Any control, no control, where's the line?

[Hard Truth]

Possession and use of drugs by adults would be legalized. Current laws concerning providing drugs to minors would not be significantly changed, except that providing marijuana would be treated the same as if alcohol was provided.

Marijuana should be available in a labeled package and regulated in a manner similar to alcohol, except there should be no restrictions on privately growing or making products such as hash.

Certified, trained, insured people should be authorized to sell and administer hallucinogens such as LSD, psylocibin and mescaline with the expectation that they would monitor the user while using and under the condition that they would be responsible for the persons well being when they use the drug. The drugs would be tested and accurate doses available as with other prescription drugs. There would be laws and inspections to insure that certified drug administrators act ethically.

Sale of drugs that have not been tested and without dosage levels indicated would be legal if the seller has a signed statement from each adult buyer stating that they understand that the drug has not been tested, the dosage may be inaccurate and that they understand that they are assuming a risk of brain damage, addiction or overdose. The drugs must also be packaged with a prominent warning similar to the signed statement.

All professional drug sellers would be subject to the same zoning laws and other business regulations as any other equivelent sized business. (This would address the issue of drug dealers selling on the streets or disrupting neighborhoods.)

 

[Reformedfindlay]

I believe wholeheartedly in prescriptions. But I don't see a distinction between why a calcium channel blocker SHOULD be controlled, and heroin or marijuana should NOT. The argument I've been seeing in general (not on this board) seems to claim that people should be able to use whatever they want (referencing MJ mainly), and the government should stay out of it. People criticize drug enforcement and ridicule the concept of prohibition, but are fine that they have to see a doctor to get a prescription for their viagra. So I'm just curious as to why recreational drugs should be readily available, when they are dramatically prone to misuse, but insulin is the only 'medically necessary' drug available without a prescription.

mmmm no.

People are saying marijuana should be legalized. No one is saying it shouldn't be regulated and taxed in certain ways.

Personally, I'd rather it just have an age regulation just like how beer has an age regulation and not much else.

 

[tomkat364]

mmmm no.

People are saying marijuana should be legalized. No one is saying it shouldn't be regulated and taxed in certain ways.

Personally, I'd rather it just have an age regulation just like how beer has an age regulation and not much else.

People are saying it should be available upon demand. Even food is 'regulated'. The current debate isn't even about medicinal use anymore, which was always a thin line anyway. It is about recreational use. It would be controlled less stringently than antibiotics.

Out of curiosity, do you mind saying whether you use (or would use if legal) marijuana?

 

[tomkat364]

Legalize it all then, I don't really give a **** how someone chooses to die. I just doubt you'll get many if any companies interested in making meth, due to liability reasons.

I've seen meth addicts age two decades in five years time. Don't know exactly why, don't care enough to find out, not interested in fooling with it.

Meth addicts age due to poor lifestyle (malnutrition, infections, impurities in product, etc.), not the meth itself.

 

[Dittohead not!]

1. Prescription opiate abuse is a huge problem in the US. Many more deaths due to medical opiate use than street drugs, IIRC. So saying morphine, or oxy, or dilaudid are somehow safer or less problematic than heroin is not really accurate.

2. I posted this to goshen as well, but I'll ask you the same question. What are the dangers of heroin use that you are referring to? Caffeine use is a risk factor for a lot of health problems, but opiates have no negative effects beyond constipation, unless you include O.D., and route related issues like infections from needles. But the substance itself isn't the problem there...

What are the long-term effects of heroin use?

Repeated heroin use changes the physical structure13 and physiology of the brain, creating long-term imbalances in neuronal and hormonal systems that are not easily reversed.14,15 Studies have shown some deterioration of the brain’s white matter due to heroin use, which may affect decision-making abilities, the ability to regulate behavior, and responses to stressful situations.

Caffeine?

Drinking up to six cups a day of coffee is not associated with increased risk of death from any cause, or death from cancer or cardiovascular disease.
Some people may still want to consider avoiding coffee or switching to decaf, especially women who are pregnant, or people who have a hard time controlling their blood pressure or blood sugar.
It’s best to brew coffee with a paper filter, to remove a substance that causes increases in LDL cholesterol.
Coffee may have potential health benefits, but more research needs to be done.
Read more about coffee and tea compared to other beverages.

 

[tomkat364]

What are the long-term effects of heroin use?



Caffeine?

