Going to Pot

[AuntShecky]

On the controversial topic of marijuana, American opinions are rapidly changing, or at least the winds have slightly shifted. Twenty U.S. states have approved the use of marijuana to mollify the side-effects of certain medical treatments such as chemotherapy, and recently two others -– Washington and Colorado -- have gone the extra mile with the bold move of legalizing limited amounts of the weed for so-called “recreational” use.

On the “pro” side of the issue, the reasons for promoting the “decriminalization” and/or legalization route are mainly solid, with one exception. This specious reasoning comes from a declaration of surrender (rather than victory) over the decades-long “War on Drugs” during which large portions of population ignored, if not flouted, laws against possession of pot. Those who hold this particular opinion like to mention the historical failure of “The Great Experiment” – prohibition – which had the unforeseen effect of inspiring folks who’d never before let a drop of liquor touch their lips to drink as if there were no tomorrow. The age-old conciliation “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” is at the heart of this argument; “Everybody disobeys the law anyway, so we might as well make it legal.”(That’s similar to something I read earlier today – though on a less significant issue – about eliminating the apostrophe, since nobody uses it correctly.) If this is your only point for legalizing marijuana, your agenda probably won’t be – as pundits like to say –“going forward.” It reminds me of the famous quotation from Murder in the Cathedral: “The last temptation is the greatest treason. /To do the right deed for the wrong reason.”

A better argument may originate from a philosophical or ideological standpoint. Proponents from both the personal freedom advocates on the Left and the libertarian group on the Right firmly dispute a government’s authority to dictate what an individual can do to his or her physical body. The inherent right to privacy -- not specifically spelled out though clearly implied – in the U.S. Constitution can also enhance this argument.

From a practical point of view, there are still more points that seem to indicate some change in our nation’s attitude toward marijuana. The down-to-earth financial windfalls of increased tax revenue from marijuana sales is enticing. Regulations and oversight can improve quality control and perhaps keep the black market and gangster element currently associated with the sale of pot under control, and maybe put a damper on the strongholds of violence associated with drug cartels.

At this point in our history, decriminalization seems to be a crucial transitional step. The primary reason for decriminalizing marijuana for possession and low-level dealing is the shameful disproportion of arrests, prosecution, and incarceration among races. Few people may know and even fewer will admit it, but blatant racism is the primary reason we have anti-drug laws in the first place (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/history/mustomj1.html). Prejudice against ethnic minorities is the unsavory root of anti-marijuana legislation; indeed, the first federal drug laws were proposed as a way to control migrant workers from south of the border.

Although statistics indicate similar incidents of use of pot among whites and minorities, members of the former group are rarely arrested and prosecuted, whereas the latter – specifically, young Black and Hispanic Americans- become inextricably tangled within the legal justice system, often to the point at which their lives are essentially ruined. Draconian measures such as the notorious “Rockefeller Drug Laws” and “three strikes and you’re out” are just a few of the past abuses of the national attack on drug-related crimes.

Systematic racism aside, much of the outcry against legalizing pot comes from the ranks of the justice system itself. The more anti-drug laws are on the books, the more law enforcement officers are hired and/or allowed to work overtime. Drug enforcement plays a large part in the livelihoods of prosecutors, and while some high-powered defense attorneys may build lucrative careers from high-powered defendants accused of drug crimes, a large number of the accused facing the court are most likely to be poor and members of a minority, hence becoming victims of chance, the fates attached to the commitment and expertise of their attorneys, who often are over-worked public defenders.

Another factor in the mix is the rapid rise of privately-owned and operated prisons, which amass considerable revenue by running the correctional system for certain states. These profit-making facilities are in the business of filling cells with inmates and sending the bill to the state. But unlike hotel chains which recruit “guests” through advertising and travel agents, the private prisons lobby for strict drug laws and especially assiduous enforcement to keep the money rolling in.

Arguments for keeping the status quo regarding marijuana are less numerous. The obvious objection is health-related. Since the using method of using marijuana involves smoking the weed and ingesting the chemicals into the lungs, one might well assume that some of the same dangers associated with tobacco use might also arise with the use of pot.

The fact is that researchers really don’t know much about the long-term use of marijuana, as opposed to that of tobacco, the harmful effects of which untold numbers of laboratory rats have sacrificed their lives. The scary statistics about tobacco smoke roll out constantly: smoking ranks in the top ten causes of death in the United States, that one in five Americans die from smoking, smoking-related illnesses have been responsible for the loss of 100 million lives in the 20th century, along with the panoply of ailments associated with the use of tobacco: lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema and “COPD,” birth defects, ad nauseam.

