Should all drugs be Legal and Over the Counter?

[amicus]

A little over a hundred years ago, Opium, Heroin, Cocaine, Marijuana and Hashhish could be openly purchased.

Recently I read about the 'Opium Wars' between Great Britain and China and the thought crossed my mind. So I thought to post a poll and seek your input.

Question number one:

By what right does Government restrict, regulate and ban what substances people use?

Second Question: Do you agree that Government should regulate/forbid some substances? Why?

Please include Alcohol and Tobacco in your considerations.

I purposely did not offer a position on this issue, but will at a later time.

Thank you for voting and commenting.

Amicus

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Question number one:

By what right does Government restrict, regulate and ban what substances people use?

Second Question: Do you agree that Government should regulate/forbid some substances? Why?

1) They protect us against ourselves - and they protect those of us who don't use drugs from having to pay for the medical care of the morons who OD on drugs.

2) Yes. Some people need to be protected against their own stupidity - and against the stupidity of others.

 

[Teenage Venus]

By what right does Government restrict, regulate and ban what substances people use?Second Question: Do you agree that Government should regulate/forbid some substances? Why?

1/ The people voted and gave them a mandate to govern. If sufficient don't like what they do they can vote that lot out, and vote one more to their liking in.

2/Yes. Abuse costs taxpayers a fortune - and the profits rewards criminals, and finances such things as terrorism.

 

[amicus]

Teenaged venus...

By logic in your first argument, if the people voted to 'mandate' government to euthanize all people over age 30 and limit the number of children you could have to one, then you would have to acquiese to the rule of the majority?

Secondly, the practical matters should also apply to overweight people and women who binge on cokes and chocolate and big Mac's. (oh, gee, that is next)

Again, move beyond the subjective and personal.

amicus

 

[Liar]

I'm normally for all kinds of personal responsibility and freedom, but in the case of substance abuse, I say we can't be restrictive enough.

If it was only the person who took those substances, be it alcohol, heavy duty narcotics or legal pills, that suffered from their abuse, then I couldn't care less. Society have no business regulating how you hurt yourself. If you're a hermit out in the woods, please take all the drugs in the world -- as long as you say no to your rights to any doctor's valueable tme with your self inflicted fuckup, and make prepaid arrangements to take care of the dead body afterwards.

But, if you have family and friends nearby, drug abuse will hurt them too, and society have the right to intervene when you hurt others. If you live with people who care about you close by, you are not just abusing booze, drugs or medicine -- you are abusing those people.

Therefore, forbidding and regulating addictive and damaging substances is cruical to a society these days. Yes, at the turn of the last century, all kinds of hard drugs could be purchased openly. And lots of people dropped dead like flies from extensive abuse.

Tobacco then? Well, it is addictive and bad for your helth. But so is sugar. As long as passive smoking is kept to an absolute minimum, I think you can draw a line in the sand just there.

#L

Note: this comes from someone who have lost a close friend to the abuse of prescribed drugs, seen her damage herself for years and take a whole family to a permanent trip in fuckup-land because of it, so I might be biased. So yes, those substances WERE restricted. But not restricted enough. Better control over prescriptions and who writes them is needed.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

There IS a subtle difference between cocaine and hamburgers...

 

[Guest]

Alcohol and nicotine won't kill you in one dose. Alcohol is currently the only mind altering drug available over the counter. And look how many people die from it's use every year. Marijuana? Shit I grew up in Meigs county, I've seen what that shit can do to you. 2/3s of the population down there are stoned about every day. and 2/3s of the population have a relative IQ of about ten.

Only thing good I can say about most of the heavy drugs out there is that they are a sort of self solving problem. everyone OD's eventually. Sooner the better in my oppinion.

 

[Liar]

By logic in your first argument, if the people voted to 'mandate' government to euthanize all people over age 30 and limit the number of children you could have to one, then you would have to acquiese to the rule of the majority?

Yes.

Fortunately that kind of extreme ideas does seldom spawn from a free democracy. It can, of course. But democracy is the majority rules. If you have a better form of society up your sleeve, please let me know.

Secondly, the practical matters should also apply to overweight people and women who binge on cokes and chocolate and big Mac's. (oh, gee, that is next)

That would actually be quite good for the general health situation in the western world. But you can't be dogmatic about all things. To strike down upon trans fatty acid like we strike down on heroin is just not practically doable.

BTW: Are women who binge cokes and chocolate and big Mac's different than the men who does the same?

#L

 

[Pure]

Yes, pretty much all. Odd to find myself agreeing, amicus. Am I the only one???


I don't have a prob with cocaine, heroin, etc. Also the Morning After Pill, and RU 486.

I have a slight problem with cyanide, and perhaps a problem with antibiotics, in that *maybe* the public would be a irresponsible as the drs. and use them a lot till superbugs evolve.

