Going to Pot

[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!

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

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/frontp...-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/...0G800B20140808

[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/defa...rt_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/ar...ectid=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/wireS...-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/ar...ectid=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.