Caffeine: 17 Harmful Effects of Caffeine
No surprise that studies are conflicting, and all the media craze over that study you posted omits the findings of the actual study, found here (I think this is the same one): MMS: Error
The study actually showed that heavy coffee drinkers died much more frequently from all causes, but they tortured the data until they found a specific cohort who did better. But it was still a heavily flawed paper with a huge number of confounding variables unaccounted for.
Long and short of it is that caffeine increases blood pressure, and is still viewed as a potential risk for heart attack and stroke.

Opiates cause constipation, increase in pain unless titrated, and apparently poor decision making (I would think the use of an addictive substance like heroin would qualify for that right away).

So the jury may still be out on caffeine'so real risk, but they are talking death there, and impulse control for opiates. I consider death more dangerous.

But that's still not really what we were discussing. Even if heroin is more dangerous than caffeine, it's not as dangerous as alcohol.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

People are saying it should be available upon demand. Even food is 'regulated'. The current debate isn't even about medicinal use anymore, which was always a thin line anyway. It is about recreational use. It would be controlled less stringently than antibiotics.

Out of curiosity, do you mind saying whether you use (or would use if legal) marijuana?

I believe (for myself) in a clean body.

Anyone who takes drugs in such a way is moronic. Alcohol falls into this category. My plan is one of temperance to the point of even sobriety throughout life.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Caffeine: 17 Harmful Effects of Caffeine
No surprise that studies are conflicting, and all the media craze over that study you posted omits the findings of the actual study, found here (I think this is the same one): MMS: Error
The study actually showed that heavy coffee drinkers died much more frequently from all causes, but they tortured the data until they found a specific cohort who did better. But it was still a heavily flawed paper with a huge number of confounding variables unaccounted for.
Long and short of it is that caffeine increases blood pressure, and is still viewed as a potential risk for heart attack and stroke.

Opiates cause constipation, increase in pain unless titrated, and apparently poor decision making (I would think the use of an addictive substance like heroin would qualify for that right away).

So the jury may still be out on caffeine'so real risk, but they are talking death there, and impulse control for opiates. I consider death more dangerous.

But that's still not really what we were discussing. Even if heroin is more dangerous than caffeine, it's not as dangerous as alcohol.

I'm not so sure about that. It's far more addictive than alcohol.

But, still none of it deserves the "war on drugs" currently being waged, not that recreational drugs are a good idea, but the results of the war on drugs are even worse than the addictions themselves.

 

[Paschendale]

The line is that it is acceptable to exercise control for issues like public health, and it is unacceptable to do so for some people's subjective moral values.

 

[Thoreau72]

I have been reading all over the place about how drug crimes are pointless and costing us too much money, etc. People seem to be okay with the government requiring SOME compounds to be controlled, i.e. medications, foods, etc., but when it comes to recreational compounds they feel that any regulation is too much.

The question I would like to pose is this: Should ANY substance be regulated or outlawed? If so, why certain substances and not others?

Please do not discuss economic burdens, what other countries do, or any side issues. I'm only asking about whether it is 'right' for the government to control any substance meant for personal consumption.

It appears you might have some confusion between "regulate" and "outlawed". They are not the same in meaning, and not the same in practical application.

I'm all for regulated drugs. They should be regulated as to purity, as to dosage, and as to other criteria by which most drugs are regulated. The sales should be regulated, in some fashion, depending upon the drug. Obviously, aspirin is regulated differently than heroin or LSD.

"Outlawed" means prohibited, forbidden.

Under our current "outlawed" model, those drugs are actually sold by criminal elements operating on street corners and back alleys with the seller sometimes carrying a gun, and always unlicensed.

 

[Thoreau72]

Caffeine: 17 Harmful Effects of Caffeine
No surprise that studies are conflicting, and all the media craze over that study you posted omits the findings of the actual study, found here (I think this is the same one): MMS: Error
The study actually showed that heavy coffee drinkers died much more frequently from all causes, but they tortured the data until they found a specific cohort who did better. But it was still a heavily flawed paper with a huge number of confounding variables unaccounted for.
Long and short of it is that caffeine increases blood pressure, and is still viewed as a potential risk for heart attack and stroke.

Opiates cause constipation, increase in pain unless titrated, and apparently poor decision making (I would think the use of an addictive substance like heroin would qualify for that right away).

So the jury may still be out on caffeine'so real risk, but they are talking death there, and impulse control for opiates. I consider death more dangerous.

