we can forbid a drug and try to stop the sale of drugs, and still provide support for people who develop drug habits? Funny that you mention cigarettes. I'm quite sure that cigarettes will be made illegal at some point in the future.
    - ecnahc515 12y ago
      Actually, it basically does mean you have to put people in prison. What else are you going to due if its illegal? Fine them? Great, they'll never pay the fine, do more drugs. Now what? Fine them some more? Okay...it only goes on so long until they go to jail. Any punishment oriented consequences are simply going to either be too harsh, or too lenient.
dazzla 12y ago
Drugs are already picked as some OK and some not.
31reasons 12y ago
I agree but idea of legalized drugs does not fit well with capitalism. As we know wherever there is market there is profit to be made. Companies will pop up advertising whatever drug they are selling. And as we know companies are always interested in increasing their customer base. If a substance is addictive enough it will reach millions of people very quickly and destroy society in the process. However if we keep the drugs away from capitalism that would be the way to go.
hobarrera 12y ago
Lots of drugs are legal. Alcohol, tabacco, and thousands more that are sold over-the-counter. Plus, all the other ones you can get with a proper prescription (eg: Morphine). I do agree that education and rehab are of extremely high importance, but if we have that, ilegalizations stops making any sense.

by snarfy 12y ago

stereosteve 12y ago

As things stand today, drugs need to be whitelisted one at a time, and this campaign focuses on two drugs that are safe and could have real benefits for many people. Incremental changes are the only ones with any chance for success. I myself used to see it as a "slippery slope", but many laws and rules exist as gradients. Using "slippery slope" is reductive - it forces everything to black and white.

fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
If one of your goals is to cripple the thriving black market and all of its accompanying ills (mainly violence) then you can't continue with prohibition because it allows the black market to continue to thrive by generating scarcity. Drug prohibition has been poisonous to social harmony, civil rights, and the rule of law since its inception. It was never a good idea; and it is time to admit that and move forward.
escape_goat 12y ago
I am relaying what I have learned as an experienced layperson, but I think you must say that these drugs are "relatively safe". Putting chemicals with noticeable medical effects into your body is something that is rarely 'safe' in an absolute sense. Many drugs can be used safely, but there are very few drugs that cannot be used dangerously. There are even medicines that cannot be used safely that are nonetheless used in situations where they offer better odds than the alternative. All drugs are either excreted renally (by the kidney) or metabolized (and possibly excreted) by the liver. Both of these can cause damage to the organ involved if the cumulative load of chemicals that need processing exceeds safe limits; the former is especially serious. In some cases with the latter, there can be cascading consequences due to the toxic nature of the metabolic products (as is dramatically illustrated by the metabolization of methanol). This is why recreational drug use poses a quandary for regulation. If one is placed in the position of being responsible for determining that a substance is "safe enough" for unregulated use, it is very hard to determine a standard for making that decision. Ethanol, for instance, is clearly not "safe enough" for unregulated use. It is toxic, addictive, socially destructive, and causes thousands of deaths a year. Articulating a standard whereby one should, on one's authority, permit that people should be able to get themselves killed using some chemical one has never heard of: this is a difficult task. A regulatory structure that leans too heavily on authority --- rather than precedent, tests of merit, and community consensus decisions, for instance --- is destined to produce extremely conservative results. I think that what these people are doing is great, and it is possibly a huge boon to large areas of psychiatric, neurochemical, and psychological research. It is clear at this point that some traditionally 'recreational' psychotropic drugs can have therapeutic effects in some situations. This will allow researchers to develop concrete evidence about specific protocols. However, I am not sure that this is a first case for stepwise liberalization of drug policies: these are drugs that are medically interesting because of their specific effects, rather than due to the misrecognition of their actual harm. In my opinion, North American society is still at a point where we are just beginning to discuss marijuana seriously in term of harm, and the meaning of noticeable psychedelic & sensual effects are being mooted. There is already a cultural framework available for understanding and accepting recreational drug use, but it needs a lot of poking, prodding, and testing before it will be adapted by society at large. In order for drug policy liberalization to occur, there would need to be significant structural changes in policy, regulatory bodies, societal doctrines of use, and the social systems that deal with the social consequences of drug use, self-medication for dysphoric personal experiences, and non-self-supporting individuals. For the record, have used and did enjoy psilocybin: based purely on the subjective experience, would use again, but it would be medically unadvisable for me at this time.

evo_9 12y ago

Not really, have you ever tried Lsd or other similar hallucinogens? They have a hugely positive value unlike virtually all other 'bad drugs'.

