Do You Support Drug Legalisation?

I ask this because my views have changed quiet drastically since T stepped into my life. I see drug abuse as an awful thing which effects not only the user but their families and society as a whole.

However, I do now think under proper medical guidance, drugs should be legalised for medicinal purposes. I think this would ensure the drugs are 'pure' (you don't know what you're putting into your body off the street) and that if it becomes habit-forming, medical practitioners will be aware. If we can get a prescription for Xanax (highly addictive) it stands to reason that we should be able to get a prescription for other drugs.

I don't believe currently-illegal drugs should be given the same status as alcohol (walk in and buy it freely) but I do think a doctor should be able to prescribe almost any drug in a dose that is discussed by doctor and patient.

 

The one thing I firmly believe with these drugs is that there are untold medical advances waiting to be discovered by scientists (or maybe they already have?), but backwards and archaic laws are preventing them from completing this research, which is ironic since pain management in hospitals derives their drugs from opiates for example. I think the tide is turning though. It's been shown that marijuana has some medicinal value (though it is a wee bit overblown by the pro-legalization crowd). And heck, here I am just reading a few days ago that the key to curing tinnitus *might* be in MDMA.

 

Until i reached my twenties i used to think (illicit) drugs were for shmugs however it's been 15 years that i believe they should be legalized and studied, having moved 9 years ago in the worst part of the world to do drugs i see this issue being a more pressing matter than ever, lengthy prison time even for consumption(i don't do any drugs other than caffeine, sugar and alcohol btw) .

 

I think the drugs that are illegal in the US should stay illegal including marijuana. Xanax and other benzos seemed to have caused more problems. They were only approved for short term use and I don't think the side effects of withdrawal were taken seriously enough when they were approved.

The drugs that are illegal are already well known on what symptoms they cause so there's not much point in studying them. If curing tinnitus might be from taking MDMA we would've heard about it by now.

Marijuana has no medicinal value, causes lots of negative mental symptoms, and people have died from smoking marijuana. It's also strongly believed to cause lung cancer but there aren't large scale studies proving or disproving it. It contains tar and has many carcinogens just like tobacco does plus there's usually no filter.

You can't have proper medical guidance for drugs such as heroin or cocaine. Once someone is hooked they are going to suffer unless they have a certain amount of the drug. If they are given that certain amount of the drug they need then the problem will only get worse.

 

Ignorant... Skip to 5:25

Ex-Cop Larry Smith Treats Parkinson’s...

 

Anecdotes aren't too useful in determining whether or not something works. Several clinical studies on it has not shown that it directly benefits people with Parkinson's. The video is short because as we all know Marijuana increases dopamine levels but not for that long. Once the "high" wears out the dopamine levels start to drop and guess what happens to the guy in the video? So the video you just posted is deceiving because it doesn't show him 2 hours later in an even worse condition.

http://newsroom.cumc.columbia.edu/blog/2016/04/19/heavy-cannabis-use-affects-dopamine-release-seen-in-drug-addiction/

Not only that but smoking lots of marijuana long term damages the brain causing lower dopamine release not to mention less IQ, memory, attention, possible onset of schizophrenia, etc...

You basically just showed me a video of Parkinson's getting worse because the guy took marijuana. If he took medications already out there such as Levodopa he would be much better off than taking marijuana.

 

That's simply a lie.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24614667

 

I am not sure how much sense that makes , the guy is fighting for his life , not playing around.
I am pretty confident he has tried what he can and will treat his illness with what he feels works for him.

 

That is also not true. You know that opiates are very widely used all around the world, right?

 

Twenty-two patients with PD attending the motor disorder clinic of a tertiary medical center in 2011 to 2012 were evaluated at baseline and 30 minutes after smoking cannabis using the following battery​

The link provided doesn't prove anything. It wasn't a double-blind study, no control group, the sample size was small, and it gave a survey 30 minutes after smoking cannabis. I would expect Parkinson's to improve temporarily because of the short lived impact on dopamine so if that questionnaire was given 2 hours later instead of 30 minutes later it would've been a completely different story. Also the study wouldn't be able to tell if you cannabis is better than what's out there or if it makes Parkinson's worse over the long term due to how cannabis damages the brain.

It's not good to assume things. For all we know that guy was contacted for the video and told to go off his medication to try and show that marijuana treats Parkinson's. The video likely shows him at his best for the "after" but doesn't show how bad the rest of his day was due to marijuana's long term impact on dopamine.

