Are drugs REALLY a problem?

[e21Mark]

Dragoncaviar said:

e21Mark said:

No, not really. It bring it's own problems and there are plenty of alcoholics, but there are also plenty of people who don't drink to excess. I'm not sure why there appears to be a slight difference, but I guess the consequences are equally potentially devastating. Not forgetting it's the example people usually opt for when trying to justify other drugs.

Why do you suppose the same is not true of other drugs? There are plenty of people that don't smoke cannabis to excess. Plenty of people that don't use MDMA to excess. I know almost no people that use psychedelics to the point of excess. In fact, the overwhelming majority of drug users are not problematic users. At the core of it, why should the majority be punished for the actions of a truly tiny minority?

e21Mark said:

I witness the devastation of illicit drug use every day. I see the kids who go without food because their parents spend every last penny on their drug of choice. Maybe there are some 'functioning addicts' but they don't come through our doors. Yes, these people made some bad choices and are certainly responsible for the consequences of their actions, but their addiction is something we all pay for. The last thing these people need is for more drugs to be more easily accessible. We have a responsibility to care for our most vulnerable and like it or not, addicts qualify. They're human after all. I don't have an answer but I agree that a little compassion and empathy would be a good place to start. Were these people my children, I would like to think there would be that cared enough to help.

This is a totally different issue though. Drug misuse will happen whether drugs are legal or not. Drug purity and thus safety would increase with a strictly regulated market. Taxation would be pumped into proper education so that people might decide for themselves whether they think drug use is bad or not, rather than having this notion that all drugs are bad, or "It's not illegal so it's safe" approach. When you educate people properly, pickup rates of use drop, just as they did when large, bold text and graphic images started coming onto packets of cigarettes. Taxation money would also be pumped healthcare for those addicted individuals, only under this system, instead of someone coming through the clinic doors to get their methadone script which they will take home and sell because it's worth more as a pharmaceutically pure drug on the black market than street heroin is, well this time they'll get the drug they want in a pharmaceutically pure form which won't do their body any damage at all. Then, perhaps, we could focus on dealing with their inevitably associated mental health issues and address the issue of their addiction - when it isn't slowly killing them.

And let's be clear here, pharmaceutically pure diacetlymorphine, when administered at the correct dosage is one of the few drugs which does no harm to the body. Yes, it's highly physically addictive, and yes it causes pretty horrific constipation, but beyond that, provided the dosage isn't too high for the individual, it doesn't harm the body. The principle harms come from the fact that IV users are shooting 80% contaminants straight into their systems.

The global harms from the 'war on drugs' go far beyond the lives of the people you see on a day to day basis as well. If you're arguing this from a compassion point of view, then what about the 120,000 dead and 27,000 missing since 2006 in Mexico as a direct result of cartel violence? That war only stepped up when military intervention and an increased focus on prohibition came in. Globally, the war on drugs is ravaging countries that are just trying to survive. Mexico does not have a significant drug problem. They have a drug war problem. The USA is the one with the drug lust fuelling Mexico's drug trade and in a painful twist of irony they also happen to have some of the worlds most punitive measures against drugs.

It's just painfully obvious that the system we're trying isn't working. Since the 1970's, the global war on drugs has cost over $1tn and resulted in 45 million arrests. During that time illegal drug use has remained unchanged. I know we can't fix the system overnight, but more people need to be willing to acknowledge a "drug free world" is not a reality we're ever going to see. The sooner we come to terms with that, the sooner we can start accepting drug use as a normal side effect of an imperfect society, and start helping those people affected.

The fact is the majority of people don't use recreational drugs. I know users like to think they do and attempt to normalise their drug use to some extent, but regular drug users are thankfully a minority. I'll concede that you could add drinkers to bring the figure up.

The notion of legalising all drugs, shooting galleries for Opiate users, the harmless pure Heroin option without consequences that all contribute to the drug users utopia? When would they use their Heroin? After a productive days work, after they've driven home and their drugged state wouldn't impact on those around them? Why would they ever stop using if there is no harm being done to themselves? Why should mainstream society have to accommodate the drug use of the minority?

[Dragoncaviar]

e21Mark said:

Why should mainstream society have to accommodate the drug use of the minority?

lol really? Just twist it 180 degrees and throw it right back?

It's just not though. A cessation of prohibition would NOT be society accommodating the drug use of the minority, but rather not seeking to actively persecute those people with addiction problems.

[e21Mark]

Dragoncaviar said:

e21Mark said:

Why should mainstream society have to accommodate the drug use of the minority?

lol really? Just twist it 180 degrees and throw it right back?

It's just not though. A cessation of prohibition would NOT be society accommodating the drug use of the minority, but rather not seeking to actively persecute those people with addiction problems.

