Should all drugs be Legal and Over the Counter?

[Liar]

Hello folks. It's been an interresting discussion. I had a few more things to add and/or clarify... but right now I'm too tanked full of mind altering substances (beer, mostly) to make sense.

So I'm bailing out with the conclusion that I see the world in diametrallicly different ways than some of you. Amicus sees this as a question of the principle of idividual freedom. That's ok. I don't have principles strong enogh to get in the way of practical matters.

Others actually think pragmatric and states that making drugs legal, OTC even, would cause minor trouble in increased abuse and solve major problems with reduced crime et al. I reserve the right to think you are naive, and that the scale would tip sorely in the other direction. You probably think the same about me. Whatever. It's all guesses anyway.

peace and good night,
#L

 

[The_old_man]

There is one misconception being repeated by a majority of the "Anti's."

There is no drug that is additive on the first use!

Many are lethal if overdosed, even if not overdosed but just used continuously in high dosage.

As a teen (14-16) I tried all of the following; Opium, cocaine, morphine, heroin, marijuana, amyl nitrate (poppers). The opium, cocaine, morphine, and amyl nitrate I purchased over the counter. The marijuana was from a pack of commercial cigarettes called "Cubebs" that my father had. The heroin came from a bankrupt pharmacy stock. I did NOT become addicted to any of them. In fact I didn't even like the effects from any of them.

My youngest son received four months of Demerol (synthetic morphine) dosage in a hospital following a motorcycle crash, he got "T" boned at an intersection. At discharge the Dr.s wanted to put him on methadone maintenance. He was rather blunt about what they could do with the methadone, went cold turkey on the demerol, and had no problem staying off.

Yes, if legalization happened, many who have been "addicted" to the cut and adulterated junk on the market today would OD in short order on the pure narcotic.

I shall now terminate my rant and go to bed.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Plant that tongue all the way into the cheek

Let them use it. Let them use as much of it as possible. Legalize it completely and utterly. And by it I mean all of it.

However, only provide them with the base materials and tell them to make it themselves. That way only the people who are really focused on self-destruction and have a working knowledge of chemistry can pull it off.




In honesty though, I wonder if it would be so horrible ending the Drug War. Would there be a huge increase in self-destruction, DUI, and stupidity? Yes, but it would get rid of most of the gangs, mobs, and cartels. So, the trade may be more even than is thought. (Note: this is from one of those punk-ass clean people whose only drug abuse was with caffeine).

 

[Pure]

Liar said,

Others actually think pragmatric and states that making drugs legal, OTC even, would cause minor trouble in increased abuse and solve major problems with reduced crime et al. I reserve the right to think you are naive, and that the scale would tip sorely in the other direction. You probably think the same about me. Whatever. It's all guesses anyway.

I don't think it's all a matter of 'do you like ham sandwiches.' There is relevant evidence, but no one bothers to post any.

For instance, there is the issue of severity of sentencing. Different degrees have been tried, often in the same country. And there are cross country comparisons.

Countries HAVE experimented with extreme leniency or 'blind eye.'
The results can be assessed if anyone makes the effort. I simply refuse to go by what the US DEA says about these countries' experiments. Let any Brit post unbiased evidence about the extreme leniency, availability through prescription plans, and analysis of what worked or went wrong.

Incarceration is another variable. How about this proposal:

Have the laws read as follows:

For all 'soft' drugs [defined in a list], NO crime in possessing less than massive amounts [defined]; prosecutions will be for trafficking only, AND even for trafficking, there will be no incarceration. There will be a sentence for 'trafficking' only if these conditions are met: 1) The drug is not what it is represented to be; 2) the drug is seriously adulterated, so as to render it unsafe; 3) the drug is mixed with a poison; 4) The drug is trafficked to minors, or to those obviously servicing them.

For all 'hard drugs' [defined in a list] there is a possible prosecution and incarceration only if the same conditions are met, but that shall not exceed five years. A possible fine of up to $10,000,000 shall also be a possible penalty, in some cases to be exacted along with incarceration.

---
In other words, my general point is, harsher and more lenient sentencing is a matter of evidence; what works. The number and type of criminals incarcerated is another empirical matter; what works in terms of social policy and cost effectiveness.

Yes, Liar, there is some 'guesswork' but penal policies and incarceration guidelines can be fine tuned; there is an ongoing experiment.

 

[amicus]

9 YES 14 NO as of the date of this post.

As someone said before, on this thread I think, a 'learning experience'.

The results were not quite what I expected. Literotica being largely populated by a more 'progressive' clientel, the first several votes, (I think it was 1 YES 7 NO did not reflect that liberal bias and that came as a surprise.

The majority of opinion seemed to reflect personal experience, related experience and practicality of enforcement. I had hoped for a more abstract response.

It may or may not come as a surprise, as many have a pre conceived idea as to the ideology of this 'new conservative' (neo con) poster; but, I would advocate a consistent viewpoint of 'total freedom of choice' on this issue.

I would ask all to disregard the possible effects of people being given 'complete freedom' to raise, grow, manufacture, sell, distribute and consume any substance. I would also ask that you disregard the concept of 'legalizing and taxing'.

I would have you left with the question as to whether a society, over all, in general, would act 'responsibly' given total freedom to choose.

I for one postulate that man would do just fine, thank you, given the opportunity to freely choose from all options.

