All drugs should be legal

[Granth]

Yes. Legalise all drugs. We should open up the whole market.

[Stormcloud]

oooooooooooooh, looks like I'm too late! Is there anybody out there? yoohoo, ahoy there, is there anyone out there?

[Belinda]

The reasons that tobacco and alcohol are not illegal are that big industries now force the politicians, and that the government gets a lot of revenue from tobacco and alcohol. Tobacco and alcohol misuse is the effect of the power of big industries and their complexes.

[Pastabake]

Agreed.

I'd be interested in knowing what the health effects of these new e-cigarettes is. I suspect that the vast majority of the downside of tobacco smoking is eradicated by volatilisation.

[Londoner]

Make them legal, provide the information so that people can make educated decisions, and let it be, if they break a law that deals with violence or theft, then by all means, punish them.

Isn't the argument that you can't provide the information so that people can make educated decisions, because the drugs will take away your ability to make educated decisions?

We don't punish people we consider to have mental problems (for whatever reason), but we do take action to prevent them harming others. I would suggest that we think it is legitimate to control drugs for the same reason; it is to prevent the harm that comes to society as a result of mental instability.

[Granth]

(Nested quote removed.)


Isn't the argument that you can't provide the information so that people can make educated decisions, because the drugs will take away your ability to make educated decisions?

We don't punish people we consider to have mental problems (for whatever reason), but we do take action to prevent them harming others. I would suggest that we think it is legitimate to control drugs for the same reason; it is to prevent the harm that comes to society as a result of mental instability.

Legalising doesn't necessarily mean no controls. In fact, legalising could probably establish better controls. Controls of advertising, preventing the glamorisation of alcohol drugs through easily accessible (to young folk) public media, and controls via intelligent education as apposed to unintelligent scare mongering.

[Pastabake]

Isn't the argument that you can't provide the information so that people can make educated decisions, because the drugs will take away your ability to make educated decisions?

Is it the drugs that take away the ability of athletes to make educated decisions ... or is it the need to succeed?

Perhaps it is just as true to say that working from false assumptions also takes away the ability to make educated decisions.

[Londoner]

Granth

Legalising doesn't necessarily mean no controls.

I suppose it depends what we understand by legalising; alcohol isn't quite legal in the sense that there are no legal prohibitions on it.

I wasn't arguing for any particular legal framework; I was questioning posts that seemed to suggest that there was no reason to control access to drugs at all, since using them was a purely personal matter on which an individual could make up their own mind.

As Pastabake points out, even the libertarians haven't quite decided what they think. I think the bottom line is; Do we think anyone could make a rational choice to become a drug addict?

All the stuff about potential users being better informed and then free to choose only makes sense if we were really neutral about that choice. If what we really believe is 'You can choose, but if you say 'yes' then you must be in some way unbalanced', then I think it is hard to say why we shouldn't act on our belief and intervene.

[Granth]

(Nested quote removed.)


I suppose it depends what we understand by legalising; alcohol isn't quite legal in the sense that there are no legal prohibitions on it.

I wasn't arguing for any particular legal framework; I was questioning posts that seemed to suggest that there was no reason to control access to drugs at all, since using them was a purely personal matter on which an individual could make up their own mind.

As Pastabake points out, even the libertarians haven't quite decided what they think. I think the bottom line is; Do we think anyone could make a rational choice to become a drug addict?

All the stuff about potential users being better informed and then free to choose only makes sense if we were really neutral about that choice. If what we really believe is 'You can choose, but if you say 'yes' then you must be in some way unbalanced', then I think it is hard to say why we shouldn't act on our belief and intervene.

"Legal" (however that may be or become defined, thinking of Colorado from 2014) access to drugs and drug addictions (however addiction is defined, because there is always a scale to this) can be quite different things. So this "rational choice" thing is not necessarily the bottom line. It seems to be your bottom line, however.

And you haven't defined "intervention" in that last post of yours.

Pastabake made a well reasoned point for you to address, by the way.

[Stormcloud]

Is anyone aware of the marvelous personal transformations and catharsis that resulted from Narcotherapy or, the controlled use of drugs such as LSD and Psilocibyn, administered under the control and guidance of experts in that field? I was shattered when I saw governments clamp down and heavily restrict their use due to morons "tripping out" and scaring the crap out of society. As a lover of Transpersonal Psychology and Human Development I saw first hand the tranformation in "patients" and others who were to break lifelong shackles that were/are near impossible to break any other way other than through these tiny nature miracles that take one directly to the source of their misery (apart from those that choose to resist). Hundreds of thousands of people worldwide shared an expansion of consciousness that laid the platform for where many of us are today. To be able to access the depths of the unconscious so swiftly and come face to face with ones raw being and then soar into Cosmic Consciousness is a Pearl deserving of all. If one is going to benefit from drugs then it has to be controlled and administered by those who know what they are doing. I had young neighbours who seemed to go 'off the planet' most weekends (rave?) which seems so common whereas we back in the 60s would share music, affection and explore Eastern thought and some philosophy along with all our hang ups. By the way, so glad there is someone....out there