What is interesting is the topsy-turvy respective attitudes toward marijuana and tobacco. The stronger the drive toward legalizing marijuana, the harder the push against cigarette smoking. In the old days, marijuana users were “vipers,” whereas cigarette smokers were respectable citizens such as doctors(!), university professors, and advertising executives, like TV’s Mad Men. Now communities have been banning smoking in restaurants and bars, in the workplaces, even in some fresh air environments, like parks. Smokers themselves often are viewed with disdain, if not outright vilified. Such is our changing world: weed okay, Old Golds evil.

I’m more favor of legalizing marijuana than not, though I’m fairly sure I’m not at all personally interested in using the stuff myself. What bothers me is that there could be deleterious effects of marijuana that haven’t been entirely disclosed and are yet to be discovered.

And finally, despite the length of this thread, I do believe that our country should address scores of more important issues, such as (but not limited to) world hunger, climate change, education, sensible gun legislation, immigration reform, privacy vs. national security, and last but certainly not least income inequality.

But unlike those problems, decriminalizing marijuana seems “doable.”










http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/history/mustomj1.html

[AuntShecky]

Here is some more material and links about the possible health risks/benefits of marijuana:

Medical marijuana
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis


http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/about-cancer/cancer-questions/does-smoking-cannabis-cause-cancer
Some evidence that THC, a chemical found in cannabis, can actually kill brain cancer cells.

Prenatal exposure to marijuana smoke + leukemia in children/
“glioma”

A second cohort study by University of Hawaii researchers investigating the risk for malignant primary onset glioma (brain cancer) associated with cigarette smoking and other lifestyle behaviors did report an increased incidence risk for individuals who smoked cannabis at least once per month, after adjustment for sex, race, education, smoking status, alcohol consumption, and coffee intake. However, no dose-response relation was observed -- by contrast, drinkers of >7 cups of coffee per day had a 70 percent increased risk for glioma – and cannabis was only incidentally assessed as a potential confounding factorhttp://norml.org/component/zoo/category/cannabis-smoke-and-cancer-assessing-the-risk



http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2012/07/25/cannabis-cannabinoids-and-cancer-the-evidence-so-far/

This is a personal anecdote from the O.P.: In the late 1970s we had a family friend who was a heavy pot smoker who died from a brain tumor and a decade later another acquaintance who had similar habits and died the very same way. I realize that some of the links above indicate that THC may help treat cancer cells, but I'm not sure the opposite isn't true. Again, these are just anecdotal.

[Lykren]

I approve of legalization. It doesn't make sense to allow alcohol but ban marijuana.

[qimissung]

I'm for it. It can be addicting, but nevertheless terrible damage has been done over the years by making it illegal, and the punishments have been so inconsistent and punitive. Let's do this, and move on.

[The Atheist]

Marijuana is now likely linked to lower suicide rates and fewer road deaths: http://www.policymic.com/articles/81149/surprising-new-study-finds-legalizing-marijuana-can-reduce-suicide-rates

There is still work to be done on causation, but 17 years is a decent study on the suicide front, and the reduction is enormous.

[glennr25]

Marijuana> Alcohol. Of course, if they do end up legalizing Marijuana in the U.S., how many pharmaceutical companies do you think will close down due to a drop in antidepressant sales? My guess: A lot.

[The Atheist]

Well, if that happened, it would be an enormous benefit.

Another study I'd like to see is the affect of marijuana on violent crime. I suspect violence will drop where marijuana takes the place of alcohol.

[glennr25]

An enormous benefit indeed.

Half of the inmates in prisons would have to be released, drug enforcement operations would have to be halted, hundreds if not thousands of officers nationwide would probably be laid off. In short, the government will get a little smaller. Big government supporters would be tearing their last gray hairs out at the news.

I would be sitting at home with a cup of joe and a big smile on my face.

[tonywalt]

I do not think there is a substantial increase in marijuana use, just an increase in support for legalisation of marijuana - and i for the record support the use and the legalisation. But as for why more people support legalisation: Because that's the general trend and "sheeple" follow whatever trend.

Many people who do not smoke marijuana and formerly opposed it being legalised now supporting legalisation - as that is where 'everyone is going' In this case it's a good thing (for me). Thinking about it: It would be seen as borderline 'anti social' in most social settings to be vehemently opposed to legalisation of marijuana - so people do not say anything.

[Frostball]

I am strongly in favor of marijuana legalization. I agree with pretty much every pro-legalization argument given, particularly the bit about it not being the government's place to tell us what we can and can't have in our bodies, and the fact that it is a victimless crime. It's possible that I am biased, as I am also a regular user. Regardless, the arguments in favor seem pretty overwhelming compared to the petty arguments against, at least in my view. As mentioned the ridiculous fact that cigarettes and alcohol are both legal, despite being apparently far more dangerous. It's true that research on marijuana is limited as of yet, but I still don't think we're likely to suddenly find out that alcohol is actually much healthier than marijuana.