But that's still not really what we were discussing. Even if heroin is more dangerous than caffeine, it's not as dangerous as alcohol.

Even if caffeine is addictive, and it is, there is no need to prohibit it because of that quality. Indeed, society has long adjusted to caffeine and its addictive properties. We live with it. Indeed, we ritualize the use of the drug, as most of society uses caffeine in some sort of social setting. Only point being that the presence of an addictive substance, the use of that substance, is not grounds for prohibition. We can and do live with addiction, and life goes on. No need for government to involve itself with such social practices.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I have been reading all over the place about how drug crimes are pointless and costing us too much money, etc. People seem to be okay with the government requiring SOME compounds to be controlled, i.e. medications, foods, etc., but when it comes to recreational compounds they feel that any regulation is too much.
The question I would like to pose is this: Should ANY substance be regulated or outlawed? If so, why certain substances and not others?
Please do not discuss economic burdens, what other countries do, or any side issues. I'm only asking about whether it is 'right' for the government to control any substance meant for personal consumption.

Regulation of what is sold is markedly different from prohibition of use, imho.

I am fine with restaurants being regulated in re selling certain types of foods which carry a relatively high risk of causing illness.
To me, that's markedly different from the govt prohibiting me from making and enjoying those foods on my own.

Could you expound some more on why you are lumping these disparate things together?

 

[tomkat364]

Regulation of what is sold is markedly different from prohibition of use, imho.

I am fine with restaurants being regulated in re selling certain types of foods which carry a relatively high risk of causing illness.
To me, that's markedly different from the govt prohibiting me from making and enjoying those foods on my own.

Could you expound some more on why you are lumping these disparate things together?

Currently, there are several categories of 'control of access' that is exercised on products meant for personal consumption. Some are outlawed completely (heroin), some are regulated/controlled (prescription meds, alcohol), some are not controlled at all (insulin, frosted flakes). Now sudafed is interesting, because it is not prescription but is controlled. So my real question was "why separate these categories." Lots of people are arguing that marijuana should not be outlawed, but want it to be regulated, but freely available for personal use. Many of these same people are against heroin being made accessible. Some people feel that anything addictive should be regulated, but don't consider caffeine to fall into the category of 'addictive'. No one seems to be saying they should be able to get their blood pressure medication without a prescription, despite insulin being available without Rx when both can be reasonably safe and are used for chronic illnesses.

I understand that MY questions may appear contradictory, as Henry David has pointed out, but I understand how things currently are. I'm more interested in why people have the apparently contradictory notions about what qualities of the substances themselves warrants different degrees of control, and since each person responding has different viewpoints, my questions are different for each response.

 

[Thoreau72]

Currently, there are several categories of 'control of access' that is exercised on products meant for personal consumption. Some are outlawed completely (heroin), some are regulated/controlled (prescription meds, alcohol), some are not controlled at all (insulin, frosted flakes). Now sudafed is interesting, because it is not prescription but is controlled. So my real question was "why separate these categories." Lots of people are arguing that marijuana should not be outlawed, but want it to be regulated, but freely available for personal use. Many of these same people are against heroin being made accessible. Some people feel that anything addictive should be regulated, but don't consider caffeine to fall into the category of 'addictive'. No one seems to be saying they should be able to get their blood pressure medication without a prescription, despite insulin being available without Rx when both can be reasonably safe and are used for chronic illnesses.

I understand that MY questions may appear contradictory, as Henry David has pointed out, but I understand how things currently are. I'm more interested in why people have the apparently contradictory notions about what qualities of the substances themselves warrants different degrees of control, and since each person responding has different viewpoints, my questions are different for each response.

Good post.

IMO, it seems implied by public discussion and government policy that substances that are dangerous somehow should be prohibited. Again, prohibition and regulation are not synonymous.

That is, some folks think something should be prohibited according to how toxic the substance is. That is poor thinking, and mostly an emotional position.

Aspirin can kill a person if taken in sufficient quantity, so by assigning a drug's legal status according to how toxic it is would really turn the world upside down.

 

[Dittohead not!]

The purpose of any government drug policy should be to discourage people from taking drugs that are harmful. The best way to accomplish this, IMO, would be through education, and not prohibition.

One thing I think we can mostly agree on is that current government drug policies are not rational. Nicotine, one of the most addictive substances, is freely available to adults, while other less harmful substances are outlawed and purveyors given lengthy prison sentences.