Some are concerned about minors having more access, my response would be that 'parents' are responsible for children until such time as they can be resonsible for themselves and I would further say that, that time arrives at different ages and that should be acknowledged.

The reasoning behind this is not 'pragmatic' and will not be supported by searching for resources that support my contention; rather it is based on reason, logic and a rational approach to the question.

It is my opinion that a human being, from birth onward, undergoes a 'learning experience'. A learning experience about the reality of living.

If that living is within an oppressive society that imposes strict rules of conduct, then it is my conclusion that the child will mature accepting control and restriction as part of the 'reality' of living and will function accordingly.

In that case, and as it is in contemporary societies all over the world to more or lesser degrees, the child, becomes an adult through the passage of time, but never, becomes a 'psychologically mature adult' as the freedom to choose, was never granted.

A social structure, a society, a government, is as someone said, a man made environment. It reflects the guiding documents of that society and it reflects those administered by that government.

It is true, also as someone said, 'it will never happen' (total freedom) however, as one ponders the possibility of a more perfect union, the abolishment of all laws restricting the freedom to choose is something one should consider.

There is also the issue that several brought forth, that of corollary effects, incidental damage to others, friends, family, loved ones, by the expression of that freedom of choice.

A good examply might be society's concern with 'second hand' tobacco smoke, the cost of rehabilitation for addiction and health and mental effects from that choosing.

I would propose that the 'individual' once again should have the choice. A person can choose not to permit certain acts within premises under control of that individual. In other words, property rights.

One can choose to enter a 'smoking establishment' or not.

Public facilities are a more complex question, but not impossible. In a free market society, if enough people 'chose' to fly, ride a bus or train, who wanted to 'smoke', then the market place would provide, avoiding the need for 'laws' and enforcement.

Just so you won't get all warm and fuzzy about Amicus, I continue to maintain that 'women', gaining political influence for the better part of a century, played a large part in legislating greater control over personal choice to suit their own gender preferences.

I would like to thank all who took time to respond to this thread, it is indeed a 'learning experience'.

Regards, amicus...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

A little over a hundred years ago, Opium, Heroin, Cocaine, Marijuana and Hashhish could be openly purchased.

Recently I read about the 'Opium Wars' between Great Britain and China and the thought crossed my mind. So I thought to post a poll and seek your input.

Question number one:

By what right does Government restrict, regulate and ban what substances people use?

Second Question: Do you agree that Government should regulate/forbid some substances? Why?

Please include Alcohol and Tobacco in your considerations.

I purposely did not offer a position on this issue, but will at a later time.

Thank you for voting and commenting.

Amicus

Simply put the government should regulate some substances. PCP comes readily to mind. A person on it, who might be a normal guy and no threat to society can become a raging loon who feels no pain and has tremendous strength and rage behind it. The government is charged with protecting society and keeping this drug off the streets would fall under protecting society, in my opinion.

-Colly

 

[Jagged]

Those of you who wish drugs to be legalised are not thinking things through totally. I have often heard other drugs namely like cigaretts and alcohol are legal and they kill more people. That is true because there are legal more people use them and we have pasted restrictions in regards to these substances. I personally disagree with sueing the tobacco companies because if the substance is so dangerous ban it. There are no positives to smoking and our society is shift so it is not much of part of our lives.


A history lesson on the Opium Wars. The government of China which had strict control on the trade in its country banned trade in opium. Peasants that made 120 cents (forgive me I don't remember the currency of the time) a day would spend 80 of it on the drug. The Emperor saw it as danger and did the right thing to prevent addiction. The British did not want to loose this high paying commodity marker went to war for drugs....oh all the times the Empire went to war this must have been the most irreprehensible of causes. Over 200 hundred years ago you could own slaves force children to work and buy firearms withour a permitt. This was the good old days?



Many have said the war on drugs has not been worth the cost in funds or lives. People say we are filling the prisons with people that don't need to be there for nonviolent crimes.


If we stop fighting the war on drugs it would be like letting a plague continue on unchecked. For those who have had legal trouble with drugs tough. Shouldn't have bought them plain and simple.


Some say that Marijuana should be legal. Outside of medical use this should stay banned. It is a gateway drug and isn't safe.

If we were to legalise it I feel that we would be a nation with at least double the addicts and more social problems. This lesson may on be learned when a addict throws something through your front window to get something to sell so they can buy more legal drugs. Like to wait in line at the local pharmacy with addicts? It would be okay right? All the drugs they would buy would be taxed and you community could afford that new school......the irony is that there would be more drop outs.

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: Re: Should all drugs be Legal and Over the Counter?

Simply put the government should regulate some substances. PCP comes readily to mind. A person on it, who might be a normal guy and no threat to society can become a raging loon who feels no pain and has tremendous strength and rage behind it. The government is charged with protecting society and keeping this drug off the streets would fall under protecting society, in my opinion.

-Colly

Some of the "newer" drugs, like PCP and Extacy are a strange side effect of drugs being illegal. There is a huge market for things that aren't illegal because they're too new to be on the controlled substances list.

I don't know if the search for new ways to get high would end completely if there were no controlled substances list to "get around" or not. I do know that there are a LOT of substances on the controlled substances list that didn't even exist when it was created -- many that didn't exist even twenty-years ago.

Certainly drugs, like PCP, which cause the user to be danger to others sould have VERY stiff penalties for using them outside of a locked room, or within five miles of another human being, or some such restriction to safeguard non-users.

