Why not just legalize all drugs?

mf said:
One thing we need to clear up is when you say "pose the same or greater threat to health as smoking does" do you mean society in general or the user. Obviously smoking causes a greater threat to society, and I have been arguing that meth in particular causes a greater threat to the individual. If you honestly believe that smoking meth is better for someone than smoking cigarettes, I will show you in a little bit that you might be mistaken.
Click to expand...

Assuming just as many people used meth as smoked, would there be an equivalent death toll? That is what I would like to know. How many people who use meth, die as a result? How does that compare to smoking?
 
Satya said:
Assuming just as many people used meth as smoked, would there be an equivalent death toll? That is what I would like to know. How many people who use meth, die as a result? How does that compare to smoking?
Click to expand...
Alright, I'll get the data for that. I'm going to go under the assumption that both users of tobacco and meth start at the same age, and do not stop consumption or look for treatment.
 
Lifespan of meth user: This article says 5 years but cites no sources.
http://substanceabuse.lifetips.com/cat/63346/meth-and-amphetamines/index.html

However, a PDF from the Pennsylvania Department of Health says that the average addict will live 5-10 years.
PDF can be found in third link
http://www.google.com/search?q=life...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Lifespan of a smoker:
Medical News Today states that a 30 year old smoker can expect to live about 35 more years where as a non smoker can expect to live 53 more years.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/9703.php

Human lifespan:
The World Bank says in 2008 the average expected lifespan was around 78.5 years
http://www.google.com/search?q=aver...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

The two previous articles have conflicting data for life expectancy, however they are relatively close. 78-83 years. The Medical News states a non smoker can expect to live to 83, the world bank does not say if they are including smokers in their figure or not.

Side-effects of Meth use:
Cardiovascular stress-common
Overheating-common
Sleep deprivation (days on end)- common for user
Oxidative damage to organs- common for user
Tooth rot- common for user
Neurotoxicity- frequency may lead to behavioral changes
Heart attack
Stroke
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/amphetamines/amphetamines_health.shtml
(erowid)
...all sounds about similar to tobacco. However, according to the data meth users will die a good 20 years before a smoker.

Nicotine overdose is relatively impossible if administered by smoking
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/addiction/drugs/overdose.html
(Univeristy of Utah)

Overdose of methamphetamine is extremely low, around 50 milligrams for a new user. Body chemistry makes it hard to determine a "safe" does.
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/meth/meth_faq.shtml
(Erowid)

Meth overdose side-effects:
Dehydration, heart attack, stroke, kidney and other organ failures
http://www.montana.edu/wwwai/imsd/rezmeth/effmethod.htm


A smoker can expect to die a smoking related death (when at the age of 30) around the age of 65. A meth user can expect to die a meth related death within 10 years (assuming no overdose, which admittedly is unknown and presumably uncommon for an otherwise healthy individual). In the mean time, meth users are prone to withdrawal that ends in days of sleeping, depression, and psychotic reactions. Long term use can lead to amphetamine psychosis, which is similar to paranoid schizophrenia.
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/meth/meth_effects.shtml


Conclusion: Both will kill you, meth will kill you faster. Meth addiction is not a functional one for a majority of users, unlike tobacco.
 
Interesting data. You make a strong case that meth should not be legalized given its potential to lead to a catastrophic death toll if it were widely available and abused.

Of course, that brings up new questions. What constitues a "functional" addiction? How come an addiction that kills 435,000 people a year is considered "functional"? Are only short term health effects to be considered in the legality of a substance?
 
Satya said:
Interesting data. You make a strong case that meth should not be legalized given its potential to lead to a catastrophic death toll if it were widely available and abused.

Of course, that brings up new questions. What constitues a "functional" addiction? How come an addiction that kills 435,000 people a year is considered "functional"? Are only short term health effects to be considered in the legality of a substance?
Click to expand...
My personal definition of functional would be the ability to preform daily tasks while abusing. I'd say any regular consumption of tobacco is abuse. Also, withdrawal from tobacco is functional in the sense that people can carry on day-to-day activities, abet slightly hindered. Withdrawal from meth doesn't appear to allow that. I'd wager that the average death of a smoker comes in later stages of life, my definition being somewhere past the age of 50ish, but I don't know that for certain. Out of the 47 million or so tobacco users in the US, about 1% die each year. The death toll is high, but the user number is even higher. I wish I could find similar data on meth users.

