Drugs - use and abuse

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 1:39 pm

Most people use different substances for other purpuses than pure nutritional value. Different countries have different laws concerning what substances are legal or illegal, alcohol for instance is widely accepted and only illegal for underage kids in almost all of the Western world, whereas it is illegal in for instance Saudi Arabia. The Netherlands are well known for a very liberal drug politics, whereas Sweden is well known for very strict drug politics. Whereas alcohol is legal in most or US/Europe, the narcoticum classified susbstance hashish or marijuana (sp?) are mostly illegal. Do you think this is correct? Are there other drugs that you think should be illegal, or drugs you think should be legalised?

What is you opinion about drugs? Should an invididual be free to do to whatever he/she wants with her body, including taking any substances? Or is it the resposibility of a goverment to protect people from the danger of unhealthy or potentially unhealthy drugs?

What about drug dependancy and/or abuse? Is it as easy to kick as "getting a haircut and a job"? Is it beyond personal control? What factors do you think contribute to drug abuse? What, if anything, should society do about it?

PS - My reading of "LSD, my problem child" by chemist Albert Hofman who serendipitously discovered LSD in 1943, may have something to do with my starting this thread

McBane · Post by **McBane** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 2:23 pm

Should an invididual be free to do to whatever he/she wants with her body, including taking any substances? Or is it the resposibility of a goverment to protect people from the danger of unhealthy or potentially unhealthy drugs?

While I agree with a person's right to do whatever he/she wants with their body, any action that person takes, under the influence of a substance, that may effect another individual is a concern. There are currently (here in the US) IMO way too may drunk driving incidents. Unfortunately, it seems some people cannot act responsibily, and I do not see too many strict punishments for this. Oh sure, we can suspend your license, but it doesn't really stop someone from driving. Now if we took the vehicle, and didn't let that individual purchase another one...that might be a good deterrent.

I do feel that cannibas is probably less harmful (and addictive) than alcohol, and shouldn't be illegal.

Ned Flanders · Post by **Ned Flanders** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 2:48 pm

If it is the responsibility of the government to protect its' people from the dangers of drugs, which currently it is in the US, they are failing in this responsiblity because you've got a lot of people out there regularly on something.

The government could certainly stand to make a lot of money via taxation of drugs if such a practice were to become regulated. McBane touched on the sensitive issue where how does one draw the line on such an enterprise when it can have a direct effect on others in a dangerous sense. We see this all the time with alcohol and all the documented drunken driving, and consequently you've got people out there driving automobiles on LSD, PCP, cocaine, heroin (drive the speed limit, please

), and any other narcotic.

Amsterdam seems to have their ways of regulating hashish, thus it is plausible other governments could do the same. Here, in the US, the war against drugs has been such a heavy issue for so long, it would be odd to see them go the other way.

I have no problem whatsoever with the legalization of just about any of them. If people want to use, they're going to take them whether they are legal or not. They already do, in abundance. The only problem with legalizing a lot of the hard stuff, hell even the mild stuff, is that now the government is encouraging people to burn out.

Still, the use of drugs all comes down to the individual. It's a matter of will power. When I was in college, I dabbled with all kinds of stuff, however, I never let it interfere with my studies. Education came first, as it should, but this is not the case with everyone. I saw a lot of friends become a little too friendly with certain drugs and it began to affect their daily life. So, how can a government regulate, if not encourage, practices and activities that are going to be degenerate to everyone and in some cases, change their lives. We see it every day with alcohol and to throw a series of other chemicals into the mix seems to only be destructive. Again, I say only support such legalization from my own perspective and experiences.

btw CE, I always thought abbie stumbled onto the old lysergic before 1948.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 2:51 pm

I believe the everyone should be able to do to themselves whatever the hell they want; drugs, suicide, smoking, self-destruction, whatever. It's that individual's business.

However, I also believe that no one has the right to engage in behaviour that is self-destructive if there is a reasonable fear of taking someone else with them. That is why I believe that "hard" drugs (ie-heroin, PCP, crack, etc.) should be illegal. As our friend McBane points out, other drugs, most notably alchohol, present a danger to our collective safety and cause far more deaths per year than PCP et al, and should be regulated.

(As a side note, I believe the DUI should carry the death penalty, no appeal, no delay; if you blow more than .10 in a breathalyzer, they take you to the drunk tank and at dawn you should hang from a gallows in the middle of the town square for everyone to see. Extreme? Yes, but I bet you'd see a marked decrease in highway accidents and fatalities).