As long as there are substances that are banned -- whether by law or by sports rules or any other organization's bylaws -- there will be people looking for an alternative high or advantage that isn't banned or tested for.

The Balco/THG/"andro" scandals in sports are just small examples of the search for loopholes.

Still, I think any drug laws/regulations would be far more effective if they were aimed at the actions of drug users or the results of drug use than at a list of specific substances.

Most states have taken that approach to "drunk driving" by changing their laws to DUI instead of DWI. The latter, DWI, laws were directed at alcohol only and more than few people got off scott-free because they were stoned on something other than alcohol. States changed the laws to cover Driving Under The Influence of intoxicating substances -- and a few have passed laws against driving while impaired. The last form of law covers drunk and stoned as a "DUI" law does, but it also covers things like lack of sleep or a severe migraine that impairs vision (or judgement).

The current laws against drugs are severely flawed becue they are too specific -- if it's not on the list, it's legal -- and don't address the consequences of drug use.

Personally, I could not care less if my neighbor wnats to take something that makes him feel like superman -- as long as he stays in his apartment and keeps the stereo down it does me no harm at all. It isn't until feeling like superman makes him drive down to the corner store for munchies that he becoms a danger to society -- and we already have laws against driving out for munchies when stoned.

Put some TEETH in those laws against driving stoned -- enough teeth that even "superman" thinks twice about breaking them -- and let whoever wants to get as stoned as they want in private.

Put some regulations with TEETH in place to restrict access to minors and those who have proven to be irresponsible and spend a few of those new tax dollars on a propaganda campaign against drug use.

It's NOT perfect, and there will always be people who think "it's not illegal if you don't get caught," but it's a better solution that the current one.

Jagged:
If we stop fighting the war on drugs it would be like letting a plague continue on unchecked. For those who have had legal trouble with drugs tough. Shouldn't have bought them plain and simple.

If the current version of the War On Drugs was doing any real good, I'd agree with you -- but is NOT stopping drug use and it IS encouraging the creation of new and more dangerous drugs.

To use your plague analogy, let's stop relying on an ineffective quarantine and start looking a vaccine or cure.

I'm not advocating a complete cessation of the War On Drugs, just a strategic change inthe way it's fought that doesnt' give rise to just travesties of justice as confisction laws that allow authorities to seize and sell your property on mere suspicion. If you're later acquitted, they have to give you the $20,000 they sold your $5,000,000 house and familly heirlooms for, but that's small consolation when everything you've accumulated is sold at a police auction for pennies.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Re: Re: Re: Should all drugs be Legal and Over the Counter?

Some of the "newer" drugs, like PCP and Extacy are a strange side effect of drugs being illegal. There is a huge market for things that aren't illegal because they're too new to be on the controlled substances list.

I don't know if the search for new ways to get high would end completely if there were no controlled substances list to "get around" or not. I do know that there are a LOT of substances on the controlled substances list that didn't even exist when it was created -- many that didn't exist even twenty-years ago.

Certainly drugs, like PCP, which cause the user to be danger to others sould have VERY stiff penalties for using them outside of a locked room, or within five miles of another human being, or some such restriction to safeguard non-users.

As long as there are substances that are banned -- whether by law or by sports rules or any other organization's bylaws -- there will be people looking for an alternative high or advantage that isn't banned or tested for.

The Balco/THG/"andro" scandals in sports are just small examples of the search for loopholes.

Still, I think any drug laws/regulations would be far more effective if they were aimed at the actions of drug users or the results of drug use than at a list of specific substances.

Most states have taken that approach to "drunk driving" by changing their laws to DUI instead of DWI. The latter, DWI, laws were directed at alcohol only and more than few people got off scott-free because they were stoned on something other than alcohol. States changed the laws to cover Driving Under The Influence of intoxicating substances -- and a few have passed laws against driving while impaired. The last form of law covers drunk and stoned as a "DUI" law does, but it also covers things like lack of sleep or a severe migraine that impairs vision (or judgement).

The current laws against drugs are severely flawed becue they are too specific -- if it's not on the list, it's legal -- and don't address the consequences of drug use.

Personally, I could not care less if my neighbor wnats to take something that makes him feel like superman -- as long as he stays in his apartment and keeps the stereo down it does me no harm at all. It isn't until feeling like superman makes him drive down to the corner store for munchies that he becoms a danger to society -- and we already have laws against driving out for munchies when stoned.

Put some TEETH in those laws against driving stoned -- enough teeth that even "superman" thinks twice about breaking them -- and let whoever wants to get as stoned as they want in private.

Put some regulations with TEETH in place to restrict access to minors and those who have proven to be irresponsible and spend a few of those new tax dollars on a propaganda campaign against drug use.

It's NOT perfect, and there will always be people who think "it's not illegal if you don't get caught," but it's a better solution that the current one.



If the current version of the War On Drugs was doing any real good, I'd agree with you -- but is NOT stopping drug use and it IS encouraging the creation of new and more dangerous drugs.

To use your plague analogy, let's stop relying on an ineffective quarantine and start looking a vaccine or cure.

I'm not advocating a complete cessation of the War On Drugs, just a strategic change inthe way it's fought that doesnt' give rise to just travesties of justice as confisction laws that allow authorities to seize and sell your property on mere suspicion. If you're later acquitted, they have to give you the $20,000 they sold your $5,000,000 house and familly heirlooms for, but that's small consolation when everything you've accumulated is sold at a police auction for pennies.