How do you see this persecution manifesting itself? In the prosecution of addicts who commit crime to feed their habits, or by virtue of criminal convictions for possession of their drugs? As it stands drug users have to seek out help for their problem. More usually motivated by the consequences of their using. Remove those consequences and what motive is there to stop using? I see the devastation of using prolonged with Methadone scripts, let alone Heroin.

I understand your desire to legalise drugs. Were I an addict or habitual user maybe I would feel the same? I would most certainly seek to minimise and justify my drug use. Maybe even seek to normalise it and portray it as my having a deeper insight and understanding than those who don't use, as I seek to self medicate? I hear denial, justification and minimisation every day. I also see the fallout from using and the devastation done to families of addicts.

Would it not be enough to simply decriminalise drug use instead?

Why do you feel life is better with drugs than without?

Edited to add - I am away for a few days now but wish you all well, whatever your choices. In truth I think a full and happy life can be had without the use for any illicit drug or alcohol for that matter. Whilst I appreciate we can pull people and events from history, to support the use of one drug or another, personally I'll go with the corny 'choose life' option every time. I've seen where the other paths go and there's simply nothing there that I want, or want for those that I care about. Life is way too short as it is.

Edited by e21Mark on Friday 4th July 04:30

[FredClogs]

Dragoncaviar said:

lol really? Just twist it 180 degrees and throw it right back?

It's just not though. A cessation of prohibition would NOT be society accommodating the drug use of the minority, but rather not seeking to actively persecute those people with addiction problems.

That's sort of contradicts what you've been saying about the vast majority of drug use being recreational not addictive and harmless.

No one in their right mind (but this is PH so stand by) would want to see addiction criminalised, whether it's drugs drink, porn or jelly babies - people with physical or compulsive addictions need help to recover, and help is there and the success rates are good. Likewise no one would suggest a burglar go unpunished because he was feeding a smack addiction.

Prohibition or no prohibition the goal should be to help addicts get their lives back, I don't really think there's much debate about that.

The debate is whether the state should be condoning recreational drug use by decriminalisation, I'm not a puritan or claim to be some moral guardian - I think the role of the state is to make clear that taking drugs recreationally is a risky business for mental and physical health and the only real means they've got of making that point is by enforcing prohibition anything else is a confusing mixed message.

[vetrof]

FredClogs said:

taking drugs recreationally is a risky business for mental and physical health

For a tiny minority of people who recreationally use them. The overwhelming majority suffer no major negative effects. Is your life destroyed?

By your logic Fred motorcycling, skiing, peanuts, crossing the road, flying, gambling, swimming, sunbathing, etc should all be banned because a minority of people will come to harm participating.
I do agree with you though that education about the real effects of drugs is vital. Not the current one size fits all nonsense that 'drugs are bad because drugs are bad, see look at this guy he destroyed his life' line often repeated in these debates. For every person whose life is destroyed with drugs (being one of probably many contributing factors) there are millions who go about their business with their life enhanced by their experience.

Edited by vetrof on Wednesday 23 July 13:12

[Dragoncaviar]

e21Mark said:

How do you see this persecution manifesting itself? In the prosecution of addicts who commit crime to feed their habits, or by virtue of criminal convictions for possession of their drugs? As it stands drug users have to seek out help for their problem. More usually motivated by the consequences of their using. Remove those consequences and what motive is there to stop using? I see the devastation of using prolonged with Methadone scripts, let alone Heroin.

It's the social stigma which surrounds injecting users which is really problematic. It causes people to hide away in shame, not wanting to get help for fear of legal repercussions, it means stupid avoidable deaths happen when someone overdoses, because the rest of the group is too scared to call 999 for fear of legal consequences.

e21Mark said:

I understand your desire to legalise drugs. Were I an addict or habitual user maybe I would feel the same? I would most certainly seek to minimise and justify my drug use. Maybe even seek to normalise it and portray it as my having a deeper insight and understanding than those who don't use, as I seek to self medicate? I hear denial, justification and minimisation every day. I also see the fallout from using and the devastation done to families of addicts.

I am a casual, recreational user, sure. I'm addicted to tobacco, but that's it right now. However, I understand that if tobacco was an illegal substance, my addiction would be SO much worse. I'd have to hide it, I wouldn't be able to get nicotine gum or e-cigarettes or any of the slightly less damaging alternatives, I wouldn't be able to speak to a doctor about nicotine patches or the best methods to quit ... it would be so much worse.

It's really not just the likes of me calling for legalisation though. Latin American presidents, former heads of the UN, pretty much anyone that works in the field of HIV/Aids .. in fact, it's anyone and everyone that see's the TRUE extent of the harm the war on drugs is causing. Yes, you've seen some of the harms. You've seen how fked up individuals can throw their entire lives away sustaining addictions, but you still think we should leave the market in the hands of criminals and maintain a system of no regulation.

e21Mark said:

Would it not be enough to simply decriminalise drug use instead?