As for some of the more "harmless" drugs (marijuana, etc.), the only reason hemp was made illegal was because of the power of the tobacco lobby in the early 1900s. It's not any worse for you than alchohol or cigarettes. In addition, legalised marijuana would be a taxable commodity and save us hundreds of millions of dollars by shifting the "war" on drugs to a pursuit that is truly worthwhile.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 2:55 pm

the problem with drugs and their use is a simple one. It's the "Forbidden Closet" theory. People are intrigued to try them because they are forbidden by the government. It's the same with alcohol, and cigarettes. because the government says you can't have these (specifically to teens with the latter two) that only makes younger people want them more. With the case of drugs (The more common, illeagal ones) not all are bad. Things like Weed, and shrooms aren't bad, as they are all natural. It's the other things like LSD, Cocaine, Acid... those are the killers. I say legalize the light, natualr stuff, get some money off those, and cut back half the problem right there.

Ned Flanders · Post by **Ned Flanders** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 3:10 pm

Aegis

I do not see how you can characterize 'shrooms as not that bad and LSD as a heavy dangerous drug. Just because one is a fungus and the other is synthesized, the short term effects on the body and mind are pretty similar and most debilitating. There have been a lot of long term effects debated about the use of LSD, but I don't know if there is any proof there. I would only classify Marijuana as a mild drug, it is, after all, the 'gateway' drug if you fall prey into believing such ideals.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 3:12 pm

I'll comment more on all this later...

Originally posted by Ned Flanders
btw CE, I always thought abbie stumbled onto the old lysergic before 1948. [/b]

Our old Abbie boy synthesised LSD-25 in 1938 and first tried it 1943. My error.

mediev · Post by **mediev** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 3:12 pm

Marijuana was illegalized in the 30's because of bull**** propaganda campaigns by spokemen for the cotton and paper industries, knowing that hemp was a threat to business; their massive propaganda attempts managed to convince people (or supposedly enough people to allow the government, in corporate hands, to step in) that marijuana caused "psychotic episodes", "mental illnesses", and "suicidal and violent behavior". Not surprisingly, big business won.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 3:25 pm

@Aegis and Ned: About LSD and mushrooms - it's funny that you mention this, because the reason I'm reading Hofman's autobiography about the discovery of LSD, is connected to my research about the serotonin system in the human brain. I'm not sure exactly what mushrooms you are referring to, but ususally such mushrooms contain the psychoactive substance psilocybin, which belongs to the same pharmacological class as LSD, indoleamines.

All indoleamines and phenethylamines (like mescaline, found in hte peyote cactus) share a common mechanism of action in the human brain - the effects are mediated by the 5-HT2a receptor, a serotonin receptor we have a lot of in our cerebral cortex. So in the case of LSD, psilocybin, mescaline and DMT, it shouldn't really matter whether it's synthesised or naturally occuring, the drugs works the same way. An important difference of course is the potency - LSD is an incredible potent drug, a dose of 1/100 of mescaline produces similar effects.

I'll be back later!

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 3:41 pm

Well said

@HighLordDave: I agree.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 3:48 pm

@Ned: I feel I should clarify. I wasn't referring to the potency of the drug, I was making a refernce to it's origins. While Shrooms are grown naturally, and without added chemicals to induce the halcinagenic effect, or the high, LSD requires those extra bits of chemical. That is why things like Cocaine, Crack, LSD, Acid, E, H, Mesculine and other such "White" drugs, as they're known, are so dangerous. It's because of the stuff added to give the high to the user. Marijuana and Shrooms do not require those bits of chemical, while do add to the high if added to the drug itself.

Ned Flanders · Post by **Ned Flanders** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 4:11 pm

@ CE,

yes, mushrooms is indeed a reference to psilocybin. apologies for resorting to slang.

Aegis,

CE is right on with the reference to indoleamine. The synthetic process involved with LSD, E, etc.. is not that it adds stuff to produce the high but rather in the production of the drug, there are certain by products. Ecstasy and MDMA produce some nasty byproducts that are fairly toxic to the body. A typical byproduct of LSD is strycnine (spelling?) which can commonly be found in rat poison.

Morlock · Post by **Morlock** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 4:19 pm

On a trivial matter- the (British) royal family's popularity has risen by 7 points among teenagers since the revelation that Prince Harry used Marijuana.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 4:47 pm

Originally posted by Ned Flanders
yes, mushrooms is indeed a reference to psilocybin. apologies for resorting to slang.