There is a slight problem with low-margin-of-safety drugs, like some heart meds; i.e., one tab is fine, three will kill you.

I think pharmacists could keep some stuff *behind the counter" but basically available to adults (but no ricin for al qaeda members) upon request.
---

The response to "liar" is that existing regulations--in an number of countries-- have not necessarily curbed 'substance abuse.'
Nor is there evidence tighter regulations would reduce it; alcoholics, for instance, could turn to 'bath tub gin.' There is some evidence that 'legalization' has no encouraging effect (i.e, atworst, is neutral, in impact), as for instance heroin, in Britain.

IOW, there is no evidence to back up any of liar's claims--which are very commonly made, i.e., by the DEA-- but never backed up.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Question number one:

By what right does Government restrict, regulate and ban what substances people use?

Second Question: Do you agree that Government should regulate/forbid some substances? Why?

Please include Alcohol and Tobacco in your considerations.

I agree with Svenska, they do protect us from ourselves as well as from other's who may abuse them.
As much as we would like to say, let's make it all legal,no one to regulate, then you get into competitive pricing and all that monkey barrel of nonsense.

We need some restrictions, there are too many powerful narcotics out there as is, and alcohol may also end up being abused.

Tobacco is a tough call, but I guess it should also fall into said catagories.

I just wish the cost of medications wasn't so damn high!!!

Do you know something we don't know yet ,amicus?

 

[Liar]

Pure, you have great faith in the sensibility of people.

Should anyone be allowed to use any kinds of substances? Would you draw some kind of line? Drug addictions have consequences that goes beyond the individial.

Sould a pregnant woman be allowed to shoot heroin? No? But she's an adult who have the right to decise for herself, no?

Ok, so she carries a child. And that may damage it''s health. Fine, no smack for the preggo.

How about family fathers? If they fall into addiction (not many who use hard drugs don't) they will most likely mess up the family in the process. (i can feed you case after case of this) Alcoholic parents are a bad enough problem.

I stick to my original post. Abuse drugs and you abuse those close to you. Point blank.

#L

 

[kinky shy girl]

But, if you have family and friends nearby, drug abuse will hurt them too, and society have the right to intervene when you hurt others. If you live with people who care about you close by, you are not just abusing booze, drugs or medicine -- you are abusing those people.

Yep, I agree. I once believed that most drugs should be legalized and taxed. However, I've seen too many fuckhead parents choose the power of the next hit over the welfare of their kids. If given the subject of legalization were offered on a ballot, I would vote no. I don't offer any stats or evidence to back this up; it's just my opinion.

In the same breath, I do believe that social issues such as legalization should be decided at the state, not federal, level. But that's a different issue.

 

[Pure]

Liar said,

//Abuse drugs and you abuse those close to you.//

So what? Your point holds for knives and bicycles and two bit hoes.

What's missing is any proof/evidence at all the gov regulation will improve the picture.

It's a tremendous leap of logic--indeed a fallacy--to move from "X is bad" to "The government ought to pass laws restricting X; and this will help the situation."

Liar said,
//Pure, you have great faith in the sensibility of people//

No, not at all. I have great confidence in two principles: that people will try VERY hard to get certain drugs, esp. mind altering; that other people, for hard cash, will help them out. OH, and lastly, that the gov. regs will raise profits of the suppliers, and hence give them more billions to corrupt the enforcers.

 

[kinky shy girl]

gov. regs will raise profits of the suppliers, and hence give them more billions to corrupt the enforcers.

Good point. The "war on drugs" does little more than burden the prison system w/ users. Still i would worry about irresponsible people being able to get mind-altering drugs over the counter.

 

[amicus]

At this point, a couple of hours after the post, of the 80 who have clicked on the article, 7 have voted, 1 Yes, 6 No...

Interesting...

amicus

 

[Liar]

Liar said,

//Abuse drugs and you abuse those close to you.//

So what? Your point holds for knives and bicycles and two bit hoes.

Sorry, but that's such a tired old argument.

Knives and bicycles and two bit hoes are as far as I know far less likely to cause the chemical and psychopharma addiction than mind altering drugs do.

But basically, you should not put knives in the hands of people who are prone to misuse them (as in sticking them into other people). That's why you don't let violent mental patients run around with scissors.

And hard drugs is something that a vast number of people would misuse. Normal, sensible people, who have no problem handling bikes, hoes, knives and even guns. I daresay most people would not be able to control it.

What's missing is any proof/evidence at all the gov regulation will improve the picture.

That is subject of debate. I can find statistics to prove that restrictive narcotic politics works, and you can most probably find statistics that says the opposite.

Also, I could say the same thing about letting narcotics free. There's no evidence that that would improve anything. I believe there is a substantial risk that that could make the situation gravely worse though.

No proof, just qualified guesses. But niether have anyone else.