You can't put teeth into a law that will intimidate someone on PCP. Just like dogs, baton wielding police and 370 pound ex definsive linemen don't intimidate them.

I saw a man on PCP leap out of a 3 story window & break both ankles get up and run from police. The same man later that night kicked his way through a steel & safety glass reinforced security door and through a wooden door into someone's apartment. It took 8 officers to subdue him and in the ambulence on the way to the hospital he tore through the restraints and viciously beat them emt and officer riding with him.

I saw the same fellow out on the streets again in less than 3 months after a plea bargain. He was still on crutches.

There is a dichotomy there. Day in and day out, this guy is basically harmless. He does odd jobs here & there and works off the books for lawn care guys in the summer and for snow removal guys during the winter. He hangs out down at Shades and even when drunk he isn't belligerant. Be that as it may, that evening he was extremely dangerous to anyone around him.

Putting teeth in laws won't make any difference once someone hits up on his stuff. Similarly, unless you intend to introduce mandantory minimum sentences putting teeth in laws makes no difference if you have liberal judges who buy into the it's societys fault or it's a disease or what have you. The emt he beat took longer to get out of the hospital & rehab than it took the guy to be out scott free.

I'm very much like you where privacy is concerned. I don't care what my neighbor is doing in the privacy of their own home. As long as it remains their bussiness and they don't make it mine, I don't really care if Joe & Bob are buggering one another or if Amy is being mounted by her 200 pound bull mastiff. It's none of my affair.

PCP is different because the people who take it cease to be unthreatening and become down right hazardous. The powers that be in this state have decided I shouldn't be able to own a handgun. As far as I am concerned that makes them 100% responsible for making sure no situation arises where I might need one. Because I do have a neighbor who uses it, and he has shown himself to be capable of extreme violence when on it, I can only wonder how long it would take for him to kill someone if the stuff were readily avialable.

Luckily, this town is small and while anyone who wants can get a dime bag, or crack cocaine, pcp and methampheatmines are still a hard score so he is usually pleasantly stoned instead of a raging loon. He's only able to get the nasty stuff when he works over in Newburgh for the day. But if it was readily avilable? It would only be a matter of timebefore someone died and while they would put him under the jail for commint homocide while under the influence, how much comfort is that to the victim's family?

Some substances on the controlled list have a very legitimate need to be controlled. It could be argued that some drunks become violent, but some don't. Anyone who takes pcp is a ticking time bomb. As long as there are drugs out there that turn unassuming loosers into Mr. Hyde, the government has a rsponsibility to make them as impossible to get as is humanly possible.

-Colly

 

[Liar]

Re: Re: Re: Should all drugs be Legal and Over the Counter?

If the current version of the War On Drugs was doing any real good, I'd agree with you -- but is NOT stopping drug use and it IS encouraging the creation of new and more dangerous drugs.

)Ok, I wasn't going to plunge into this debate again, because everytime I did I was met with a patronizing pat on the head from the legalization promoters... but here is some food for thought: Could it be, although drug abuse lleves are still increasing, that without the efforts being made, the situation would be even worse?

Make up thy mind, friends. Should we call off the war, or should we change stategy? Is the vision, the goal still to get rid of those nothing but dangerous and destructive substances alltogether? There is a world of difference between saying "The war is fought ineffectualy" and "therefore, we shouldn't fight it."

The chain of reasoning that takes the assumed faliure of current legislation and enforcement to the conclustion that herion should be sold to any and all OTC is miles beyond my comprehension.

To use your plague analogy, let's stop relying on an ineffective quarantine and start looking a vaccine or cure.

Uh huh. And until you have the cure? Just let the thing explode in our faces? We can do both, you know. It requres that we take the problem serious and address all issues at the same time. Legislation, information, continuing disturbing the supply chains, free no-questions-asked detox for everyone, and starting to address the social situations in different parts of society that creates drug addicts. But to do only some of this and leave other elements out, THAT's why the war is ineffective. We need to find the vaccine, apply the reatment, AND do whatever we can (albeit not 100% successful) to quarantine the plague until the other strategies work.

once again, over and out
#L

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Would society act responsible if given total freedom?


HELL NO!!!!


Society is made up by people, and people are animals. Selfish, lazy, comfortable, stupid animals. A few may make the effort of thinking ahead, thinking of what possible consequences their actions may have, but the great mass will think no longer than Saturday night. Instant pleasure, and to hell with tomorrow.

Let's face it, people: Rednecks are not a small group of people out in the country, they're everywhere! The majority of the world's population are of redneck-type.

Would you trust a redneck to be "responsible"???

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Should all drugs be Legal and Over the Counter?

but here is some food for thought: Could it be, although drug abuse lleves are still increasing, that without the efforts being made, the situation would be even worse?

...Legislation, information, continuing disturbing the supply chains, free no-questions-asked detox for everyone, and starting to address the social situations in different parts of society that creates drug addicts. But to do only some of this and leave other elements out, THAT's why the war is ineffective.

There's no way to know for sure what would happen to drug use numbers if the controlled substances act was simply repealed -- or evenif most of the drugs on the list were simply droppd from it. History isn't much help for hard numbers -- either from drug abuse levels prior to the controlled substances act or the changes in alcohol abuse during and immediately following prohibition. Most Historians seem to think that alcohol use and abuse increased during Prohibition and dropped when it was repealed -- usually citing a "forbidden fruit effect" as the reason for it. However, there simply aren't any hard numbers one way or the other. The only thing that is certain about Prohibition is that it did NOT stop the problem of drunkenness, nor did repeal result in a nationwide binge and moral decay.