Caffeine is an interesting example. It is certainly addictive, as most of us can attest. There is little evidence that it is harmful except perhaps to people battling high blood pressure. Salt is also bad for people with high blood pressure. If one is to be regulated, why not the other?

Bottom line is that drug addiction is a medical problem, not a legal problem, and that decisions as to which drugs should be used is an individual decision. That decision should be made on the best available information.

 

[akrunner88]

Drug policy should be based on the scientific and medical communities, not the private for-profit prison industries or outdated knowledge about specific drugs that doesn't fit reality. It should also be based on deterrence, and not punishment. And finally, it should aim to eliminate or reduce the underground drug trade from dangerous cartels, not spur them.

 

[Divergent]

I have been reading all over the place about how drug crimes are pointless and costing us too much money, etc. People seem to be okay with the government requiring SOME compounds to be controlled, i.e. medications, foods, etc., but when it comes to recreational compounds they feel that any regulation is too much.

The question I would like to pose is this: Should ANY substance be regulated or outlawed? If so, why certain substances and not others?

Please do not discuss economic burdens, what other countries do, or any side issues. I'm only asking about whether it is 'right' for the government to control any substance meant for personal consumption.

ON TITLE ALONE

Libertarians want Liberty no matter what, no regulations. They are Nihilists. They are absolutely certain they are the smartest people in politics because they don't have to think about titles such as your own.

 

[WillyPete]

Caffeine is an interesting example. It is certainly addictive, as most of us can attest. There is little evidence that it is harmful except perhaps to people battling high blood pressure. Salt is also bad for people with high blood pressure. If one is to be regulated, why not the other?

I'll just throw in that the harm is more than the medical effects of the drug.

If we attempted to restrict caffeine (or salt) and people began smuggling and selling it on the street, the price would go up relative to the risk involved in the smuggling. Some people might very well begin committing crimes to service their addictions. Criminal enterprises would appear in short order, and compete outside of the law to protect their market, leading to violence.

There is every reason to presume that if heroin made readily available and inexpensive, that it's harm to society would be reduced dramatically, by undoing the above effects of the policy.

To my mind, that is why decriminalizing recreationals is the better policy. With prohibition, the harm is multiplied by the policy far beyond the effects of the drug itself.

Even if we believe that there is no beneficial use of the drug, and that all efforts should be toward reducing usage, regulation is more effective than prohibition. Consider how we've much we've reduced smoking in the last few decades without prohibition. A similar model will work with anything.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I'll just throw in that the harm is more than the medical effects of the drug.

If we attempted to restrict caffeine (or salt) and people began smuggling and selling it on the street, the price would go up relative to the risk involved in the smuggling. Some people might very well begin committing crimes to service their addictions. Criminal enterprises would appear in short order, and compete outside of the law to protect their market, leading to violence.

There is every reason to presume that if heroin made readily available and inexpensive, that it's harm to society would be reduced dramatically, by undoing the above effects of the policy.

To my mind, that is why decriminalizing recreationals is the better policy. With prohibition, the harm is multiplied by the policy far beyond the effects of the drug itself.

Even if we believe that there is no beneficial use of the drug, and that all efforts should be toward reducing usage, regulation is more effective than prohibition. Consider how we've much we've reduced smoking in the last few decades without prohibition. A similar model will work with anything.

No like button, so I'll just second that. If the goal is to reduce drug abuse, as it should be, then the so called "war on drugs" isn't working.

 

[Dittohead not!]

No like button, so I'll just second that. If the goal is to reduce drug abuse, as it should be, then the so called "war on drugs" isn't working.

OH, never mind. There's the new like button. I'll still second it.

 

[Balraj]

Minors under the age of 21 should not be allowed to purchase any drugs.

Highly addictive drugs, such as cocaine, nicotine, or methamphetamine, should only be available by prescription to current addicts. That way, there will be fewer new addicts.

Non addictive drugs, such as alcohol and cannabis, should be available freely to adults. Of course, people driving under the influence of any drugs should be heavily fined, and habitual offenders permanently taken off of the road.

Prescription medications should be available to anyone who actually needs them, but the current practice of advertising to the general public is annoying and drives up the cost unnecessarily and should be ended.

IMHO, of course. Shouldn't you ask your doctor? Hell no, he went to medical school, and I didn't. He's supposed to know already.

That true, minors also taking drugs . Some people freely selling the drugs, Every soon the results will be disastered . Many nations doing work on this to curb this disease.