Please note that new user registrations disabled at this time.

Drugs - use and abuse

Anything goes... just keep it clean.
User avatar
HighLordDave
Posts: 4062
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: Between Middle-Earth and the Galaxy Far, Far Away
Contact:

Post by HighLordDave »

Originally posted by Gwalchmai
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?
You're mixing apples and oranges here, Gawlchmai. Things like doping may not be illegal for everyone, and in my opinion, if people want to take them, they should be able to. However, if you want to engage in privately-owned and regulated activities (such as professional sports), you willingly submit yourself to their rules which prohibit certain performance-enhancing drugs. Controlled substances (ie-narcotics, etc.) are regulated because they endanger everyone with their presence; they do more than just give someone a competitive edge over others.

Let's say a drug comes out that will increase your work performance (it used to be called cocaine) and your boss requires you to take it as part of you job responsibilities. Even if this imaginary rule passed the legal muster and is sanctioned by the government, you are free to resign your position and seek employment with someone who will not require you to take that drug. Assuming there were not harmful side-effects of taking this drug, it is only affecting employees of your company, not society at large.

Some drugs, especially the "hard" drugs, present a danger to us all. These drugs should be illegal. Someone getting breast implants to become a more saleable model won't injure me in the least, but someone drinking and driving on public roads will.
Jesus saves! And takes half damage!

If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough.
User avatar
fable
Posts: 30676
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
Contact:

Post by fable »

Originally posted by HighLordDave
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.
This does show how public opinion can be easily swayed with money, and become "fixed" in such a fashion that a society believes it has always possessed the final, moral answer to an issue. To hear many religious and political figures speak on this point, you would think drugs like marajuana were always held in abhorence on these pristine shores.

Not so. While there has always been an anti-hemp lobby, it was very small, zealous, and largely disregarded until recently. I remember reading a wonderful anecdote by Harry Edison, one of the longest serving members in Duke Ellington's band. Edison mentioned that he and several friends had purchased huge, fat, hemp cigars, and ventured into an alley to smoke the results one evening in the 1920's. Suddenly, some plainclothesmen and police showed up, and Edison and his friends immediately started eating the hemp to get rid of evidence. It turned out they needn't have bothered; someone had tipped off the cops that there was a liquor deal going down in the alley. :D
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
User avatar
Gwalchmai
Posts: 6252
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 11:00 am
Location: This Quintessence of Dust
Contact:

Post by Gwalchmai »

Leave it to you, HLDave, to douse my abstract fire with cold factual water!

No, I am not attempting to compare apples and oranges, though I am incapable of adequately expressing myself as to be understood. I am only trying to muse on the notion that people should be allowed to do what ever they want with their bodies, as long a no one is hurt. But who defines “hurt”?

Sure, athletes have to adhere to the rules of the organization they wish to compete in. But if those rules were to change, based on the idea that people can do whatever they want to their bodies, then how will that affect the people who don’t want to use drugs? Will the same kind of father that beats other fathers to death at their kids’ hockey game also force their 10-year-old to take those drugs?
That there; exactly the kinda diversion we coulda used.
User avatar
HighLordDave
Posts: 4062
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: Between Middle-Earth and the Galaxy Far, Far Away
Contact:

Post by HighLordDave »

I think the move to leagalise certain drugs is partly a bow to pragmatism and partly a bow to acknowledge that people want to engage in activites and behaviours that are inherently dangerous. Humans have enjoyed "highs" of various sorts of thousands of years, and those induced by chemicals are the easiest to obtain on a regular basis.

I also think that we are okay with people exposing themselves to dangerous situations--whether through trauma (ie-auto racing) or long-term methods (ie-smoking)--because we feel that people should be "free" to destroy themselves if that's what they want to do, even if it's only over a temporary high.

What people fail to understand is that smokers may only be directly damaging themselves, but through second-hand smoke and rising medical costs, they are affecting me too.

Another example is people who don't wear seatbelts. I guess some people get a high out of driving really fast while not buckled up, but when that person hits a pole, chances are good that even if they're insured, part of their health care costs are going to come out of my wallet (through taxes, police to clean up the accident, etc.).

It is my opinion that insurance companies should be able to refuse to cover the health care costs of smokers who started smoking after they started putting warnings on cigarette packages. I also think that insurance companies should be able to refuse to cover the health care costs of people who are in automobile accidents and not wearing seatbelts. If people want to get themselves hurt or killed, that's their business. However, when other people are affected, they should be forced to bear full responsibility for their actions.
Jesus saves! And takes half damage!

