[talaniman]

The history of man, he can always come up with a new dope. I know people who feel better crushing and snorting aspirin. Legal and cheap.

[inthebox]

Here is a different angle.

There needs to be a distinction between a drug that is ADDICTIVE, legal or illegal, versus drugs that are not.

Addiction by definition is a maladaptive BEHAVIOR. As such the legal status of an addictive drug does not change its potential for addiction. These substances are addictive because of the way they effect the neurotransmitters in the reward center of the brain.
That is why legal potentially addictive dugs such as oxycodone, morphine, demerol, valium are etc.. "controlled." We know they are potentially addictive and care has to be taken in how they are used.

Does the average person understand neurophysiology and pharmacology? Do you think your average teenager of the "its not going to happen to me, I'm immortal" mindset is going to fully understand the implications of using drugs? Come on - we have kids "huffing" in order to get high.

Making current illegal drugs - cocaine, pot, heroin, ectasy, crack etc... legal only exposes a larger population of people to the potential of addiction, leading to a larger potential population of addicts. Is the "tax" revenue going to offset the social costs?

Ex -

If the question is just about pot - sure I'm for legalization. :rolleyes: Crack, heroin etc... I'm not so sure of. :(


Skell:

Guns - 2nd amendment.

There is no constitutional amendment or "right" to get high on drugs. :)

[tomkitty]

The drug war is not working and I don't think it will ever work.
There will always be a problem in this country. Parents can get more educated, people can get more educated about drug use. If it's going to happen in your family usually you didn't expect it. Learning about early signs and early intervention, instead of thinking that it will work itself out. It never works itself out without intervention.
So the war on drugs, still continues on.
We do need to get directly to the source of were this is coming in from instead of bombing Iraq, let's bomb the fields in Afghanistan were they grow the poppy plants. Every time they plant a new crop we should take it out, any other country as well. Arresting the little people on the streets doesn't solve the problem, meeting them at the boarder could help, but look at how many sneak by our boarder patrol everyday and bring it in. Check our boats, ships and planes. Train more drug sniffing dogs and bring them to the sites, such as the boarder. About legalizing drugs the only thing I would consider is Marajana.

[tomder55]

Should we also make all legal drugs OTC ?

Prescription drug abuse surging

LOS ANGELES, May 18 (UPI) -- Healthcare workers and dishonest patients are filling U.S. streets with potentially addictive prescription medications, officials say.

Also contributing to the problem are pharmacy thefts, robberies and burglaries, the Los Angeles Times reported Sunday.

Additionally, there are prescription forgeries and Internet pharmacies that require little information before shipping drugs, the newspaper said.

"Unlike illicit drug use, which shows a continuing downward trend, prescription drug abuse ... has seen a continual rise through the 1990s and has remained stubbornly steady ... during recent years," Dr. Nora D. Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, told a congressional hearing in March.

Local law enforcement officials say the illegal use of prescription drugs as street narcotics has surged.

"What we are seeing is that prescription drugs ... are quickly becoming the drug of choice and abuse," said police Lt. Dennis Vrooman of Murrieta, Calif.

Prescription drug abuse surging - UPI.com

[Synnen]

Nope.

Those drugs are legal and regulated.

I propose we stop worrying so much about piddly little marijuana dealers and worry more about doctors writing illegal scrips. Start putting DOCTORS in jail for "petty little drug deals". In other words--it's already regulated. Spend more time actually REGULATING the regulated drugs, and less worrying about whether my friends and I are smoking up on Saturday night.

[talaniman]

I'm for decriminalising the use of all drugs, as long as that's all your doing. Pay the fine go home, as its stupid to spend jail time for toking, when murderers and thieves, are running scott free.

[Synnen]

I'm for decriminalising the use of all drugs, as long as thats all your doing. Pay the fine go home, as its stupid to spend jail time for toking, when murderers and thieves, are running scott free.

EXACTLY!

Start actually spending time and money enforcing child support, or actually prosecuting thieves, murderers, rapists, child abuse, etc. Stop wasting the time and money on non-violent drug users and actually go after those people who are hurting someone other than themselves.