Yes and it needs to stop. Too many people are addicted to prescription painkillers. It's been called an epidemic. Also in the video I would attribute lower drug rates in Portugal with treatment programs to get people off drugs instead of sending them to prison without treatment. I think it's better if drugs are illegal but also make treatment available to both prisoners and the general public. Marijuana was made legal in a couple of US states and usage has increased.

http://www.asam.org/docs/default-source/advocacy/opioid-addiction-disease-facts-figures.pdf

It is estimated that 23% of individuals who use heroin develop opioid addiction.
Four in five new heroin users started out misusing prescription painkillers.​

 

Sometimes assuming things is all you can do .
I just find it hard to believe that someone that suffers from a condition like this would deceive fellow sufferers ?

 

Jesus. I hope you're just confusing terms and names and you don't actually mean it.

Have you seen the video I posted?

 

Cocaine is bad for you. It destroys your nose and insides.

 

You should be free to do anything you want with your body. Of course, this will work only if there is no socialized medicine (you should not be free to get others to pay for your mistakes). So when a society has welfare programs or socialized medicine, drugs ought to be illegal.

 

I think opiate addiction is a huge problem (though I think opiates for acute, not chronic, pain is OK like if you've suffered a gunshot wound or something). However, the whole medical marijuana thing is just a huge distraction. I don't doubt that it can make people feel better, but it only lasts as long as you are "high." I'd rather see the research money go towards permanent cures. I think many, perhaps most, of the pro-legalization crowd simply needs to admit that they just like getting high instead of masking with with the whole "medical" thing.

 

L

Does this include not paying for those who caused their own T through careless exposure.

Where does this slope plateau.

Medical marajuana is something that mayhelp certain people. The high can be greatly removed and it doesn't have to be smoked.

If they need to outlaw anything start with alcohol. And we all know that turned out in the US.

 

Of course. And note how under such a system more people will think twice before doing something careless (resulting in fewer people getting T). You will get more people caring about doctor recommendations, as the incentive to do so would be higher. And when you won't have to be forced to pay for other people's mistakes, your ability to afford to make your own mistakes will be higher.

When an illness is a result of something (e.g., an accident) that couldn't have easily been foreseen.

 

O

And who gets to decide who committed such sins and who is worthy of treatment. Lots of people go to concerts and don't get T. Some will get it from a job while coworkers are fine. So then perhaps something genetic. Which in that case why make the rest pay for the weak.

And as a parent of a person with disabilities I've heard all the arguments made about this stuff. I don't think the root is ever really economic.

 

Clearly in those cases the person is not at fault.

When the cause is genetic, it is only fair for socialized medicine to cover it. (You don't want a policy that provides incentives to do reckless things, and this is not the case here.)

I am talking about things like going to a gun range and not wearing ear protection.

I am sorry to hear that your son or daughter is disabled.

What do you mean by "the root"? The root of what? People tend to respond to incentives...

 

Economic reasons are used as an excuse for wanting to deny coverage but in the big picture it often costs more to not offer simple medical care. People then either can not support themselves or learn skills that could benefit them. Ultimately society is paying anyway.

Until the past few years conditions like autism were often completely not covered by insurance in the US. Programs were available but like many families we couldn't access them. In part of the fight for that there were always comments about personal responsibility (ie no one told you to have these kids) or about "society" but in reality programs were already known to greatly improve abilities. So the thinking started to change. By the time that happened though they were mostly focusing on little kids so not helpful often to those who pushed for this.

And even trying to determine who caused what would be an administrative nightmare because of degrees of responsibility. That is why I tasked where does it stop because what is clear to one person isn't to another.

 

Above, you used economic reasoning. If a study can verify the statement above, then indeed simple medical care ought to be offered.

I can't imagine that argument being used when it comes to parents of autistic children. Fetal alcohol syndrome would be another matter.

The above makes sense. But some cases are clear (e.g., fetal alcohol syndrome, etc.), and hopefully the reasoning above won't be used to defend those cases.

 

I think the social harm of putting people in jail for petty drug use outweighs the harm of the drug use itself.

Addiction clumps in areas where people are hopeless: limited education, limited options, the perception that there is no way out. I believe that resources would be better spent trying to address those problems first and foremost, than on punitive measures which pretty clearly don't work.

I am sure that even if all social ills could be corrected, there would be some small percentage of the population who preferred life on heroin to life off of it, but I think that could be compassionately supported without society coming to a screaming halt.

It is certainly true that some drugs lend themselves to exacerbating violent behavior - but, alcohol is one of the worst offenders in this category, and it's legal. I'm not advocating that drugs like heroin and meth be as available as alcohol, but if they could be provided in a safe and pure form, we would also have a much better set of data about who is using them, where and when.

If you left it up to me, I'd make pot and khat about as legal as alcohol is already, and then have a couple classifications of things that are legal but more closely watched and somewhat more difficult to obtain.