If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough.
User avatar
thantor3
Posts: 1157
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2001 10:00 pm
Location: the edge of night
Contact:

Post by thantor3 »

Since much of how I feel about drugs in general have been stated here, especially about tobacco and alcohol, I would like to focus in on the original impetus of this thread: LSD. As recent books and films have adequately demonstrated, the relationship between human beings and psychoactive substances is rich and complex, with an ancient history. An adequate recounting and discussion of this is beyond the scope of this post (and probably my abilities). :) Buck, however, asked a pivotal question: "As much as people might enjoy them, what good does it do the human race to have them [drugs] around?" Let me be clear. It is not my intention to defend all drugs or all drug usage. I would like to point out, however, that the Nancy Regan "just say no" approach to this issue is both ridiculous and harmful. Having said that, let me focus once again on psychedelic substances such as LSD. There is legitimate evidence that psychoactive substances have played a pivotal role in the evolution of human consciousness. Let me address two general areas. The first is religion. Based on my readings, I am quite comfortable with the notion that modern religions grew from shamanistic and revelatory spiritual practices where one *experienced* the sacred in a personal and mystical fashion. The following paragraph is a good introductory summary.

<<Hallucinogens, throughout the breadth of time, have played a vital albeit hidden and mysterious role. They have often, in aboriginal and shamanic contexts, been at the absolute center of culture and world view (Dobkin De Rios, 1984). Opening up the doors to the spiritual planes, and accessing vital information imperative to tribal cohesion and survival, hallucinogenic plants became what some scholars have considered to be the bedrock of human civilization (Wasson, 1968; Wasson et al, 1978; Huxley, 1978). Within the context of shamanic society, these awe inspiring botanicals were utilized to facilitate healing, divine the future, protect the community from danger and enhance learning (e.g. teaching hunters the ways of animals) (Cordova-Rios, 1971). However, with the advent of stratified and hierarchical societies, such plant potentiators came to be viewed as dangerous to the commonweal and controls were placed on direct and revelatory access to the sacred (Dobkin De Rios & Smith, 1976). In some societies (e.g. Aztec civilization) use of psychotropic plants was restricted to the select castes of the religious priesthood. In others, including the progenitors of our own contemporary Euro-American culture, absolute proscriptions on the use of plant drugs for divine purposes were decreed. A rich heritage of plant lore and applied healing had been passed down from pagan and pre-Christian Europe, rivaling and often surpassing the demonstrated efficacy of Church sanctioned medical practitioners. Hallucinogenic plants with magical as well as healing properties were essential elements of this indigenous pharmacopoeia. Members of the Solanaceae family with their alkaloids atropine and scopolamine, including a great number of species of the genus Datura, as well as mandrake, henbane and belladonna, had wide application as agents of healing and transcendence (Harner, 1973). In taking action against the indigenous use of psychotropic plants, the Church sought to eliminate a perceived threat to its oligarchic powers and reassert its monopoly on legitimate access to the supernatural (O'Neil, 1987). By casting the healer as a witch and the hallucinogenic plants as tools of Satan, the Church succeeded not only in eliminating competition to the elite physician class but also in virtually eradicating knowledge of these vestiges of pagan and shamanic consciousness. >>

Aegis stated that: " While Shrooms are grown naturally, and without added chemicals to induce the halcinagenic effect, or the high, LSD requires those extra bits of chemical." This is not entirely true. LSD is derived from ergot, a fungus that lives on rye and other grasses. While LSD is a more potent form, ergot itself is psychoactive and the source of the infamous "St. Vitus Dance" often mentioned in writing of the Middle Ages, a phenomenon that could affect whole villages with "madness".

The study of psychoactive substances and religion is a controversial yet serious topic of discussion. The book, "Psychoactive Sacramentals" chronicles the written reflections of several dozen leaders in religion, mental health, and allied fields who gathered at a conference in 1995 supported by the Chicago Theological Seminary and Council on Spiritual Practices. Addressed where such questions as: What place might psychoactive sacramentals--entheogens, have in contemporary religions and religions of the future? Can the careful use of entheogens enhance spiritual development? How might entheogens enhance spiritual practices? What cautions ought to be considered? Or, as Walter Houston Clark notes: "If we can accept the direction of the argument thus far, that the essential core of religion may be found in the mystical consciousness and the direct experience of the holy, I can show considerable evidence that it is this aspect of the nonrational consciousness that the psychedelic drugs release."