[tomkitty]

Yes, it is so true about prescription drugs becoming a major problem. I really wonder how they will battle that one. I guess the doctor will have to decide if the patient really needs the medication or is it just a habit. I know that we need to remove the license of a doctor that is signing prescriptions away like candy.
I'm starting school again and going to become an addictions counselor. I hope that I can make a difference and straighten out some lives, I have a lot to learn, but I can't wait to start the new adventure.

[inthebox]

Nope.

Those drugs are legal and regulated.

I propose we stop worrying so much about piddly little marijuana dealers and worry more about doctors writing illegal scrips. Start putting DOCTORS in jail for "petty little drug deals". In other words--it's already regulated. Spend more time actually REGULATING the regulated drugs, and less worrying about whether or not my friends and I are smoking up on Saturday night.

*** There are already laws in place.

*** Most doctors have "drug contracts" detailing the proper use of controlled substances.

*** Rather than risk jail / malpractice / the hassle dealing with drug seekers, many doctors do not prescribe controlled substances. - The people who really do need these medicines then suffer, and the street value of these controlled substances goes up.

*** The fault of ADDICTION is with the user. No doctor or drug company is forcing them to use these substances in an improper manner. Purdue did not say - crush oxycontin [ long acting oxycodone / percocet ] so you can get a quicker and more powerful high. The ADDICT did this to themselves.

*** Even if you made all drugs legal - it does not change their ADDICTIVENESS.

*** People will still be put in jail for the results of their ADDICTION - dui, domestic violence, assault, child abuse / neglect, theft / robbery etc... I venture to say that the cost to society will be higher.

[Synnen]

I agree. It all comes back to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

So... make those crimes that people commit when high have double the normal consequences. Make it that the FIRST time you're caught high with a kid in your custody, you lose the kid, and any others that you might have. Period. Do not pass go, do not collect $200, and those kids now are adoptable because they've been taken away before they're 14 with a drug habit themselves. Make it so that if you're caught operating machinery while high (And I'd include alcohol in this) it's published out there for all employers to see, and you can no longer work with any form of machinery--AND you can not collect welfare.

There's a HUGE difference between occasional use of a substance (including cold medicines, alcohol, and prescribed drugs) and addiction. I find it ridiculous that *I* have to sign my life away, have 2 forms of ID, and provide my SSN just to get the REAL Sudafed--because some idiot decided that it could be used to make a better drug.

I still stand by my first reasoning: If you're not going to legalize drugs, and are going to continue to waste money trying to counter it--well, then get rid of alcohol and cigarettes too. They're addictive, they kill people, and well, really--how do they differ from OTHER drugs?

Ooooh! Let's get rid of caffeine, too! People abuse that all the time! I know that *I* am addicted to caffeine! I get cranky and ruin peoples' days when I don't have it. I know some people that could kill with a look when they haven't had their coffee! Let's make THAT illegal too! I mean, who KNOWS how many kids have parents yell at them and verbally abuse them before coffee! Let's do it for the KIDS, for god's sake!

(seriously--can anyone NOT see how ridiculous the rhetoric is about keeping drugs illegal?)

[tomder55]

There are 10 drugs that were legal that have been pulled from the market in the last decade .
Rezulin: Given fast-track approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Rezulin was linked to 63 confirmed deaths and probably hundreds more. "We have real trouble," a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) physician wrote in 1997, just a few months after Rezulin's approval. The drug wasn't taken off the market until 2000.

Lotronex: Against concerns of one of its own officers, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Lotronex in February 2000. By the time it was withdrawn 9 months later, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had received reports of 93 hospitalizations, multiple emergency bowel surgeries, and 5 deaths.

Propulsid: A top-selling drug for many years, this drug was linked to hundreds of cases of heart arrhythmias and over 100 deaths.

Redux: Taken by millions of people for weight loss after its approval in April 1996, Redux was soon linked to heart valve damage and a disabling, often lethal pulmonary disorder. Taken off the market in September 1997.

Pondimin: A component of Fen-Phen, the diet fad drug. Approved in 1973, Pondimin's link to heart valve damage and a lethal pulmonary disorder wasn't recognized until shortly before its withdrawal in 1997.

Duract: This painkiller was taken off the market when it was linked to severe, sometimes fatal liver failure.