No. Because it leaves the market in the hands of criminals. It does nothing to stop the wider harms of prohibition. Yes, it takes away criminal persecution from the end user, but it doesn't help the 12 yr old Mexican children whose entire family have been slaughtered in cartel violence, nor does it address any of the cognitive liberty issues which this argument stems from either. It doesn't help the heroin addict that's still injecting heroin that's only 20% pure and slowly destroying his body. Just give him pharmaceutically pure heroin ffs, and at least then he won't be destroying his veins or polluting his body with unknown contaminants.

Drug policy should be based on evidence, not ideology.

e21Mark said:

Why do you feel life is better with drugs than without?

That sort of has nothing to do with the discussion, but I feel that drugs helped me grow and develop as a person. I feel that playing around with potentially dangerous substances taught me a respect for my body and mind that I otherwise wouldn't have had. I feel that educating myself about these substances and knowing what it was I was going to put into my body gave me a focus and a passion in life that I otherwise might not have had.

Those are my reasons though, and only mine, and don't in any way serve as justification for legalising drugs. That's just how I feel.

In fact, my feelings are summed up nicely in a letter an author wrote to a famous chemist called Alexander Shulgin who regrettably passed away recently. The letter went ...

"Is it any wonder that laws prohibiting the use of psychoactive drugs have been traditionally ignored? The monstrous ego (or stupidity!) of a person or group of persons, to believe that they or anyone else have the right, or the jurisdiction, to police the inside of my body, or my mind!

It is, in fact, so monstrous a wrong that, were it not so sad - indeed, tragic! - it might be humorous.

All societies must, it seems, have a structure of laws, of orderly rules and regulations. Only the most hard-core, fanatical anarchist would argue that point. But I, as a responsible, adult human being, will never concede the power, to anyone, to regulate my choice of what I put into my body, or where I go with my mind. From the skin inward is my jurisdiction, is it not? I choose what may or may not cross that border. Here I am the Customs Agent. I am the Coast Guard. I am the sole legal and spiritual Government of this territory, and only the laws I choose to enact within myself are applicable!!!

Now, were I to be guilty of invading or sabotaging that same territory in others, then the external law of the Nation has every right - indeed, the responsibility - to prosecute me in the agreed upon manner.

But what I think? Where I focus my awareness? What bio-chemical reactions I choose to cause within the territorial boundaries of my own skin are not subject to the beliefs, morals, laws or preferences of any other person!

I am a sovereign state, and I feel that my borders are far more sacred than the politically drawn boundaries of any country."

FredClogs said:

That's sort of contradicts what you've been saying about the vast majority of drug use being recreational not addictive and harmless.

How does acknowledging that problem drug users exist and we should do everything we can to help them undermine or contradict the very real fact that the vast majority of drug use is recreational, casual, and non problematic.

FredClogs said:

No one in their right mind (but this is PH so stand by) would want to see addiction criminalised, whether it's drugs drink, porn or jelly babies - people with physical or compulsive addictions need help to recover, and help is there and the success rates are good. Likewise no one would suggest a burglar go unpunished because he was feeding a smack addiction.

Prohibition or no prohibition the goal should be to help addicts get their lives back, I don't really think there's much debate about that.

The debate is whether the state should be condoning recreational drug use by decriminalisation, I'm not a puritan or claim to be some moral guardian - I think the role of the state is to make clear that taking drugs recreationally is a risky business for mental and physical health and the only real means they've got of making that point is by enforcing prohibition anything else is a confusing mixed message.

Yes. I agree with all of this. Where we disagree is in execution.

I totally support the idea that the state should make it clear that taking drugs, even recreationally, can be risky for mental and physical health. However, I also think that with that, the state should do everything they can to REDUCE the possible risks and harms that might come about. The only way to effectively reduce those risks is to control and regulate the market.

You twin that with a total overhaul of the farcical education system we have in place at the moment, you give people proper education which lets them know the TRUTH about drugs rather than simply lying to them, and you watch drug use fall of its own accord.

Half the trouble is, we go around telling children that drugs are bad and they'll ruin their lives, and then some kid smokes a joint, and realises that actually all those adults were talking total bullst that whole time. This creates a conflict in their heads, which leads them to question everything they've been told about the destructive nature of more dangerous substances.

You know something else ... I had absolutely NO desire to chew Khat until it became a scheduled substance. Funny that.

[Dragoncaviar]

I know I'm bumping an old topic, but I thought this TED talk from Ethan Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance was worth sharing.

http://www.ted.com/talks/ethan_nadelmann_why_we_ne...