You make some good points about attacking the problem from several directions. One point that works against your suggestion -- "Free, no questions asked detox" has been proposed and occasionally enacted but FEDERAL regulations make local attempts at a rational approach illegal. The fight over "Medical Marijuana Laws" is a good example.

Collen:
You can't put teeth into a law that will intimidate someone on PCP. Just like dogs, baton wielding police and 370 pound ex definsive linemen don't intimidate them.

True, you can't put enough teeth into a law that will deter someone who is ON PCP -- or several other drugs that make people feel "invincible" -- but you CAN put enough teeth into one that they'll think twice about using it and/or keep them off the street longer if they do.

Collen:
Putting teeth in laws won't make any difference once someone hits up on his stuff. Similarly, unless you intend to introduce mandantory minimum sentences putting teeth in laws makes no difference if you have liberal judges who buy into the it's societys fault or it's a disease or what have you. The emt he beat took longer to get out of the hospital & rehab than it took the guy to be out scott free.

Don't forget the bleeding-heart prosecutors and DAs who won't bring charges with mandatory sentence requirements when they disagree with the sentence requirements and plea-bargain capital murder cases down to misdemeanor assault charges.

The "Justice" System in the US has a lot of flaws that need to be addressed. That doesn't mean that enforcing laws with teeth in them won't be possible or ineffective. Repairing the Justice System is an entirely different and complex topic.

I think the first step is restoring the principle of personal responsibility to our legal system -- and that's really at the heart of my objections to the controlled substances act and the "War On Drugs;" They are built on the premise that people can't, or won't, be responsible for their actions and thus the government must protect them from themselves.

Collen:
There is a dichotomy there. Day in and day out, this guy is basically harmless.

I really don't know much about the particulars of PCP use -- why anyone would want to use it, how many use it and DON'T go berserker, What it would take to effectively protect the public from PCP users, etc. Your anecdote certainly would seem to indicate that it should be one of the very last drugs removed from the banned list at the very least.

Each drug on the list is there becuse of a perceived problem -- some of those "problems" are very specious and feeble, like the "gateway drugs," marijuana, valium and prescription pain-killers.

There is a lot of propaganda, but very little hard evidence that "gateway drugs" even exist. I'm of the belief that it's "addictive persoanlity" that makes someone seek an ever-greater high and NOT the particular drug they start with.

I've known a lot of "pot-heads" over the years -- I've even rolled a few joints for them when they were too stoned to do it themselves -- and I can't think of one single person of my aquaintance who ever went on to anything "harder" or more dangerous to the general public. There may be a couple I lost touch with that went on to harder stuff, and even a couple that wouldn't surprise me much if they did, but none that I persoanlly know of.

All I can say from personal experience is that I'd rather hang around with marijuana smokers than drinkers -- they're usually a lot more mellow and a great deal less pushy.

Every person reacts to any given substance differently. Therefore, it should be that individual's actions while under the influence of their chosen substance that determines what the laws/government's involvement should be.

In theory at least, anything can be ingested, injected or smoked responsibly, without endangering others -- even PCP. Let the law/government come down hard on those who are irresponsible and leave the respnsible ones alone in their privacy.

 

[Pure]

Colly said,

//Simply put the government should regulate some substances. PCP comes readily to mind. A person on it, who might be a normal guy and no threat to society can become a raging loon who feels no pain and has tremendous strength and rage behind it. The government is charged with protecting society and keeping this drug off the streets would fall under protecting society, in my opinion.//

I think this is a good point. Here is a little PCP story.

One tragic case which demonstrates how PCP can be stored in the body, and affect brain functioning, is the case of an undercover narcotics agent's contact with PCP, and how it affected the rest of her life (The San Diego Tribune, 1985). This woman ingested PCP through a drink that was spiked by someone who thought she was an informant in 1976. She experienced the high, but got back to work and a normal life after her experience.

The PCP, though, never left the fat in her body. In 1980 and 1982 she gave birth to her two sons. Tests found several picograms of PCP in her children's systems (trillionths of grams). In 1983, she had a flashback attack, featuring panic, screaming, and paranoia. At age five her first son had his first PCP "flashback", though he had never done the drug himself. His attack consisted of anxiety with incredible demonstrations of strength.

Later that year her three-year-old had a flashback, becoming extremely over reactive, yelling repetitively, and shouting gibberish, while experiencing severe headaches. Recent studies on "inherited" PCP show permanent behavioral problems, learning center disabilities, hindered motor development, and hindered growth.

What one doesn't know is the *incidence of such events, but there are lots of reports of violence to self and others, superhuman strength, not feeling pain, etc. See a list at

http://www.siena.edu/boswell/aggressi.htm

Let's suppose the incidence is significant.

In that case, the 'legalize drugs' side--where I place myself-- needs to admit some role of the gov in regard to toxic substances.

That is NOT synonymous with 'recreational drugs' in general.
BUT this 'legalize' approach would NOT allow everything to be labeled 'toxic,' like marijuana, as do the 'anti drug' folks. Stricter criteria would be necessary (causing or associated with death or serious injury--user or others--in small amounts).