jqm 12y ago
Eh... that's relative as well. Some people would argue these "bad drugs" have positive value. And others would argue what you are calling "positive value" is anything but. And in specific cases, all these arguments might be correct.
- evo_9 12y ago
  Hmm... not really, is there any value - medicinal or otherwise - from heroin, crack, meth or cocaine?
  - aianus 12y ago
    > Heroin Palliative care, for one. > Meth FDA-approved to treat ADHD and obesity. Lots of people use amphetamines to great effect when working/studying. > Cocaine Used as a local anesthetic in nose surgery.
    - auxym 12y ago
      Sorry for being a bit off-topic, but re: heroin for palliative care, I was reminded of The Barbarian Invasions. Just a movie rec for you HN'ers, it's really great (IMHO).
  - Zigurd 12y ago
    Drugs don't have to have positive value to argue for them being legal. For example, cheap distilled spirits have little or no redeeming value. But it would be more harmful to make that illegal than otherwise. Methamphetamine (Desoxyn) is used to treat obesety and ADHD, and similar treatments for ADHD have similar potential for recreational use/abuse. But the whole Drug War is so harmful, it doesn't matter if there are therapeutic or harmless recreational uses of a drug. It would be less expensive, more effective, and more compassionate to treat addicts than to continue the Drug War, even if more people became addicted.

PublicEnemy111 12y ago

Judging by the abuse of prohormones, legalizing steroids would be a terrible idea. You can recover from cocaine, crack, heroin, etc. but damaging your HPTA can ruin your life not to mention rendering you infertile. And that is just one class of drugs.

digitalzombie 12y ago
Steroids as medicine is already in use. IIRC they're also use in medicinal skin cream. Steroids abuses are rampant in the Bodybuilding world already. Hell, they talk about it so casually in BB forums and in the subreddits as if it's common. This just highlight the fact that even if it's a ban substance they're still going to use it regardless.
- danudey 12y ago
  The corticosteroids used in medicinal applications (e.g. skin cream, for eczema) are different than anabolic steroids used in bodybuilding. (A 'steroid' is just a type of molecule; other examples of steroids are Vitamin D and estrogen.)
  - codesuela 12y ago
    I think he was referring to testosterone gel ( http://www.drugs.com/cdi/testosterone-gel.html http://www.drugs.com/cdi/testosterone-gel.html ) Also testosterone is used in anti ageing procedures ( http://fusion.net/story/42619/why-testosterone-is-the-drug-of-the-future/ http://fusion.net/story/42619/why-testosterone-is-the-drug-o... )
    - ddispaltro 12y ago
      I actually interpreted it as the parent comment. For instance if you have a really bad poison oak they prescribe prednisone ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prednisone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prednisone )
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago

xalloc 12y ago

> Putting substances into your own body should not be illegal Why is this so? By axiom? Any parent will forcibly forbid her child to put any substance in his body. We make things illegal exactly because we recognize that a sufficiently large portion of the population is unable to handle a certain freedom. Now what exactly made you conclude that a sufficiently large percentage of the population can handle their use of drugs?

soylentcola 12y ago
Because arguably, the reason you shouldn't put these substances in your body is because doing so can be unhealthy. Criminal charges and prison are definitely unhealthy. Making a person's diet a matter of law just goes against the values of many people. I'm well aware of the fact that some compounds lend themselves to addiction/habituation but so do many legal ones. You don't see people throwing winos and pack-a-day smokers in prison unless they otherwise break the law in a way that infringes the rights of someone else. Likewise, if someone fails to use intoxicants or other recreational drugs responsibly and develops a debilitating habit, it makes more sense to do as we do for people who want to quit drinking or smoking, not as we do for people who rape and murder.
- xalloc 12y ago
  > Criminal charges and prison are definitely unhealthy. Making someting illegal does not mean you have to put people in prison. You do understand that we can forbid a drug and try to stop the sale of drugs, and still provide support for people who develop drug habits? Funny that you mention cigarettes. I'm quite sure that cigarettes will be made illegal at some point in the future.
  - ecnahc515 12y ago
    Actually, it basically does mean you have to put people in prison. What else are you going to due if its illegal? Fine them? Great, they'll never pay the fine, do more drugs. Now what? Fine them some more? Okay...it only goes on so long until they go to jail. Any punishment oriented consequences are simply going to either be too harsh, or too lenient.

dazzla 12y ago

Drugs are already picked as some OK and some not.

31reasons 12y ago

I agree but idea of legalized drugs does not fit well with capitalism. As we know wherever there is market there is profit to be made. Companies will pop up advertising whatever drug they are selling. And as we know companies are always interested in increasing their customer base. If a substance is addictive enough it will reach millions of people very quickly and destroy society in the process. However if we keep the drugs away from capitalism that would be the way to go.

hobarrera 12y ago

Lots of drugs are legal. Alcohol, tabacco, and thousands more that are sold over-the-counter. Plus, all the other ones you can get with a proper prescription (eg: Morphine). I do agree that education and rehab are of extremely high importance, but if we have that, ilegalizations stops making any sense.