Many here likely agree with what I've said so far. But I also go much further. I think all drugs should be legalized, based on pretty much the same arguments. Drugs are a victimless crime, the government shouldn't be telling us what kinds of experiences we're allowed to have, and to the extent that a drug can make somebody do something violent or dangerous, that person should be punished for what they actually did, not for taking the drug that may have caused them to do it. This is exactly how we treat it when somebody commits a crime when they are drunk. We don't punish them for drinking, we punish them for the actual crime they committed. Being intoxicated does not abdicate personal responsibility, rather it is the user's responsibility to make sure they are in a safe place, and that they don't take too much, or that they have a babysitter to take care of them and dissuade them from doing stupid acts. Furthermore, sending a person to jail for a drug problem is a terrible way to fix the issue. If a person struggles with addiction, it should be a medical issue, not a legal issue. An addict needs help, not prison where they're likely to come out indoctrinated from the prison experience and thus become worse criminals than before.

This last bit is definitely more controversial. I just thought I'd throw some arguments out there for the case of legalization for all drugs.

(edit: I accidentally quoted tonywalt's post above originally, when I just meant to do a regular post.)

[Ecurb]

I just thought I'd throw some arguments out there for the case of legalization for all drugs.

.)

The problem with this is that the public wants to be protected. Here are some disadvantages to legalizing all drugs:

1) Anti-biotic use can lead to resistant strains of bacteria, particularly if the drugs are not used properly or are overused. Does Frostball think that nobody would self-medicate for every case of the flu or a cold, even though anti-biotics are useless against viral infections?

2) Some drugs have horrific side effects that are discovered only through extensive testing. Thalidomide was very effective at treating morning sickness, but led to gruesomely deformed babies. (Thalidomide, by the way, was never approved by FDA. It was purchased overseas by women who then bore deformed children.)

3) Many anti-depressants and other mood-altering drugs can have dangerous side effects which are monitored when the patient is under the care of a doctor, but would not be if they were fully "legalized".

Of course Frostball is probably referring to recreational drugs. However, I don't see any rationale to legalize valium, or opiates, or Prozac for "recreational use", while continuing to regulate their medical use. Marijuana is different because it is a non-processed plant that anyone can easily grow.

Of course there are important issues with how we currently regulate drugs. Patented HIV treatments (for example) could be sold cheaply (and for a profit) in Africa, saving thousands of lives. However, drug companies are reluctant to do this because the drugs will then be "diverted" back to the West (undercutting the patent-protected price through which the drug companies make their money and fund their research).

Obviously, recreational drugs are big business. However, their sales are minniscule compared to the sales of prescription and OTC drugs. How can Fostball deregulate the one without deregulating the other? Does he really think all prescription drugs (and all drugs under development and not yet approved even for prescription use) should be available on the open market? Should we deregulate advertising for these drugs as well?

[Frostball]

The problem with this is that the public wants to be protected. Here are some disadvantages to legalizing all drugs:

1) Anti-biotic use can lead to resistant strains of bacteria, particularly if the drugs are not used properly or are overused. Does Frostball think that nobody would self-medicate for every case of the flu or a cold, even though anti-biotics are useless against viral infections?

2) Some drugs have horrific side effects that are discovered only through extensive testing. Thalidomide was very effective at treating morning sickness, but led to gruesomely deformed babies. (Thalidomide, by the way, was never approved by FDA. It was purchased overseas by women who then bore deformed children.)

3) Many anti-depressants and other mood-altering drugs can have dangerous side effects which are monitored when the patient is under the care of a doctor, but would not be if they were fully "legalized".

Of course Frostball is probably referring to recreational drugs. However, I don't see any rationale to legalize valium, or opiates, or Prozac for "recreational use", while continuing to regulate their medical use. Marijuana is different because it is a non-processed plant that anyone can easily grow.

Of course there are important issues with how we currently regulate drugs. Patented HIV treatments (for example) could be sold cheaply (and for a profit) in Africa, saving thousands of lives. However, drug companies are reluctant to do this because the drugs will then be "diverted" back to the West (undercutting the patent-protected price through which the drug companies make their money and fund their research).

Obviously, recreational drugs are big business. However, their sales are minniscule compared to the sales of prescription and OTC drugs. How can Fostball deregulate the one without deregulating the other? Does he really think all prescription drugs (and all drugs under development and not yet approved even for prescription use) should be available on the open market? Should we deregulate advertising for these drugs as well?

You know, there are a lot of things you bring up that I've never thought about before. I can't think of satisfactory answers to your objections. I'm going to have to think about it, definitely.