[Granth]

Is anyone aware of the marvelous personal transformations and catharsis that resulted from Narcotherapy or, the controlled use of drugs such as LSD and Psilocibyn, administered under the control and guidance of experts in that field? I was shattered when I saw governments clamp down and heavily restrict their use due to morons "tripping out" and scaring the crap out of society. As a lover of Transpersonal Psychology and Human Development I saw first hand the tranformation in "patients" and others who were to break lifelong shackles that were/are near impossible to break any other way other than through these tiny nature miracles that take one directly to the source of their misery (apart from those that choose to resist). Hundreds of thousands of people worldwide shared an expansion of consciousness that laid the platform for where many of us are today. To be able to access the depths of the unconscious so swiftly and come face to face with ones raw being and then soar into Cosmic Consciousness is a Pearl deserving of all. If one is going to benefit from drugs then it has to be controlled and administered by those who know what they are doing. I had young neighbours who seemed to go 'off the planet' most weekends (rave?) which seems so common whereas we back in the 60s would share music, affection and explore Eastern thought and some philosophy along with all our hang ups. By the way, so glad there is someone....out there

Yeah, its good sh!t.

[Stormcloud]

Hello across the Tasman! Is that all you can say?

[Granth]

Hello across the Tasman! Is that all you can say?

Its agreeable. There is nothing to question about it. I am not so economic with words about things I question. If I am not entertaining myself with questioning then I am just entertaining myself with any other entertainments that I find equally distracting. Currently, It is about getting through all the breaking bad episodes available.

[Londoner]

"Legal" (however that may be or become defined, thinking of Colorado from 2014) access to drugs and drug addictions (however addiction is defined, because there is always a scale to this) can be quite different things. So this "rational choice" thing is not necessarily the bottom line. It seems to be your bottom line, however.

And you haven't defined "intervention" in that last post of yours.

Pastabake made a well reasoned point for you to address, by the way.

I think the 'rational choice' thing underlies the argument that the reason we should restrict drug use is because it is a medical problem. We are preventing people from harming themselves while the balance of their minds is disturbed. It is a response to the libertarian argument that taking drugs should be a free choice.

If we think we should intervene for this reason, then how we should intervene seems to me to be a pragmatic matter that isn't relevant to the broader question of whether we should intervene at all.

Similarly, re Pastabake, I don't see trying to fix the underlying reason why somebody should choose to take drugs is important, except perhaps to find an appropriate psychological treatment for drug takers; we would argue that whatever they think the reason was, that choice was clearly irrational.

Once again, I introduce this because the discussion is often framed around whether legislation would reduce the harm caused from taking drugs, or an illegal drugs trade. But let's suppose drugs were made legal; I think that the public would look at the state some drug addicts get into and feel that they had a moral duty to help them. After all, that is why the drug laws were introduced in the first place.

It isn't a conclusive argument. We could respond that we don't agree that it is irrational to take drugs. Or that we have no right to ever interfere with another persons liberty, not even to save them from self-harm. But I think it is a strong enough point to require some response!

[Pastabake]

We are preventing people from harming themselves while the balance of their minds is disturbed

Do you feel the same way about people that drink alcohol? Are their minds disturbed before or after they take the drug? Is what you are really saying that no one can take any drug without the balance of their minds being disturbed? If not then you don't have a case if yes then you need to think about the full implications of what you are saying.

I think the 'rational choice' thing underlies the argument that the reason we should restrict drug use is because it is a medical problem.

How exactly is it a medical problem? You're making a huge assumption that quite frankly cannot be justified.

I have no problem with the idea of helping people that have addictions and I'm not averse to accepting that addiction itself is a mental health issue ... but as it's clear that not everyone that takes a drug is an addict and not all addicts are drug addicts I'm at a loss to knowing when I should intervene. Should all gambling be banned because some people become addicts? Likewise I've been thinking that people that work more than 40hrs a week are in need of medical care because this is also clearly an addiction. Do we give addictions that are self harming but socially or economically beneficial a pass?

I think that the public would look at the state some drug addicts get into and feel that they had a moral duty to help them. After all, that is why the drug laws were introduced in the first place.

Well history would prove you wrong. I point here to the Gin problem in the 1700's the resolution of which had nothing to do with saving the wretches but economic necessity. The 1928 UK law banning cannabis was not the result of careful rational thinking but of misinformation, fear and racism. So no, it had nothing to do with moral duty or helping those supposedly harmed by smoking cannabis.