Seldane: America's and the world's top-selling antihistamine for a decade, it took the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 5 years to recognize that Seldane was causing cardiac arrhythmias, blackouts, hospitalizations, and deaths, and another 8 years to take it off the market.

Hismanal: Approved in 1988 and soon known to cause cardiac arrhythmias, the drug was finally taken off the market in 1999.

Posicor: Used to treat hypertension, the drug was linked to life-threatening drug interactions and more than 100 deaths.

Raxar: Linked to cardiac toxicities and deaths.

Others like ephed as you note are restricted because the drugs were being abused . By the logic that is being proposed here there is no drug that should not be available to the consumer. Should the 10 items above be permitted back into the market ?

[Synnen]

The drugs you mention, that were pulled from the market, were NOT being abused. They were being used for the purpose for which they were made. I doubt anyone went out and tried selling those drugs for a quick feel-good high on the black market.

I'm basically saying, really, that if stupid people want to pull THEMSELVES out of the gene pool (I mean, come ON, already--who Doesn't"T know that Crack Kills or that Meth is BAD juju?) then let them. Fewer stupid people in the end, imo.

I'm not saying that people should just be able to go do whatever the heck they want--there would still be restrictions on HOW those drugs could be used. For example, with no redeeming features whatsoever, Crystal Meth would only be available to those who already show an addiction, and then only in a place where they could not hurt anyone else. You could STILL regulate the illegal sale of drugs. Selling liquor without a license is a federal offense, too--and so is selling to the wrong clientele, like, say--you can't sell cigarettes to 5 year olds.

But you wouldn't be wasting tax dollars trying to hunt down every guy with a pot plant in his apartment, and every idiot smoking crack in the comfort of their own home.

Honest to god--how hard is it to think of recreational drugs like you do alcohol? Yes, alcohol ruins some peoples' lives, but other people use it responsibly. You can be prosecuted for the illegal activites you do while intoxicated--like driving, or stabbing someone with a pen, or whatever. You can do that with other drugs too!

YES, there would be an initial surge. But I doubt that marijuana would continue to be a "gateway" drug if you didn't have to buy your marijuana from someone who was pushing you to buy the more expensive, more addictive drugs.

The drugs you bring up, Tomder, are something of a different topic. Do I believe that ALL drugs should be legal? Probably not. There are a lot of things constantly coming on the market from pharmaceudical companies. Do I think that doctor's getting kickbacks from those same pharm companies should be highly suspect? Absolutely. But, as I said, that's something of a different topic entirely.

[excon]

Hello tom:

Obfuscation won't help you win this argument.

Yes, of course, the federal government should remove ANY harmful product. Maybe if the FDA had done it's job to begin with, we wouldn't have to remove them...

But, that's not the conversation we're having here.

You know what's silly about you drug warriors, is that when faced with the fact that the drug war isn't working, you always say, well, let's get tougher... Let's really crack down... Not working yet?? Well, we're not tough enough yet...

Maybe you'll get it when everybody is in jail except you. But, even then, I doubt you will.

excon

[tomder55]

I'm just responding the fallacious argument that says since some things are legal they all should be.

[michealb]

I'm actually okay with those drugs being on the market. Of course I'd expect the FDA to label them as non safe drugs and require that the packaging says so. If a sound minded adult wants to take those drugs for some reason I don't see why the government would stop them. I suspect you wouldn't be able to get those drugs anyway because the drug makers would probably stop making the product anyway once it got a warning label.

[Synnen]

I'm actually okay with those drugs being on the market. Of course I'd expect the FDA to label them as non safe drugs and require that the packaging says so. If a sound minded adult wants to take those drugs for some reason I don't see why the government would stop them. I suspect you wouldn't be able to get those drugs anyway because the drug makers would probably stop making the product anyway once it got a warning label.

EXACTLY!

They could do that for ALL drugs! And require a sign off at the pharmacy stating that you understand that the drug COULD kill you!

Perfect!

[Skell]

Good argument from both sides. Not sure where exactly I sit. I definitely agree that what we are doing now isn't working, and simply saying "we'll get tougher" won't work either.