[tonywalt]

I don't disagree, but if one is battling depression - just how should he manage/treat it by marijuana (intake at nights, mornings? lunch time?). I've thought it through and wonder if you have?

[Lykren]

What difference would it make what time of day you smoke it?

[The Atheist]

I don't disagree, but if one is battling depression - just how should he manage/treat it by marijuana (intake at nights, mornings? lunch time?). I've thought it through and wonder if you have?

The first step would be seeking advice from a professional. Hopefully, that person would be able to give you details on optimum dosage and timing.

[The Atheist]

The problem with this is that the public wants to be protected.

Yes indeed, just as the public wanted to be protected from booze in the 1920s. I believe that didn't work out so well.



Here are some disadvantages to legalizing all drugs:

Can I just re-phrase that to "things you see as disadvantages to legalisation", because as always, you are short on fact and long on opinion, but it's ok, because I've got some facts for you.


1) Anti-biotic use can lead to resistant strains of bacteria, particularly if the drugs are not used properly or are overused. Does Frostball think that nobody would self-medicate for every case of the flu or a cold, even though anti-biotics are useless against viral infections?

Yes, I can just see the Crips and Bloods lining up to sell cold and 'flu remedies and antibiotics.

Given that the major problem with antibiotic resistance is over-prescription by medical professionals and usage by farmers who just don't care as long as it imapcts the bottom line*, I think any concerns about opening legal trade in antibiotics is over-stated in the extreme. Antibiotics are dirt cheap - which is why they're so widely used and abused - and there would be little incentive for operators to trade in them.

*Link: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs194/en/


2) Some drugs have horrific side effects that are discovered only through extensive testing. Thalidomide was very effective at treating morning sickness, but led to gruesomely deformed babies. (Thalidomide, by the way, was never approved by FDA. It was purchased overseas by women who then bore deformed children.)

What better way to test the effects of drugs on humans than use those who Darwin has gifted as people too stupid to use approved and proven methods of medication?

Also, you're helping prove the point that legalisation would have made no difference - people accessed those drugs anyway. Women I know who have had babies - and there are many, many of them - would almost unanimously not take drugs during their pregnancy, no matter who the drugs were approved by.

There have also been many notable failures of those drugs which have been approved by official bodies. I can list a few if you wish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs


3) Many anti-depressants and other mood-altering drugs can have dangerous side effects which are monitored when the patient is under the care of a doctor, but would not be if they were fully "legalized".

Sorry, I was looking for an emoticon laughing hard enough to cope with your statement!

Yes, the mental health industry has a superb record of monitoring and assessing patients under their care .

I'm going to guess you don't want to list the enormous number of just US-based serial killers and mass murderers who have acted while allegedly under care and on prescribed drugs, but I will do so if you like.

http://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters/

(note that's only school shootings)


Of course Frostball is probably referring to recreational drugs. However, I don't see any rationale to legalize valium, or opiates, or Prozac for "recreational use", while continuing to regulate their medical use. Marijuana is different because it is a non-processed plant that anyone can easily grow.

Are you a homeopath or naturopath?

I ask because it's such an unusual approach to take - that if something's easy to grow and natural, it's ok. Then you discount opiates, yet opium-bearing poppies they are actually far simpler to grow than marijuana plants, which are a pain the butt. No processing required to extract and smoke the pure opium. Maybe you've never heard of the Opium Wars?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars


Of course there are important issues with how we currently regulate drugs. Patented HIV treatments (for example) could be sold cheaply (and for a profit) in Africa, saving thousands of lives. However, drug companies are reluctant to do this because the drugs will then be "diverted" back to the West (undercutting the patent-protected price through which the drug companies make their money and fund their research).

Has nothing to do with legalisation, though. It's not as though vast amounts of aid money and goods aren't ripped off and sold anyway. Might encourage those donating to be a little more careful with their supply chains. One thing is for certain, the drug companies won't miss out. The number of people who would buy unknown drugs is an awful lot smaller than you're suggesting.


Obviously, recreational drugs are big business. However, their sales are minniscule compared to the sales of prescription and OTC drugs.

Having gone from laughable to sublime.

Miniscule? Try over a third of the size.

Legal drugs: $954bn. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_industry
Illegal drugs: $320bn. http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/frontpage/2012/July/new-unodc-campaign-highlights-transnational-organized-crime-as-an-us-870-billion-a-year-business.html


How can Fostball deregulate the one without deregulating the other? Does he really think all prescription drugs (and all drugs under development and not yet approved even for prescription use) should be available on the open market? Should we deregulate advertising for these drugs as well?

Now that it becomes obvious there's no evidence to support there being a difference in the two markets, you don't need to worry about it.