The second area I will touch on briefly is the whole '60s phenomena. Books like "Acid Dreams" and "Storming Heaven" lucidly document the significant impact LSD had on the evolution of Western culture. Areas as diverse as the massive CIA funding for use of LSD for mind control applications using civilians and military personnel as test subjects to LSD's contribution to the rise of the counterculture are documented. Having participated in over 200 LSD *sessions* personally, I am under no delusions about the "mystical" effects of LSD. However, in the correct set and setting, with the proper respect and motivation, psychedelic substances can provide an opportunity for growth and insight. As such, they should not be dismissed out of ignorance or lumped into a category with crack or amphetamines. However, their use also needs to be intelligently regulated, and they should not be available for wholesale use and abuse by a society that, as a whole, apparently no longer has the cultural rituals and guidance to intimately commune with them as our ancestors did. As Terance McKenna points out, the use of psychedelic substances with an appropriate set and setting is the opposite of "drug use":

The solution to much of modern malaise, including chemical dependencies and repressed psychoses and neuroses, is direct exposure to the authentic dimensions of risk represented by the experience of psychedelic plants. The pro-psychedelic plant position is clearly an anti-drug position. Drug dependencies are the result of habitual, unexamined, and obsessive behaviour; these are precisely the tendencies in our psychological makeup that the psychedelics mitigate. The plant hallucinogens dissolve habits and hold motivations up to inspection by a wider, less egocentric, and more grounded point of view within the individual. It is foolish to suggest that there is no risk, but it is equally uninformed to suggest that the risk is not worth taking. What is needed is experiential validation of a new guiding image, an overarching metaphor able to serve as the basis for a new model of society and the individual.

In closing, I would add that apparently the therapeutic value of LSD and other psychedelic agents are once again being considered. I came across this blurb recently. It does give one pause:

For the first time since the mid-60's, the FDA is approving research into the therapeutic use of hallucinogens with specific groups of people, beginning with patients facing life threatening diagnoses. In the preliminary research a very large percentage of participating terminal patients, "describe as a result of the drug experience the loss of the fear of death." In the Baltimore study, scientists are examining LSD as a possible treatment for addiction to heroin, opium, alcohol, and sedative hypnotics. University of Miami researchers are studying the psychedelic drug ibogaine to treat cocaine addiction. Other scientists are focusing their psychedelic research on learning more about the human brain, discovering antidotes to drug overdoses, and relieving pain in cancer patients.
Those who will play with kitties must expect to be scratched.

Many are cold; few are frozen.

Absence is to love what wind is to fire... it extinguishes the small, it enkindles the great.
User avatar
Delacroix
Posts: 458
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2001 10:00 pm
Location: Brasil/RJ
Contact:

Post by Delacroix »

Let me point another great problem incured by drugs(strangely , I don't see it mentioned in this thread). Point thatform my opinion about illegal kind of drugs. I never used any illegal drug; especially because of the narcotraffic. In my opinion marijuana should be legalized in short-time for broke the traffic; and prohibited in a large-time. I don't know exactly how the thing is in other countrys; but here the traffic is nasty.
The traficants rule part of the city; every hour someone die(cop, traficant, or neither of both. ) because of the traffic war. These parts of the city have diferent rules imposed by the traficants, diferent corpus of right(considering a poli-vision of rights) . Military weapons(grenade trowers) owned by cops and Traficants. The war is stated even in the two factions of the traffic in the city ( CV and TK ) .
Childrens of 10-14 years working with Russian fuzil in hands, for the traficants. I wish I could explain better, the state of hipocrisis of the ambient. It is in small scale a version of Colombia(Where part of the country is ruled by the government and the other part by Trafficant-Farc forces.)
[Sorry about my English]

Ps: I'm "Ivan Cavallazzi".

Lurker(0.50). : )
User avatar
C Elegans
Posts: 9935
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: The space within
Contact:

Post by C Elegans »

Originally posted by Delacroix
Let me point another great problem incured by drugs(strangely , I don't see it mentioned in this thread). Point thatform my opinion about illegal kind of drugs. I never used any illegal drug; especially because of the narcotraffic. In my opinion marijuana should be legalized in short-time for broke the traffic; and prohibited in a large-time. I don't know exactly how the thing is in other countrys; but here the traffic is nasty.
Very good comment, Delacroix. :) So far we have only mostly focus on the dangers of drug use and abuse in this thread, so you introduction of the production and trafficking side of drugs is IMO very important.