I wouldn't go as far to say that short term health effects are the only thing to consider in legality, but I would say that meth is far more harmful and dangerous. Of course, by making it illegal we put people in danger because of cookers. It's all just a messed up situation. I can in no good concious argue though that because tobacco, a toxic substance to the continued user, is legal that meth should be legal as well.
 
yet of all hard drugs meth is the only not schedule I...
 
mf said:
Aren't opium and cocaine also schedule ii?
Click to expand...

I've been proven wrong i thought cocaine and raw opium were I... carry on
 
kavalan said:
I'm going to clarify as this irks me to no end crack and cocaine are the same damn thing... Stop being redundant...
Click to expand...

No, they are not the same thing. They have the same source (coca leaf), yes, but the chemistry, means of administration, and effects on the body and brain function are different.

Hence, the use of two different words to differentiate between two drugs.


cheers,
Ian
 
I would say the argument could get messier if you throw alcohol into the mix. Alcohol does have short terms consequences, in some cases, worse than those of meth. It can also lead to immediate death, not in the term of years, but in any situation of consumption. And the long term negative effects, brain damage, liver damage, etc. are also comparable to meth.

My point, is that illicit substances like cocaine, meth, LSD, etc.have been hyped a great deal. The research does not support a lot of the assumptions that even the health community makes because it is inconclusive and incomplete. I would say that alcohol and tobacco are on equal terms with so called "hard drugs". The only exception being heroine, which is pretty much the granddaddy of all drugs. All the arguments that apply to keeping hard drugs like cocaine and LSD illegal, apply just as much to alcohol and tobacco. Furthermore, substances like caffeine are more addictive than cannabis and are legal. To be logically consistent, all the drugs need to be made illegal or all of them need to be made legal. Our current situation is simply highly irrational.
 
aeon said:
No, they are not the same thing. They have the same source (coca leaf), yes, but the chemistry, means of administration, and effects on the body and brain function are different.

Hence, the use of two different words to differentiate between two drugs.


cheers,
Ian
Click to expand...

crack is an impure freebase form of cocaine, cocaine can be free base or the hydrochloride salt
 
Norton said:
Those who argue for legalizing drugs are often extremely naive about the reality, rot, and degradation of drug addiction.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but some who argue for legalization are quite familiar with those realities - some in the first person.


cheers,
Ian
 
Janet said:
I don't even know how addictive some of these things are. Like LSD, for example, how bad is that?
Click to expand...

LSD seems to have little addictive potential for most people.

Janet said:
I wonder: how many people have seen real, live, honest to God, hard core drug addiction and still argue to legalize most or all drugs?
Click to expand...

I have seen it, and I value legalization. I saw it first-hand.

Janet said:
Open question: If you had a spouse, parent, or loved one who died or whose life was ruined or profoundly harmed because of your or their drug addiction, do you still think most drugs should be legal?
Click to expand...

I did, and I do, yes.

Janet said:
Where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...

At Liberty.

Janet said:
Are addicts just going to happen, no matter what we do, and are we kidding ourselves that legalizing or illegalizing will even make a difference?
Click to expand...

Change of law will change things, but it won't mean an end to drug addiction.

That, it seems, is a given. To that end, I value the direction of resources to education and treatment, not punitive measures.


cheers,
Ian
 
kavalan said:
crack is an impure freebase form of cocaine, cocaine can be free base or the hydrochloride salt
Click to expand...

Hence the need for differentiating terms based on chemistry alone.

Then one can consider the history, politics, culture, neurochemistry, and so on. In these regards, the use of differentiating terms is quite helpful.

Using those differentiating terms in ignorance is not.


cheers,
Ian
 
DefectiveCreative said:
Personally I currently favour decriminalising drugs with low or no physical addictiveness (so that's stuff like cannabis, LSD, ecstasy, etc.) and making drugs with high physical addictiveness (heroin, cocaine, meth, etc.) freely available on prescription.
Click to expand...