I'm pleased you brought advertising up to finish on, because it's possibly the single most-damning indcitment on the pharmaceutical industries across the globe.

I mean, they all such wonderful companies with the best interests of humans at heart. They must spend an awful lot more on research and developing new drugs than advertising, don't they?

Surely????

You work it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_marketing

[Poetaster]

I must admit, I don't use pot myself. Personally, I hate the smell and for some reason it gives me gas. But, if someone else wants to use it then I have no problem - I just prefer it isn't around me. I'm all for legalizing it.

[Nick Capozzoli]

There is some good evidence that exposure to marijuana in adolescence can have adverse neurological effects on the developing brain. The same, of course, is also true for exposure to alcohol and other "mind-altering" drugs. This is something that needs to be considered when "legalizing" marijuana.

[tonywalt]

What difference would it make what time of day you smoke it?

My point is: drepression is a constant condition - in that you are depressed over significant periods of time. During times of depression would you constantly intake marijuana. Obviously a few hits of marijuana will only give you a buzz for 2 to 3 hours. What then? (I presume we both are familiar with marijuana and understand depression(as opposed to having a bad moment or day), in order for the conversation to be worthwhile)

[The Atheist]

There is some good evidence that exposure to marijuana in adolescence can have adverse neurological effects on the developing brain. The same, of course, is also true for exposure to alcohol and other "mind-altering" drugs. This is something that needs to be considered when "legalizing" marijuana.

Yes, that is absolutely correct.

This is one of the reasons it's so important to legalise dope - usage among teenagers goes down rather than up. I'm not sure why, but maybe seeing mom and dad whacked at home legally makes it less cool than it was. Still early days, but it refutes any suggestion that usage increases.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/08/us-usa-marijuana-colorado-idUSKBN0G800B20140808

[Ecurb]

The Atheist points out that the illegal drug market in the U.S. is about 30% the size of the prescription drug market. How, exactly, his cited web site determines the dollar sales of illegal drugs in the U.S., is unclear -- but I'll grant that I have no idea how much money Americans spend on illegal "drugs".

I put "drugs" in quotations, because this discussion depends on how we define "drugs". The U.S. FDA defines drugs as substances listed in the U.S. Pharmacopeia OR designed to "diagnose, treat, mitigate, prevent or cure" a disease. Most drugs are legal in some circumstances and illegal in others. Cocaine, anabolic steroids, morphine, etc. are all FDA regulated and legal when used in accordance with FDA guidelines. On the other hand, tobacco and alcohol are not considered "drugs" from the legal perspective of the U.S., and are not regulated by FDA (they are regulated by the ridiculously-named Bureau of Alcohol. tobacco, firearms and explosives).

I looked up some sales stats, and Alcohol sells to the tune of $160-200B in the U.S, tobacco sales are $100B. So these substance (combined) outsell "illegal drugs" (which are somewhere around $100B in the U.S., acc.to http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/wausid_report_final_1.pdf).

I mentioned some regulatory issues in my last post (with which the Atheist took issue). Here are some more:

1) If we "legalize" drugs, does that mean that we no longer conduct FDA inspections for drug manufacturing facilities? Drug manufacturers are currently audited regularly, and must demonstrate proper manufacturing standards and regulatory controls (including records of where the drug has been sold, in case of a recall). From an Industry perspective (no, Atheist, I was never involved in homeopathy or naturopathy, but I was an executive at a small company that sold OTC drugs, FDA approved medical devices, cosmetics, and dietary supplements, all of which are regulated by FDA) this would create more competition (the cost of entry would be far lower), which would hurt the big drug companies. However, it would also offer fewer consumer protections.

2) If we regulate the newly-legalized recreational drugs, is it possible that the regulation (and taxes) would be sufficiently expensive that we would fail to eliminate (or even dramatically reduce) the illegal sales of drugs, and the problems associated with organized crime?

My point about marijuana was not that natural substances are safe (ask Socrates), but that it makes less sense to regulate the "manufacture" of a substance that is grown rather than one that is manufactured. I don't know much about opiates, but my understanding is that heroin and other powerful opiates (and cocaine, for that matter) are far more powerful than poppy flowers or coca leaves. In addition, manufacturers in general are subject to quality-control standards.

For example, food products (and dietary supplements) are regulated by FDA in the U.S. Unlike drugs, however, there is a presumption of safety for foods (including herbs that might sometimes be used medicinally), so FDA does not demand "safety" testing if the food is on their G.R.A.S. list, "generally recognized as safe". ("Efficacy" testing would be necessary if the herb made any labeling claims to "treat, prevent, mitigate or cure" a disease, at which point it would be regulated as a drug, and would be subject to drug regulations.)