#L

 

[Just-Legal]

*sighs*

So, we're looking at the problem and not the cause then?

Most addictions are the visible manifestation of a deeper problem, be it depression, stress, or in some cases, boredom.

Say the drugs were legalised on prescription. You had to see your doc to get them, which means you'd have to tell him *why* you needed them.

Hell, maybe eventually you'd get to the root of the problem, I don't know, I'm tired and rambling now.

 

[Tome Reader]

Legalize marijuana! (In the United States, that is.)

Once it's made legal the crop can be regulated and taxed. Federal deficit? What Federal deficit?!

 

[amicus]

Just-legal

It would appear to me that the goal of a person, from childhood on, should be to one day, be in complete control of ones self.

That means having the freedom to choose from all choices and to enjoy or suffer the consequences of those choices.


amicus

 

[Guest]

OK, I have a simple solution to this. We legalize it all.

But with conditions. Just like anything else.

The use of any drugs shall not be permitted in public.

Operating a motor vehicle under the influence of any of these drugs (including alcohol) shall not be permitted. Punishable by a minimum of 3 years of detention in a maximum security facility. And ALL driving priveledges shall be revoked.

Causing a motor vehicle accident while under the influence of said substances will be penalised by forfieture of all monetary and physical possesions in an equal amount to the damages to the victims properties. ALL driving privledges shall be revoked.

Causing serious physical injury to any persons while under the influence of said substances shall be punishible by forfieture of ALL monetary and physical possesions. All driving priveledges shall be revoked.

Causing mortal injuries to any person while under the influence of said substances shall be punishable by death.

That sounds reasonable and responsible to me.

How reasonable and responsible are you?

Or did you just want to party your stupid ass off 'til someone gets killed and say, "Oh, well. Shit happens."

 

[amicus]

dranoel...

I think you were not serious in your last post, however, mankind since the time of the 10 commandments has had penalties and punishments for those who violate the rules of the tribe.

It is my fervent hope that someday mankind will rid itself of tribal law, the rule of kings and gods and set forth on a rational path toward adjudicating the wrongs that men do.

Some wise old bearded guy once said something like, "it is not the temptations that confront us that determine our value, it is how we deal with those temptations...only through choice can value be judged, and the choices must be without restriction."

amicus

 

[Guest]

I was absolutely serious.

 

[gauchecritic]

There is some evidence that 'legalization' has no encouraging effect (i.e, atworst, is neutral, in impact), as for instance heroin, in Britain.

Erm no. I mean NO. Maybe declassification (which I seriously doubt) but legal? Where do you get your information?

As far as I'm aware (please correct me if I'm wrong Svenska) but even the most lenient Western Societies do not condone Heroin use even when Hash or whatever is openly available in 'cafes'.

Once again I blame a self-neglecting, capitalist, Oligarchy fallen into irremediable decadence which tolerates and effectively encourages criminal (as defined by society) activity, the price of which is, and always will be, paid by the underprivelaged working classes. Some of these prices being: alchoholism, substance abuse, gang warfare, proliferation, war, pestilence, famine and death.

One of the major defining players in this imminent destruction being exemplified by Rupert Murdoch and his ilk.

Here's a good point to argue over, the right hand of society, as an 'organism', should never be allowed to know what the left hand is doing.

If it wants to find out, then that's fine, but dissemination is not a necessary adjunct of modern times.

Pushing the envelope and expanding boundaries in a great many facets of everyday life (art, sport, entertainment) will simply give the fast buck merchants an open door.

This all ties together under the banner of anti-capitalism and more seriously anti-globalism (for any given definition of global) which every day, threatens my safety and the safety of the society into which I was born.

Final piece of cynicism: We didn't start the fire, it was always burning since the world was turning. So you can't blame me or Billy Joel.

Gauche

 

[EmeraldKitten]

I don't think it should all be OTC.
In fact, in my opinion, they shouldnt give out what they do so freely. (prescription painkillers: oxy, vikes, percs, etc.)
I'm not saying take it off the market completely, because there are people who need those kind of drugs, but thers a line between being a chronic pain patient and being a drug addicted schemer.
As far as the drugs that arent prescribed, Heroin, Cocaine, etc., they should be illegal. (I can't say if I think its the governments right to say so, but who else is going to?)
OTC is not a fantastic idea for that stuff. It's already easy enough to get.

I'm rambling, and I hope I made even a smidge of sense.

~Kitten

P.S. I might sound opinionated and mouthy, but I'm the daughter of a Heroin addict.
It's not a nice way to live. On either side.
And if it were avaliable OTC, my dad would be dead by now.

 

[Liar]

I was absolutely serious.

If you add a few more clauses dealing with the dangerous and destructive effects of drug addiction as opposed to drug influence, and I will take your post serious.

What you do when you're high is most of the time quite benign. What you can do when you're desperate to get high is a different turkey.

#L