 

The jail times in current use are clearly not acting as a deterrent. One thing I would like to see tried is increasing the penalties. If the penalty is harsh enough, it would act as a deterrent and the authorities would seldom need to resort to using it. Historically, China had a huge drug problem that they were able to resolve within a very short period of time by introducing harsh penalties. And yes, if there is no will to have harsh penalties that actually act as a deterrent, then might as well not have any penalties.

The above is a good description of China the day before their government decided to end their drug problem.

 

Bill Bauer: Some arguments included anything related to modern society especially if it had a connection to preconceived notions (feminism, birth control use, abortion, even TV). The point is medicine has had a troubled history when it gets combined with what's best for society (in the extreme think eugenics). Society often doesn't understand medicine and politicians can blow dog whistles to get groups to act. That is why exclusion of care can be such a dangerous thing.

Im battling a headache today (which is why I'm not quoting) and so I'll just say I'm not advocating a drug free for all but old notionsand prejudices can block advancement. Money is not necessarily the bottom line reason. Just look at how much the WOD has cost.

 

Weed yes, should be legal same as alcohol

 

this is a misconception.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/25/...llegal-drugs-in-china-continues-unabated.html

the other irony is that many of the drugs that plague us, are manufactured there. The fentanyl epidemic? Yup, all those fentanyl analogs are being synthed in chinese labs.

If people should be incarcerated for using drugs on the grounds that they're doing something voluntary which is adversely affecting their health, shouldn't we also be jailing people for eating red meat? That's demonstrably a lot more physically harmful than a number of drugs which are presently schedule-I.

 

This is a good point. I don't want people using drugs, because it is my understanding that many of the drug users turn to crime to finance their habit (or ruin their career chances and go on social assistance). So if the penalties for crime are set high enough to achieve deterrence (and there are ways to stop the abuse of social assistance), then there would not be a reason for drugs to be illegal.

I was talking about opium addiction in 1930s and 1940s. It is my understanding that it was widespread and that at the same time it was ended quickly.

 

You dont smoke the marijuana- Ive tried Rick Smith oil it pure high CBD content. It works calms you down except its to expensive. Its really sad that an organic med such as Rick Smith oil cant be maintained because of cost. High CBD is an answer for some.

 

Clearly we see this issue very differently. I believe that the concept you're alluding to here is basically drug-war propaganda which has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. For one thing, I've known a good number of drug addicts from the middle and upper classes, and generally they don't "turn to crime" to finance their habits, because drugs in general are a lot cheaper than typical middle class pasttimes. Then, we have the double-edged sword of criminalization: yes, some people ruin their careers by getting busted, but this is because drugs are illegal. Likewise, people in impoverished circumstances who believe they are already criminals because of drug use, might run afoul of the law and then figure "well I've already got a record, may as well rob some cars".

We've got a lot of numbers from Portugul, 14 years after they decriminalized all drugs -- and drug use has actually decreased. This probably has more to do with the social outreach that's gone along with it: treating drug use as a criminal problem has failed. In the US, drugs are widely available inside prisons! Treating people compassionately and treating it as a social problem appears to be more likely to reduce drug use and associated social issues.

https://mic.com/articles/110344/14-...-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening#.q9XtvQHjp

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-happened-when-portugal-decriminalized-all-drugs-2016-3

Meanwhile, the US has invested a ton of money into extremely harsh punitive measures since the late 60s, and yet our drug use is at an all time high.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/annabelle-buggle/after-40year-fight-illici_b_3623714.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/chart-says-war-drugs-isnt-working/322592/

You say that we haven't tried "harsh enough" measures, yet lots of people have gone to jail for decades for possession of tiny amounts of drugs.

I believe this is Maoist propaganda. Yes, they executed an absolute boatload of drug users, so that certainly caused a short-term blip in the number of drug users... but it wasn't sustained. China has raging, epidemic level drug problems, the same as the rest of the industrialized world. If the effect of a program of mass-execution couldn't even be sustained for 50 years, I think that's pretty resounding evidence that harsh punitive measures don't work.

 

What about people getting addicted to the point that they are unemployable? Are you saying that drugs are so cheap that everyone can afford to shoot up and maintain a "high" 24/7?

Makes sense...

Including drugs like heroin and cocaine? If there are examples out there of drugs being legalized without any problems, then it is a shame that the government won't act accordingly (legalize drugs). One can't argue with actual data. This would be another example of why one should think twice before trusting the government.

I am as anti-communist as they come. I had the misfortune of being born in a socialist country (that my family left 30 years ago). My uneducated guess is that Mao was able to curtail the problem and that once the punishments aligned with the rest of the world, the drug problem became similar to that in the rest of the world.