Here in Oregon, a ballot measure in November's election will allow the public to vote on whether to legalize marijuana. Since marijuana is already legal for "medical marijuana users", and since it has been decriminalized, I haven't decided how I'll vote. One of my regular golf partners is a medical marijuana card holder, and grows pot, which he often offers me if I'll pick up his greens' fees. I have more access to pot than I know what to do with. However, the devil is in the details, which I haven't looked into yet. (In general, I either abstain or vote against all ballot measures unless I have good reason to vote for them, as I think the ballot measure system creates a lot of bad laws.)

Regarding the rest of The Atheist's post -- the bit about how psychiatric drugs have been involved in school shootings is hardly surprising. Insane people shoot up schools AND take prescribed drugs. What else is new?

The Atheist also wrote:
I'm pleased you brought advertising up to finish on, because it's possibly the single most-damning indictment on the pharmaceutical industries across the globe.

I mean, they all such wonderful companies with the best interests of humans at heart. They must spend an awful lot more on research and developing new drugs than advertising, don't they?

Why is that surprising, or even notable? According to The Atheist's links, drug companies spent $30B on "marketing" in one year in the U.S., which constitutes about 10% of sales. Of the $30B, only 12.5% or $3B+ is spent on consumer advertising. So drug companies spent 1% of sales on consumer advertising. This total seems low in comparison to other industries, to me.

Nobody (except drug company shills) thinks any corporation is primarily interested in anything but its own profits. The question is: what laws and regulations SHOULD protect the public? We all know that Utopia must be an anarchy (because laws are violent and coercive, and violent coercion is a bad thing). We all know that current laws regulating drug sales and use are far from ideal. I'm not sure that eliminating ALL of them is ideal, either.

[Ecurb]

Just to clarify the above, which was written hastily, saying that we should "legalize" drugs is unclear -- because most recreational drugs are already legal. Cocaine, heroin, amphetamines, etc. are legal, but require a prescription. One common drug company tactic is to try to change the status of a drug from Rx to OTC. For example, naproxen (the active ingredient in the pain reliever "aleve") was launched in the U.S (by Bayer) as a prescription drug. A few years before the patent on the drug expired (allowing generic competition), its status was switched from prescription to OTC, and Bayer had a couple of years to build brand awareness for ALEVE before competition moved in.

So there is already a process by which prescription-only drugs can become available over-the-counter -- and making the switch is commonplace. I don't know the exact procedures or requirements. That would be one approach to changing the regulatory climate for certain recreational drugs. OTC drugs must still be manufactured in an FDA registered and audited facility.

Another approach would be to regulate certain substances using another regulatory body (as the U.S. has done with alcohol and tobacco). The devil is in the details. Only a few hardcore anarchists and Ayn Randians want to deregulate drugs completely (although such deregulation would doubtless drive prices down on OTC and prescription medications).

[The Atheist]

I was just coming in to post an interesting new development with "safe, legal" drugs.

Possibly the most-taken legal, non-prescription drug on the planet, paracetamol may well have long-term mental health issues for the child if taken during pregnancy.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11331644


The Atheist points out that the illegal drug market in the U.S. is about 30% the size of the prescription drug market. How, exactly, his cited web site determines the dollar sales of illegal drugs in the U.S., is unclear -- but I'll grant that I have no idea how much money Americans spend on illegal "drugs".

Yet, despite that you initially made a claim as to what the market is.

Anyway, moving on to some reasonable points:


I mentioned some regulatory issues in my last post (with which the Atheist took issue). Here are some more:

1) If we "legalize" drugs, does that mean that we no longer conduct FDA inspections for drug manufacturing facilities?

No, and I already answered that point.

I have no doubt at all that over 95% of consumers would not treat drugs any differently than they do now - they will buy the legally-produced, carefully-controlled versions they do right now. I do not believe any more than the insane minority already in existence who try to heal cancer with battery chargers will go and buy drugs that are not made by a recognised and established supplier/manufacturer.

The same regulations would continue to apply as we already apply regulations to every part of our lives, from where we park, to where we eat, to whether cops can use dum-dum bullets.


2) If we regulate the newly-legalized recreational drugs, is it possible that the regulation (and taxes) would be sufficiently expensive that we would fail to eliminate (or even dramatically reduce) the illegal sales of drugs, and the problems associated with organized crime?

This smacks of being quite spurious. You're talking about a fine-tuning issue at worst.

How big is the current black market in cigarettes? And they are very heavily taxed, and certainly at a far higher rate than dope is in Colorado, yet there is only a very small trade in illegal cigarettes. Not to mention, since prohibition, how much of a problem has alcohol-smuggling and moonshine production been?