There is a complicating problem in that a number of lethal/toxic substances can probably be bought OTC, including arsenic and cyanide--or at least compounds with those or other poisons. Should adult persons be able to buy those? After all, they might plan to kill their spouse. Maybe the state should protect spouses.

I suppose, then, a libertarian-ish answer might be, 'yes, but regulate the toxic substances that seem to have abuse potential or euphoric effects.' Possibly this is what Colly had in mind.
Does this make any sense. Arguably 'yes' because these 'attractive' drugs have more allure than, say, arsenic. The ordinary person might be drawn to it; but it takes a person bent on murder or suicide to purchase arsenic, for administration to a human. That person is much rarer (100 X?)

 

[Weird Harold]

Let's suppose the incidence is significant.

In that case, the 'legalize drugs' side--where I place myself-- needs to admit some role of the gov in regard to toxic substances.

That is NOT synonymous with 'recreational drugs' in general.
BUT this 'legalize' approach would NOT allow everything to be labeled 'toxic,' like marijuana, as do the 'anti drug' folks. Stricter criteria would be necessary (causing or associated with death or serious injury--user or others--in small amounts).

DDT and Thalidomide come to mind as controlled substances that are controlled because of they are toxic and damaging to unborn children and/or the environment.

The rules for those two substances could be a guide-line for the control of PCP if there more than anecdotal evidence that it can be passes to a fetus or persists in the environment.

NOTE: I recently read an article online about a new use being found for Thalidomide -- it still can't be given to or used around pregnant women, but the FDA is considering altering the restrictions on it's manufacture and use.

To be perfectly candid, there really isn't anything wrong with the basic principle of the Controlled Subtances act -- just it's the application and perversion of the Act to protect against "moral dangers" as well as the physical and environmental dangers it should be applied to that creates the problems.

 

[thebullet]

I am shocked and stunned to read the replies of so many people who read Literotica. It never ceases to amaze me how many people want to control what other people do.

I think this tendency stems from the deep-seated background of religious fundamentalism that exists in so many Americans. The political face of the self-righteous is the extreme Right – those who would dictate individual behavior by peeking into their bedrooms and passing Constitutional amendments against such things as gay marriage.

The concept they are pushing: what I do is fine, but we sure as hell better regulate what other people do.

This whole drug controversy is in large part financially driven. Among the largest contributors to many political candidates are the pharmaceutical companies. Do you think that they favor the legalization of recreational drugs? Hey, who needs Valium if you have marijuana? Who needs Viagra if you have cocaine? Well maybe that analogy doesn’t exactly stand up. But you get the picture.

What is the most dangerous drug? As Chris Rock noted, tobacco not only kills you, it kills the person standing next to you. To read posts above equivocating on the legality of tobacco but advocating the bans on other drugs just boggles my mind. Someone above said that tobacco was not a mind-altering drug. Hey, buddy, wake up. If tobacco weren’t mind-altering, no one would be smoking fucking cigarettes.

To me the only proper solution is to regulate recreational drugs just as alcohol is regulated in most states. Sell only to adults, include recreational drugs in laws related to DUI (as they already are, no doubt). The ludicrously titled War on Drugs can only be won by legalization of recreational substances.

I read posts above that say that drugs cause crime. That’s crazy. It’s the acquisition of drugs that cause crime. The manufacture and distribution of drugs are an entirely criminal enterprise. Some of those who need money for drugs resort to crime to pay for their habits. But decriminalization will (obviously) bring legitimate business into the sale of recreational drugs.

I am endlessly amused by the conservatives who claim they want small government. They want to make sure that government doesn’t intrude on their buying of machine guns or their killing the occasional wolf or two in the name of ‘sport’. But as soon as they find something going on that they don’t like, let’s start a ‘war’ against it! Let’s legislate morality. I mean, you conservatives, and you know who I mean, are just plain fucked up!

 

[Pure]

good points, bullet. esp. about todays so-called conservatives** who, on moral grounds, want big governement, if not big brother government.
----

**They are descendants of Calvin and J. Edwards. I was going to say they are morally conservative theocrats, but that's redundant; there are no other kind of theocrats. Bush's folks are now trying to collect church membership lists (in selected denominations), to further the winning of votes for Bush. ("He's one of us.")

 

[Liar]

thebullet, you really haven't read my posts, have you? Or you may have, and decised that my perspective doesn't fit your arguments, and is therefore not valid.

I am progressive in almost every other aspect of society. Religious fundamentalist? I'm a goddamn atheist. Gay marriage? Pork whatever you want.

Here is the deal, one more time, in pink. If it doesn't sink in this time, this brick wall conversation is over:

Drug abuse in general and drug addiction in particular (including alcoholism) does not only concern the user. Drugs mess with your brain, both short term and long term. I don't make this up, it's the very semantic definition of narcotics. I can pull medical reports out of my ass on request (I don't keep those lying around) if you need proof. But really, do I need to?

And if you are a normal part of society - a mother, a father, a teacher, bus driver, cop, doctor, SUV owner or president - people around you are depending on your brain and mind to work properly. If you are a hermit on a desolate mountain top, sniff whatever you want to. But don't fucking tell the children of drug addict parents that what Ma and Pa are doing is only their business. Sheesh.


Rant over. Probably delivered with too much because I was already in a pissy mood. But i stand by it.


#L

 

[Pure]

Liar said,

And if you are a normal part of society - a mother, a father, a teacher, bus driver, cop, doctor, SUV owner or president - people around you are depending on your brain and mind to work properly. If you are a hermit on a desolate mountain top, sniff whatever you want to. But don't fucking tell the children of drug addict parents that what Ma and Pa are doing is only their business. Sheesh.