I've been thinking though. To those who advocate legalising drugs but with 'restrictions', do you not think that as soon as you put the 'restrictions' on the use, people will feel the need to break them? I mean a junky isn't going to be happy with these restrictions. He might not want to shoot up in the safe house provided. He might prefer to do it in the comfort of his own home or in his car. Saying "legalise but with restrictions" is like saying "we'll get tougher". Seems half ar$ed to me. We've got injecting rooms down under here and they certainly don't keep users off the streets or from stealing from the local 7-11.

Are police in your country actually trying to "hunt down every guy with a pot plant in his apartment, and every idiot smoking crack in the comfort of their own home"? Ot is that an exageration? If not then no wonder the drug war is being lost. That is senseless.

[love is abby]

Obviously not, some people just decide what they would like to see and don't open their eyes to what's really going on.

[jillianleab]

Are police in your country actually trying to "hunt down every guy with a pot plant in his apartment, and every idiot smoking crack in the comfort of their own home"? Ot is that an exageration? If not then no wonder the drug war is being lost. That is senseless.

I think the overall intent is to go after the "big boys"; the people bringing 300lbs of heroin into the country, for example. But local cops aren't the ones looking for those guys - that's the gubment.

The local police bust people for drugs all the time. It might be during a traffic stop, or during a noise complaint, or a domestic disturbance. If a local cop sees a bong on your living room table while he's telling you to turn your music down, and then he ends up finding a few grams of coke in your sock drawer, it's off to jail for you.

So in a way it's exaggerated, but in a way it's not. You still hear of cases (like the one I posted earlier, Reason Magazine - Hit & Run > Tracy Ingle: Another Drug War Outrage) where the gubment officials go a little kooky, but there aren't DEA officials busting doors down of home-smokers on a regular basis.

For me, I'm all for legalization, with the reservation that there's no street intoxication test for heroin, coke, pot, etc. I know, I know, there's no street test for prescription drugs, but at least those are prescribed and not OTC. I just don't like the idea of someone all hopped up on meth driving down the highway next to me and there's no way to prove he's intoxicated.

[Synnen]

Nope, there's no way to prove it.

But... you can be brought in for a drug test if you fail the sobriety tests, as far as I know. You can certainly get a lawyer and fight it, but most people aren't going to do that.

Frankly, the kids texting while they drive scare me more than the possibility of a meth-head driving.

And yes, it was an exaggeration--but seriously, look at it this way: If you went home at night, had a couple beers while watching the game, and went to bed, and got up for work in the morning, that's not that bad, right? I mean, unless you show up visibly drunk, you're not going to lose your JOB over it.

You CAN lose your job over recreational use of drugs. Okay, I get that you shouldn't do that on the job--but I can tell you that the entire McDonald's kitchen I worked at in college was high as a kite every flippin' day at work. Frankly, a little pot makes a bad job go over a little better, not that I condone it in the least. But... unless you are in the military, in a high security position, or working with machinery that could hurt someone else (or the company, financially), random drug tests are a crock of crap. A temp, working in an office, filing papers, shouldn't be randomly tested for drugs. What the heck are they going to do? Misfile? HOLY GOD, NO! Not misfiling! (for reference here--stupid people do more damage to filing than high people ever have. I have seriously worked with people that don't know their alphabet without singing it who are filing). And I don't know many professional people that would bring drug use to the office, any more than they'd drink in the office. But where's the harm in toking up the night before while watching the game? You're sober in the morning for work---yet you can lose your job because of what you do on your OWN time, and you're doing something that isn't hurting anyone.

/shrug

I know that too many of our generation have been indoctrinated into the "unless it comes from your doctor it's BAD" idea about drugs. And honestly--I don't know if we'll ever see legalization of drugs. Too many people are making money off it for them to shut down the narcotics section of every other police station in the country, not to mention the drug testing companies, the pharmaceutical companies, the companies making money off things like nylon rope (because hemp rope is now MORE expensive than nylon rope), and the liquor companies who may or may not lose a section of their customer base. And really--anyone pushing for legalization is liable to be arrested, tested, and sentenced. There just isn't a powerful lobbying group out there (aside from NORML) for the legalization of drugs.

What it will come down to, in the end, is someone showing they can make more money in tax dollars for the government while keeping a fairly tight control on the drugs themselves. And open-minded people in Congress. The Moral Majority has got this country by the balls, if only in the fact that anything "immoral" might lose someone votes, and god forbid THAT happen.