You'll never get rid of illegal sales, because there will always be some hardcore elements who only want to buy da Mexican Brown from Albuquerque, but recreational drug users - the victimless criminals of drugs - would mostly buy it legally.


My point about marijuana was not that natural substances are safe (ask Socrates), but that it makes less sense to regulate the "manufacture" of a substance that is grown rather than one that is manufactured.

Well, if you can't think of a good reason to treat manufactured and grown substances differently, I sure can't. It seems like a personal opinion of no logical merit.

Why does it "make sense"? Are biscuits subject to different scrutiny and regulations than cabbages? What about vitamin tablets?


I don't know much about opiates, but my understanding is that heroin and other powerful opiates (and cocaine, for that matter) are far more powerful than poppy flowers or coca leaves. In addition, manufacturers in general are subject to quality-control standards.

Why would strength of drug matter? If you go down that path, opium is a hell of a lot stronger than marijuana, while psilocybin (shrooms) are a lot stronger still, and salvia divinorum is utterly insane. I think I'd rather take a hit of smack in the arm than salvia, it can drive people into some serious self-harm.

Quality control standards are easily imposed by customers, when you get right down to it. In a deregulated market where strong-arm tactics can be easily repelled by the application of the spare police time, good operators will thrive while bad ones will wither.

Darwin would've loved economics, I reckon.


For example, food products (and dietary supplements) are regulated by FDA in the U.S. Unlike drugs, however, there is a presumption of safety for foods (including herbs that might sometimes be used medicinally), so FDA does not demand "safety" testing if the food is on their G.R.A.S. list, "generally recognized as safe". ("Efficacy" testing would be necessary if the herb made any labeling claims to "treat, prevent, mitigate or cure" a disease, at which point it would be regulated as a drug, and would be subject to drug regulations.)

No reason they couldn't do that.

From methamphetamine coming with warnings that make cigarettes warnings look like picnic invitations, to lower-level warnings that inhaling marijuana may make you want to spend money on pizza.

Surely, in a responsibly-organised legalisation process, an integral part of that process would be to have dealers and growers register and be accountable. We do that pretty well with cars, eh? Cars kill many people? http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/settle-fight-court-gm-recall-saga-25745554


Regarding the rest of The Atheist's post -- the bit about how psychiatric drugs have been involved in school shootings is hardly surprising. Insane people shoot up schools AND take prescribed drugs. What else is new?

Maybe you missed my point.

You stated that there would be lower chances of violence being perpetrated by the mentally ill if they are under care.

My posts show that position does not appear to be supported by fact and history.



Why is that surprising, or even notable? According to The Atheist's links, drug companies spent $30B on "marketing" in one year in the U.S., which constitutes about 10% of sales. Of the $30B, only 12.5% or $3B+ is spent on consumer advertising. So drug companies spent 1% of sales on consumer advertising. This total seems low in comparison to other industries, to me.

Again missing my point, which was in response to your defence of pharmaceutical ethics and responsibilities. As long as you agree that profits are the prime mover, we agree on the motivation anyway.


Nobody (except drug company shills) thinks any corporation is primarily interested in anything but its own profits. The question is: what laws and regulations SHOULD protect the public? We all know that Utopia must be an anarchy (because laws are violent and coercive, and violent coercion is a bad thing). We all know that current laws regulating drug sales and use are far from ideal. I'm not sure that eliminating ALL of them is ideal, either.

Hopefully, a little more information and you'll be able to make in informed choice when you vote.

Removing laws doesn't need to be even slightly anarchic. As I've pointed out, the same regulations would apply, just that people would not be charged for refusing to comply.

[Ecurb]

You stated that there would be lower chances of violence being perpetrated by the mentally ill if they are under care.

My posts show that position does not appear to be supported by fact and history.

Often, Atheist, you seem more interested in discussing who is right and who is wrong than discussing the issue at hand. What I wrote was that "dangerous side effects" of prescription drugs can be monitored by the prescribing physician. I thought (and still think) that it's clear that dangerous side effects refers to the danger to the drug user (high blood pressure, etc.)-- not to school children.




Again missing my point, which was in response to your defence of pharmaceutical ethics and responsibilities. As long as you agree that profits are the prime mover, we agree on the motivation anyway.

Having worked in the drug industry, I would be unlikely to defend pharmaceutical ethics, although maybe you can find somewhere that I did.




Removing laws doesn't need to be even slightly anarchic. As I've pointed out, the same regulations would apply, just that people would not be charged for refusing to comply.