I value this, very much so.


cheers,
Ian
 
Satya said:
I would say the argument could get messier if you throw alcohol into the mix. Alcohol does have short terms consequences, in some cases, worse than those of meth. It can also lead to immediate death, not in the term of years, but in any situation of consumption. And the long term negative effects, brain damage, liver damage, etc. are also comparable to meth.

My point, is that illicit substances like cocaine, meth, LSD, etc.have been hyped a great deal. The research does not support a lot of the assumptions that even the health community makes because it is inconclusive and incomplete. I would say that alcohol and tobacco are on equal terms with so called "hard drugs". The only exception being heroine, which is pretty much the granddaddy of all drugs. All the arguments that apply to keeping hard drugs like cocaine and LSD illegal, apply just as much to alcohol and tobacco. Furthermore, substances like caffeine are more addictive than cannabis and are legal. To be logically consistent, all the drugs need to be made illegal or all of them need to be made legal. Our current situation is simply highly irrational.
Click to expand...
I agree completely. Alcohol is a hard drug in comparison. I really am torn on the subject, especially seeing as alcohol and tobacco are legal, while marijuana, shrooms, and LSD are illegal when they have yet to be proven to cause real physical damage. Psychological damage for sure, but that is hard to measure, and many things have the ability to cause psychological damage.

I also agree that much of the drug "education" is exaggerated, if not fabricated. So much of it is fear based and irrational. My sister's high school recently had a court trial in the school as part of its drug "education." Other high school kids were tried and sentenced in the gym as my sister's classmates watched. There was no education, it only taught to be fearful of being arrested. I think what we really need to do is educate students like we should with sex; give them the facts, give them the options, warn them of possible consequences, and let them figure it out on their own. We also could combat drug abuse by attacking some of the sources like poverty. Not that all people use to escape, but the crack epidemics and the social classes it challenged are proof that for some abuse is an "escape" from a depressing way of life.

Ending the "war" on drugs would also be a step in the right direction. Even if we don't legalize, at the very least we could decriminalize. We can be trigger-happy about locking up dealers, but the last place an addict needs to go is prison (it's relatively easy to get drugs in prison). It wastes money, and does nothing to solve the problem of addiction.

Lastly, I admit that it probably is irrational to make certain drugs illegal while equally dangerous substances are legal. Sadly, the government seems to be in bed with big tobacco, and regardless of the irrationality of drug laws, I doubt tobacco legality will influence the legality of other substances. As for alcohol, regardless of the dangers, it has permeated society to such an extent that judging other drugs on its legality will be met with hostilities. It doesn't make sense, but since when have American laws and politics made sense? It's FUBAR.
 
aeon said:
Hence the need for differentiating terms based on chemistry alone.

Then one can consider the history, politics, culture, neurochemistry, and so on. In these regards, the use of differentiating terms is quite helpful.

Using those differentiating terms in ignorance is not.


cheers,
Ian
Click to expand...

as far as what each does to the body the names are semantics crack does the same thing cocaine does because chemically they are the same
Kokain_-_Cocaine.svg

This is the active compound, it is the same for both. This difference you speak of has only caused the cheaper and thus more prevalent form for the lower class, crack, to carry a stiffer sentence than the more pure and more white collar prevalent cocaine. It's a Semantical argument they are one and the same
 
kavalan said:
as far as what each does to the body the names are semantics crack does the same thing cocaine does because chemically they are the same
Kokain_-_Cocaine.svg

This is the active compound, it is the same for both. This difference you speak of has only caused the cheaper and thus more prevalent form for the lower class, crack, to carry a stiffer sentence than the more pure and more white collar prevalent cocaine. It's a Semantical argument they are one and the same
Click to expand...
Not to detract from the discussion or point out flaws, but Congress just passed the Fair Sentencing Act which greatly reduced incongruities between crack and cocaine sentencing. It's still not equal, but the sentencing when from 100 to 1, to 18-1. Sadly it's not retroactive or entirely fair, but it is a step in the right direction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top