Heh, my apologies too, since I'm only familiar with it from the neuropharmacological perspective - but I guessed mushrooms must refer to psilocybin since that's the only substance I know that comes from a mushroom and that people take for pleasure. Mushroom use is quite unusual in Sweden, it was never as popular here as it was for instance in the UK or Netherlands.

Grr, I really should work instead of spamming here

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 4:56 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans
neuropharmacological perspective[/size]

Uh?... What?

Post by **BuckGB** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 5:08 pm

My personal opinion, as most of you, is that any type of substance a person takes that can cause harm or death to another person should be illegal... or at least controlled.

Now, don't get me wrong, I enjoy hitting the clubs and indulging in way too much alcohol from time to time, but I think as soon as someone does that and gets behind the wheel of a car that there's definitely a problem.

I know drunk driving kills a lot of people every year, but what I'll never understand is why they have harsh laws against it when people can smoke a cigarette in front of me when it's proven that second-hand smoke kills people. And if you look at the statistics, the number of people that die from cigarette smoke is absolutely ridiculous. If it's against the law to drink and drive because you might injure another person, why is it legal to smoke around another person?

I think if we want to continue as a prosperous society and become more efficient human beings, drugs and alcohol need to be seriously controlled and outlawed. They cause brain damage, birth defects, and death. As much as people might enjoy them, what good does it do the human race to have them around?

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 5:11 pm

hey... Apparently buck is a normal human like us, and not a vision of god... Damn!

Anyway, Buck has some really good points about the smoking and driving. A lot of places (namely restaurants) are trying to combat this, at least here in Canada, by banning smoking in public areas. I don't that helps the over situation, but it makes going a little more enjoyable to the non-smokers. the problem I see with that though, is that is doing that not a form of discrimination?

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 11:41 pm

Uh...Drugs are bad. Just say no. (Figures the Homeland Security Agency is reading all forums now.)

Actually, I'm not for Rockefellerian anti-drug laws. They do more harm than good. We just got one of our family into rehab last week and you would not believe what it took. He wanted to go. We took him to a hospital at 6 AM. They turned him down because he was not high at the time. (Can you believe that? Who's gonna want to go to rehab when they're high??? And don't think that's an exception to the rule--I used to be a social worker--it's the way it works.) We took him to another hospital. They made him wait 26 hours to see a psychiatrist (he slept in the ER waiting area), only to turn him down!!! Finally, we took him to a private place, and it's on his mom's credit card. It ain't cheap, and I bet you anything that the HMO will not cover it. If he had been poor, or less motivated, or even motivated but turned down time and again--he'd end up in the prison system. He'd come out a couple years later having received no treatment, and with a felony on his record, which makes it impossible to get a job in the US. (That describes another family member.) I just know from personal experience that treatment has to be made more accessible. They've done tons of studies showing that rehab is better and a lot cheaper than prison. But prisons are all privatized now, and believe me, they are very lucrative businesses. So all the states are building more prisons, and the possibility of rehab for most addicts becomes more and more remote.

Forgive the rant--I've been through a lot lately with this...

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Fri Feb 01, 2002 7:06 am

One thing about the "war" on drugs in the United States: We would rather pay for cure than prevention, even though preventative measures are often less expensive. That's why we would rather build prisons than fund Head Start or drug treatment programs.

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Fri Feb 01, 2002 10:55 am

Interesting thread. Psychotropic drugs are dangerous because they affect/impair decision-making abilities. They should be carefully controlled. This includes cannabis, tobacco, and alcohol.

There is also another class of drugs that are illegal in some situations. These are performance-enhancing drugs that are banned by most athletic organizations. What if these were made legal under the idea that “an individual should be free to do to whatever he/she wants with her body, including taking any substances”? So long as no one else is hurt, these people would be free to distort their bodies and leave the competition in the dust. What rights would exist to protect the people who do not wish to chemically alter their bodies? Would the expectations change? Would all athletes feel pressured to take steroids? Would parents (who live their lives vicariously through their children) force their kids to take these drugs?

What if there were a drug that increased enthusiasm for work? The people who took this drug would be able to write reports faster, schmooze clients better, work through lunch, and analyze data faster. They would have a definite advantage over me. Pretty soon, my boss might start pressuring me to take those drugs, either overtly or by promoting the ones who take the drug over me.

How about medical procedures that enhance performance as opposed to drugs? Will the next Carl Lewis have his legs surgically lengthened? If not, then why should supermodels be allowed to have their breasts augmented, when it gives them an advantage over the ones who choose to maintain their ‘natural’ state?