This is the part I don't understand. If nobody is charged for failing to comply with regulations, many corporations will not comply. Drug companies will lower their manufacturing standards and spend less on research to save money. New drugs will hit the market (promoted by advertising, of course) that may prove not only ineffective, but dangerous. It is possible, of course, that market forces will limit the carnage. Or, perhaps, civil law suits would suffice to keep drug companies interested in quality control. Or maybe I'm not understanding what you mean.

[Nick Capozzoli]

Just to clarify the above, which was written hastily, saying that we should "legalize" drugs is unclear -- because most recreational drugs are already legal. Cocaine, heroin, amphetamines, etc. are legal, but require a prescription...

Cocaine (except in certain forms, as in local/topical anesthetics used in ophthalmology and ENT) and heroin (in any form) are DEA Schedule I drugs, which means that they are listed as having no "legitimate medical use" and are not something your doctor can prescribe for you. The DEA does allow these Schedule I drugs (and that includes marijuana) to be used for "research" purposes. Some amphetamines are Schedule II drugs, but the most common "street form," methamphetamine, is Schedule I.

[Nick Capozzoli]

I was just coming in to post an interesting new development with "safe, legal" drugs.

Possibly the most-taken legal, non-prescription drug on the planet, paracetamol may well have long-term mental health issues for the child if taken during pregnancy.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11331644...

Good point. Acetaminophen (the version sold OTC here in the USA) is widely touted as a "safe" non-prescription analgesic, but it can have serious side-effects. It is potentially toxic to the liver, and is the cause of many fatalities due to over dosage. Another class of OTC painkillers, the nonsteroidal antinflammatory drugs such as ibuprofen and naproxen, can be nephrotoxic. Indeed, they are a major cause of chronic renal failure.

No drug, either prescription or OTC is without potential risks.

[Ecurb]

You're right, Nick. Cocaine, however, is legal (and pharmaceutical-grade cocaine is available) -- a plastic surgeon I know told me he still uses it for nose jobs because it is a vaso-constrictor (if that's a word) as well as a topical analgesic. Heroin is perhaps the strongest opiate, so for years some have argued in favor of legalizing it as a prescription drug for those in severe pain (I wasn't sure if it HAD been legalized or not).

In any event, my point remains. "Legalizing" drugs can have several interpretations. It could refer to changing a drug's status from prescription to OTC; it could involve complete deregulation (in terms of the quality control of the manufacturing and distribution process), or, in the case of heroin for example, it could refer to legalizing a drug for prescription use only. Therefore, we have to clarify which of these interpretations we are talking about before we can discuss the positives and negatives of "legalization" in a meaningful way.

[tonywalt]

The first step would be seeking advice from a professional. Hopefully, that person would be able to give you details on optimum dosage and timing.

Professional therapists are thin on the ground when it comes to prescribing marijuana (naturally I don't include he 'head shop' doctors who give prescriptions to enable sale). But yes, I am "familiar" (quoting with fingers) with the effect of marijuana, but would love to know how the dosage would be for a depressed person. What happens when the effect wears off? (More weed). Is there anyone out there who is "familiar" with it.

Simply put: I cannot see it as a treatment for depression or anxiety without a dependence development for many or most people.

[Paulclem]

This year we live in a quiet street again whereas last year we had all kinds of characters turning up to buy cannabis, and perhaps other stuff, off our next door neighbour.

What happened was three blokes who previously didn't know each other, but who had come to live in the street, hooked up and began buying, selling and growing. One had previous form and had been convicted in a big smuggling bust and served time - his worried neighbour had googled his name and there he was noted in an article.

Another bloke was already dealing, and our neighbour seemed to be the gopher/ shouty muscle contact. I know this because a lot of it happened around the few houses in our street which suddenly became busy with aggressive and dodgy types. There were violent threats and intimidation going on. All the things, on a minor scale, that you associate with criminal activity around drugs.

It's not that any one of them was a particular problem - they had all been living in the street the previous year, but the escalation of dealing became a problem. Eventually it dissipated as two were jailed and one was evicted. It was a small taste of what can happen in a community when the initiative is handed to criminals through the illegality of drugs.

The thing is another neighbour who lives a few doors away is also a smoker of weed. He has lived here for the past 24 years and there has never been a problem with him. No doubt there are more quiet smokers dotted about too. It doesn't seem to be the drugs themselves that are the main problem but the criminal activity which can escalate from it.

I appreciate that there can be serious consequences for certain people who try drugs. My wife has come across sad cases in mental hospitals, but the illegality did nothing to protect them. Perhaps revenues from legalised, licensed drugs could do more.

I think Auntie is probably right that legalisation would be better than this laughable war on drugs policy and the more recent discussion about prescription drugs is a bit of a side show. We know what is being referred to with legislation - those criminalized drugs that give criminals the opportunity to make a lot of money without any consideration or care about the consequences. Regulation could do a lot better.