This argument, if it is such, proves FAR too much. There are MANY activities of adults on whom others depend that are and should be unregulated. Your argument resembles the Prohibitionists' about the effects of 'demon rum.' Should there be a law against 'gambling'? how about being lazy (and letting the kids lack important, but not essential, things).

IF your argument were carefuly drawn, it would ONLY apply to a few kinds of persons, ON the job. Airline pilots should not be drunk or on hashish or pcp. They affect the public, as do policement, firemen, busdrivers, even car drivers.

So, as has been stated all along. We simply need a law against "doing X[like driving, piloting,] while intoxicated" and menacing public safety. There is NO need for a general law saying "No one may legally have or use X."

 

[cloudy]

Liar said,

And if you are a normal part of society - a mother, a father, a teacher, bus driver, cop, doctor, SUV owner or president - people around you are depending on your brain and mind to work properly. If you are a hermit on a desolate mountain top, sniff whatever you want to. But don't fucking tell the children of drug addict parents that what Ma and Pa are doing is only their business. Sheesh.

This argument, if it is such, proves FAR too much. There are MANY activities of adults on whom others depend that are and should be unregulated. Your argument resembles the Prohibitionists' about the effects of 'demon rum.' Should there be a law against 'gambling'? how about being lazy (and letting the kids lack important, but not essential, things).

IF your argument were carefuly drawn, it would ONLY apply to a few kinds of persons, ON the job. Airline pilots should not be drunk or on hashish or pcp. They affect the public, as do policement, firemen, busdrivers, even car drivers.

So, as has been stated all along. We simply need a law against "doing X[like driving, piloting,] while intoxicated" and menacing public safety. There is NO need for a general law saying "No one may legally have or use X."

Strangely enough, Pure, I agree with you. There are some drugs people can use responsibly, while not causing harm to anyone but themselves.

 

[Liar]

Thanks Pure, I kind of knew someone like you would come around, twist what I said to absurdity and shove it up my ass.

Babble on people. Since I obviously can't make the focal pouint of my argument understood, this is futile. I won't revisit this thread anymore.

peace
#L

 

[Weird Harold]

Drug abuse in general and drug addiction in particular (including alcoholism) does not only concern the user. Drugs mess with your brain, both short term and long term.

Liar, "Drugs" covers a lot of different substances.

Aspirin is a "drug" -- one with several potentially lethal side-effects and long-term consequences. Not to mention aspirin is a Poison -- every bit as lethal as arsenic or cyanide in the right amounts.

Psuedofed -- psuedophedrine hydrochloride is another "drug" that has primary and secondary effects that can be fatal to the user or cause the user to be dangerous to others if abused. It also has the unfortunateproperty of being a potential base component for stronger and more dangerous illegal substances.

Almost every substance avalailable over-the-counter at your local pharmacy has the potential for abuse and addiction that cause harm to those who depend on the user. By your logic ALL of those should be banned completely to prevent abuse and the consequent loss of support to dependents.

Even our screwed up current system makes SOME distinction as to the degree of danger posed by each specific substance on the list. In some cases, it even makes a distinction for the SAME substance depending on whether it's naturally occuring or manufactured!

"Drugs" is a buzzword that sets some people off on a crusade to save the world. Many things the world doesn't need saving from get swept up in the generalitizations involved in buzzword driven crusades.

Have you eve seen the petition to ban Di-Hydrogen Monoxide? It makes a very convincing case for the dangers to society presented by that particular substance.

 

[thebullet]

LIAR SAYS: thebullet, you really haven't read my posts, have you? Or you may have, and decised that my perspective doesn't fit your arguments, and is therefore not valid...

Drug abuse in general and drug addiction in particular (including alcoholism) does not only concern the user. Drugs mess with your brain, both short term and long term. I don't make this up, it's the very semantic definition of narcotics. I can pull medical reports out of my ass on request (I don't keep those lying around) if you need proof. But really, do I need to?

And if you are a normal part of society - a mother, a father, a teacher, bus driver, cop, doctor, SUV owner or president - people around you are depending on your brain and mind to work properly. If you are a hermit on a desolate mountain top, sniff whatever you want to. But don't fucking tell the children of drug addict parents that what Ma and Pa are doing is only their business. Sheesh.

Geez, Liar you are taking this much too personally. I will grant you that your argument isn't the same old, "Let's regulate other people's lives" argument of the social conservatives. But what you recommend WILL NOT WORK. Prohibition is impossible. Our government proves it every day of our lives. Prohibition makes things worse.

Perhaps in a perfect world (one I might create in a sci-fi story), there would be no substances that can alter one's perception of reality; in which case, all of these ramblings would be mute. But since there are, in fact, a whole lot of mind altering substances, we have to deal with them.

The concept that some person of authority has decided that certain mind-altering substances are okay, while other mind-altering substances are not okay is where we come to a parting of the ways. The choice of whose mind-altering substances are legal is a financial and self-righteous decision, but not a rational one.

As PURE so aptly noted, one can't randomly decide which factors in one's life that may influence other people's lives should be regulated and which should not. Any choice one makes would be purely (pardon the pun) arbitrary.

LIAR, I'm not dissing your comments. But things have gone way too far for your ideas to work. Mind altering substances are a FACT OF LIFE. We can't wave a magic wand and make them go away. And we can't legislate their disapperance.