If a drug like marijuana was like you suggest, legalized to break the traffick, how would one make sure that the traffick didn't start again as soon as the drug was illegalized again?
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
User avatar
Aegis
Posts: 13412
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2000 12:00 pm
Location: Soviet Canuckistan
Contact:

Post by Aegis »

But, if it were legalized, and the traffic stopped, why would they illegalize it again. If they thought it was safe enough to make it legeal, then would they not be hypocritcal by banning it again?
User avatar
Delacroix
Posts: 458
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2001 10:00 pm
Location: Brasil/RJ
Contact:

Post by Delacroix »

By CElegans:
If a drug like marijuana was like you suggest, legalized to break the traffick, how would one make sure that the traffick didn't start again as soon as the drug was illegalized again?

I don't know; especially because the Elites society (who have the power) are largely involved with the trafic and the problems incured by the traffic. Maybe it should be legal for a long long time. I don't know the consequences, and I'm not prepared to supose the consequences.
But it works with Capone.
By Aegis:
But, if it were legalized, and the traffic stopped, why would they illegalize it again. If they thought it was safe enough to make it legeal, then would they not be hypocritcal by banning it again?


Yes, you are right, it will be hypocrital.
[Sorry about my English]

Ps: I'm "Ivan Cavallazzi".

Lurker(0.50). : )
User avatar
C Elegans
Posts: 9935
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: The space within
Contact:

Post by C Elegans »

Originally posted by Aegis
Uh?... What?
What I meant was that I have no personal experience at all of illegal substances, I view then only from a neuropharmacological perspective because of my job, ie I only know how the chemical structure, what brain cell receptors they bind to, what brain systems are believed to be affected and how, etc.
posted by Buck Satan
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.
How nice to see Buck taking time to make a comment :) I very much agree with the above, but I would also like to include: not only cause harm to other people but yourself as well. The reason why I think medical drugs should be controlled regardless of whether they are produced by the pharmacology industry or the alternative medicine, is mostly because of potentially harmful effects they can have on oneself in not taken in correct doses and with knowledge of side-effects, interaction with other substances etc. Some common migrain pills for instance are very effient treatment for getting rid of your headache, but if you are pregnant you might also get rid of you future child, to take a simple example.

This of course boils down to the question others have already commented on: should an individual be allowed to harm their own body as much as they want? I personally don't think so. Part of this is that people sometimes cause harm to themselves out of illness or other factors that I think both the individual and society should take responsibility for. Some drug abuse is self-medication of conditions that can be better treated in other, controlled ways.

@VoodooD: I'm really sorry to hear about the problems in your family :(

Doping - performance enhancing drugs
I agree with Gwally hear about the risks with performance enhancing drugs. Apart from the dystopic future risks already discussed, there is another important part of doping: steriod doping can induce personality changes such as increased aggression and decreased impulse control. In Sweden, there has been some cases with body-builders using steriods who have abused and even killed other people. So I don't think there's a clear line between effects of doping and effects of other illegal drugs. I don't want to give the impression that I'm an expert on doping substances, I'm certainly not. But apart from the effects of steroids, there are also other types of substances that have very scary effects. Did you hear about the EPO-scandal in Tour de France a few years ago? Some cyclists slept with respirators (? is the the English word for the medical equipment used for people who can't breath by themselves?) and EKG because the risk of getting a cardiac arrest in your sleep. Is this a developement we want to see in sports under the "everyone is free to do whatever they wish with their own bodies"? If not prohibited, I fear that Gwally's dystopic scenario could become real quickly. I think there are much more to doping substances than "just giving a competitive edge".
Work-performace enhancing drugs like central stimulant cocaine, can't IMO be viewed as if it was possible to achieve a continuous arousal increase without harmful effects. If a performance enhancing substance with no dangerous side effects existed, we couldn't talk about abuse and thus, it wouldn't be included in this discussion.