What we may be able to do is bring them under the general umbrella of 'those things that should be done by consenting and responsible adults'. Acknowledging that people are going to use mind-altering drugs no matter what our mean old parents in Washington DC say is the first step towards a rational policy.

The way I dealt with it with my own child: I included drugs in the education that included alcohol and tobacco. I urged him to make intelligent decisions on where, when and how he used any of these substances, assuming that when the time came, I couldn't stop him from using, I could only help him use wisely.

The result: my son does not use tobacco, he has an occassional glass of wine, and he doesn't use drugs. I've never seen him high or drunk. I know, he certainly doesn't take after his father. But our method of teaching sure seems to have worked.

 

[SlickTony]

Marijuana? Shit I grew up in Meigs county, I've seen what that shit can do to you. 2/3s of the population down there are stoned about every day. and 2/3s of the population have a relative IQ of about ten.

I can't speak for Meigs county, but consider Carl Sagan, who smoked pot all the time; and you may or may not like Rodney Dangerfield, but nobody can say he's not smart. Anecdotes, I know, but it's true.

 

[Randi Grail]

Hi everyone, I have read all your posts with great interrest. I thought I might put my 2c in here too.

I don't know what everyone's experience with substances like ghb, rohp, ecstacy and heroin is, but my situation might shed some light on one thing at least: Making drugs legal and accessible will not make angels out of drug addicts. Legal alcohol is making human wrecks out of upright and productive citizens. Why would drugs be any better? Most drugs, both prescribed and illegal, are far more addictive than booze is

For a while I had unlimited access to a wide smorgasboard of top of the line illegal narcotics, pretty much as if it was legal. So I didn't have to commit crimes or pose any danger to anyone in my quest to obtain high quality highs. I, as well as a multitude of people around me, thought we were sensible and could handle this, just have the occational recreational high now and then. Bloody duh we couldn't. It didn't take long to reduce most of us to abstinince shaking wrecks, only at ease and peace when pumped full of chemicals, and about as rational and level headed as infants when sober. I wouldn't had trusted myself with a pair of scissors, wether I was high at the moment or not. Driving a car, three days after my latest high, almost cost me and my passengers their lives, because I was feeling queasy and foggy headed due to withdrawal.

I'm not saying that this is what would happen to society at large. Many could probably handle free access to those substances. But many others could not, who today are having enough obstables between them and obtaining and shooting up, to start. There are too many people who can't handle alcohol already.

But to equal the medical addiction to heavy narcotics with things like gambling or laziness, like PURE do... No offense, but that's just hilarious. Frightening, but hilarious.

LIAR, I think you living in Sweden is affecting your opinion a lot. You don't have the same starting point as Americans have. Your drugs are much harder to come by, and the restrictive narcotic policy in Sweden is still working and keeps the drug problem on a manageable level. But in other parts of the world, it isn't all that easy. You don't seem to see the drug realted problem that the other's talk about, mainly in the US, as as serious as they do. You don't see the other side of the argument, just like you're accusing them on not seeing your side. Although I do agree with you about the core point, you need to see the world in a little less black and white.

THEBULLET, nobody is asking for a magic wand, you're making this argument just as stupidly black-and-white one sided as LIAR is. Of course we know that drugs are out there and won't go away. The naysayers in this thread is merely objecting to your opinion, and AMICUS' original proposition, that things would be better if substances that are illegal today were let free. It is not a good situation now, but to think that this wouldn't create a whole generation of drugaholics based on the masses that today are not in direct easy access to the stuff is beyond me.

HAROLD, I've held you in regard as a sensible guy, but what eare you aiming at here? To start talking about Aspirin, and use that as a cheap shot to poke a hole in a very valid argument, when we have a whole thread dedicated to talking about illegal narcotics? Isn't that a bit below you? I thought it was perfectly obvious that it was illegal narcotic substances what he was talking about. Besides, anything is dangerous in the wrong dose, salt can kill you, so can Oreos. I don't get your point there.


Eep, that became a loooooong post, and my modem time is ticking away money that I don't have. When am I gonna learn to write those kind of Ben Hur posts while off-line?

Thanks for your patience.

--Randi

 

[Pure]

Hi Harold,

The thalidomide thing is interesting. My aunt, receiving chemotherapy for cancer, was given t. as an adjunct.

Which goes to show: Even the proposal of mine, and others, to control "poisons" (or toxic substances) is *very hard to set down in detail. Lots of heart meds are poisons, if you up the dose (i.e., they kill you).

In the case of thalidomide, one has the question, "Is it a 'safe' drug?" Well, turns out the answer is not simple, yes/no, FDA approve or not-approve. Suppose a drug has nasty side effects (causes a vicious form of anemia in 10% of patients) , but sometimes saves an otherwise mortally ill person. Should the drug be unavailable, because 'unsafe.'

Is methamphetamine a poison? Well it's used occasionally in small doses to treat some brain dysfunction (or it was, till the 'anti drug' folks got it put on some new list), and narcolepsy.
But, like PCP, in longer dose schedules, "abuse", some folks get psychotic and violent. So, Colly, what about meth?

Perhaps a 'register' would be the answer. Some substances, which do harm in small doses would only be available to adults who identify themselves, and sign for the purchase. Like arsenic.

Here's an interesting one for the total libertarians: How about plutonium? OTC.