A side note: Breast-implants is not directly harmful to me personally, but if a generation of young girls grow up thinking they are inferior or less worth because they have naturally small breast, then I would certainly say the effect of breast-implants is dangerous in the same way as I think the Western beauty ideals are dangerous because they are a factor in development of anorexia and bulimia.
This doesn't mean I think it should be prohibited, but some control in the sense of providing more nuanced images of women in media, age limit and consulting before cosmetic surgery etc, should be provided.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
User avatar
fable
Posts: 30676
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
Contact:

Post by fable »

Did you hear about the EPO-scandal in Tour de France a few years ago? Some cyclists slept with respirators (? is the the English word for the medical equipment used for people who can't breath by themselves?)

Yes, that's it. I'm hardly as medically informed as you are, @CE, but as a someone with a COLD (to use my RN wife's hospital terminology for chronic obstructive lung disease), I am all too aware of the equipment. :D ;)

EDIT: Actually, there's a more specific term for that, but I'm not going to wake up my wife to ask her. A respirator can also refer to the inhalators I use to reduce asthmatic symptoms. I'll get back with you on this later, today.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
User avatar
Dottie
Posts: 4277
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 11:00 am
Location: Mindlessly floating around.
Contact:

Post by Dottie »

People might view this as hypocritical aswell, but my opinion is that most drugs should be either illegal to sell or sold only by gouvernment to make it hard to profit from selling drugs. Those drugs should however be legal to use.
While others climb the mountains High, beneath the tree I love to lie
And watch the snails go whizzing by, It's foolish but it's fun
User avatar
Stilgar
Posts: 4079
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 11:00 am
Location: The Netherlands - Sietch Tabr
Contact:

Post by Stilgar »

The Netherlands

I'm from the Netherlands, one of the most open minded country's when it comes to drugs.
So for myself I keep away from everything that the law here dousn't allow.
I do not have the touch, nor do I have the power.
User avatar
Nippy
Posts: 5085
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: Reading, England
Contact:

Post by Nippy »

My personal opinion on drugs. Well I'm quite stuck at this point. I personally, like to have a beer. I like alchohol. It's not just the beer, it's the social side, I like to have a drink with my friends or family. However, I don't smoke and won't ever. I've tried it, and didn't like it, and I can't smole because I play too many sports to risk getting unhealthy through it. The same goes with drugs, I'm not ineterested in them. I've been offered them, and I've refused them, they seem worthless to me, however, I can understand why people who suffer from certain diseases or neuralogical disorders smoke them or put them in cakes because they help relieve suffering.

I can't bring quotes from famous authors of the field into the thread, but I can bring experience of seeing people who have taken drugs, I know about them because in our current society, I am ashamed to say, can do little about them. They can arrest you for posession but the sentances are minimal considering the payoffs for working as a dealer. Most people will risk it if they have nothing to lose.

Would legallisation stop the spread of drugs as a "bad habit"? Maybe, I can see it bringing down the prices of them, and then more people taking them however, like Aegis says, it's a forbidden closet effect. A lot of people would lose interest in them. I don't want to see my family take drugs, but they do. Everytime my parents smoke a cigarette, they are, everytime I have a beer, I'm having a drug, and I think thats the main problem.

The world and all of it's products contain some sort of drugs, beer, cigarettes, morphine are all given to us and people don't realise that more people die from cigarettes and lung/heart disease than dug overdoses. To stop the larger effects we have to work from the bottom up. That in my humble opinion is the only way to remove drugs and their abuse from the world.
Perverteer Paladin
User avatar
C Elegans
Posts: 9935
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: The space within
Contact:

Post by C Elegans »

Originally posted by Dottie
People might view this as hypocritical aswell, but my opinion is that most drugs should be either illegal to sell or sold only by gouvernment to make it hard to profit from selling drugs. Those drugs should however be legal to use.
Hm, what about drugs used in research or medical drugs that contain for instance morphine-like substances, should they be controlled like they are today?
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
User avatar
Dottie
Posts: 4277
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 11:00 am
Location: Mindlessly floating around.
Contact:

Post by Dottie »

Originally posted by C Elegans


Hm, what about drugs used in research or medical drugs that contain for instance morphine-like substances, should they be controlled like they are today?
I cant see exactly what your getting at, but isnt those drugs at the moment sold only to people who can prove that they need them for research or medicine or whatever? I cant see any problem with that policy.
While others climb the mountains High, beneath the tree I love to lie
And watch the snails go whizzing by, It's foolish but it's fun
Post Reply