Legalising more drugs

El_Machinae

Colour vision since 2018
Retired Moderator
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
48,283
Location
Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
"Dude, I hear D-bol will get you ripped!"

"Yeah, I like it better than the other anabolics, because you can just pop the pill!"

"I hear it's bad on the liver, though. What should be do about that?"

"Lots of fibre is good for the liver, maybe we should take fibre with the D-bol!"


Urg. Let me tell you how hard it is to collect information on these illegal drugs. It's hard. To collect scientifically useful data is really, really tough when the subjects are criminals: there are no good controls, there're no good ways to verify inputs, etc.

There are a HOST of drugs out there which have significant biological effects that are well worth studying, if only for general knowledge. And, as far as I can tell, we have hosts of volunteers willing to take these (harmful) drugs.

We could learn SO MUCH about some of these medicines* if we were just allowed to monitor effects on people in a reliable way. And, in the process, I'm quite sure we could develop ways of reducing the damage done by said drugs and even applying those drugs in other settings.

Right now, the street recommendation for Estacy seems to be "drink lots of water, and you'll be fine!". It would be nice if we could, you know, monitor that. We've got the fricken volunteers. We've got the fricken research methodologies. We just can't get them together in a scientifically useful way. The best we can seem to do is hide behind the Journalism Shield Laws: and, by golly, we surely can't make any recommendations to the drug users other than "you shouldn't take those!".

*Medicines in certain circumstances. Most of our actual studies are gained from using these drugs in clinical settings when they actually seem like a good idea.
 
Probably against the Hippocratic Oath or something to "administer" harmful drugs to a patient to monitor the effects.

But I don't know.

El Machinae said:
*Medicines in certain circumstances. Most of our actual studies are gained from using these drugs in clinical settings when they actually seem like a good idea.
Good in a clinical setting, but you know Mr. Average Joe "hey, this stuff works good when I take this dosage, it must be better if I take more!". I know not all are like that, but you get some people that do it anyways.
 
Many generally illegal drugs are legal in some parts of the world (Holland, Switzerland, etc). Why don't we test them there if we are so eager to have scientific results? :) I mean it's not like Holland or Switzerland are underdeveloped, backward, poor countries, with no possibilities of research in medicine. ;)
 
The illegalization of drugs like MDMA was just stupid. Its just to hard to test once its been deemed non-useful by some paid for political lackey scientist/doctor. You can't even check with new studies or techniques to see if any benefits are there. Truly ******ed.
 
Probably against the Hippocratic Oath or something to "administer" harmful drugs to a patient to monitor the effects.

Oh yes, very much against it.
But at least we could monitor it and then conduct tests around it.

Right now, if I want to get a sample population of smokers, it's rather easy. Heck, I can get them to distinguish themselves based on the brand of smokes they buy! And I can examine the brands knowing that there's some standardisation.

But golly, no one wants to give me a sample of the d-bol they're taking these days for analysis. And, by golly, I sure don't to want to receive that sample (criminal charges)!
 
Of course I'm against making chemicals illegal. It's counterproductive, it's expensive, it's dangerous, and it undermines respect for law.

I'm even more against ignorant legislators, especially when they tell professionals how they may or may not do their jobs. Laws should not be made by people who do not understand the laws that they are making.

Basically, I agree with the OP, except where he characterizes stuff as "harmful". Sure, some of these things can be harmful, but so can a host of other materials and activities that have other redeeming qualities. Motor vehicles come to mind. And guns. And fried food. And sex. And skydiving. And posting on CFCOT. And so on.
 
Sure, some of these things can be harmful, but so can a host of other materials and activities that have other redeeming qualities. Motor vehicles come to mind. And guns. And fried food. And sex. And skydiving. And posting on CFCOT. And so on.

:confused:
 
more? I think we should legalize them all.

The government would make some nice tax revenue, and we wouldn't have to pay for the DEA or prisons for drug users.
 
MDMA was used in marriage guidance therapies in California. After the US army used it in experiments in psychological warfare of course.
 
Many generally illegal drugs are legal in some parts of the world (Holland, Switzerland, etc). Why don't we test them there if we are so eager to have scientific results? :) I mean it's not like Holland or Switzerland are underdeveloped, backward, poor countries, with no possibilities of research in medicine. ;)

Yeah I heard that marijuana is now legal in Spain, Switzerland AND The Netherlands. Scientists should take some gear over there.

But regardless, I think marijuana and psychedelic mushrooms should be entirely legal. Hell, why not all drugs?
 
Probably against the Hippocratic Oath or something to "administer" harmful drugs to a patient to monitor the effects.
Note that drugs (as in those intended for medical treatment) have to be tested on human test subjects first, and sometimes these can result in harmful effects. So I guess it's fine, as long as they followed the same procedure.

Right now, the street recommendation for Estacy seems to be "drink lots of water, and you'll be fine!".
Although ironically this can be bad advice, as you can die from drinking too much. Remember Leah Betts? Her death was followed by massive media attention that this was "proof" of the dangers of ectasy. She actually died from drinking too much water (which can in fact kill you with or without drugs - as happened to somone recently during that Wii competition). Now sure, it's reasonable to say that she only drunk that much because she was on ectasy, and hence it indirectly killed her - but similarly, think how many people die from something they do whilst being drunk?

Reading that Wikipedia article on how screwed up the response to her death was makes me sad. The very fact that Leah Betts' death made the news, whilst people dying when drunk don't, shows you which is more common. If it's in the news, it's rare enough that you shouldn't be worrying about it...
 
Urg. Let me tell you how hard it is to collect information on these illegal drugs. It's hard. To collect scientifically useful data is really, really tough when the subjects are criminals: there are no good controls, there're no good ways to verify inputs, etc.

There are a HOST of drugs out there which have significant biological effects that are well worth studying, if only for general knowledge. And, as far as I can tell, we have hosts of volunteers willing to take these (harmful) drugs.
Replace "drugs" with something like "rape" or "murder" and you'll see the problem.

Or play a game of GC2 and you'll see one of those ethical-choice thingies where a bunch of accidentally-reactivated ancient robots are attacking a colony. One of the choices is to allow the robots to blow stuff up so you can observe them in action and learn from them. If you allow them to do so, you get some kind of +military or +research bonus for the rest of the game. If you destroy the robots, you take a penalty. (The "allow" option is the Evil choice that pushes your race towards the Dark Side in the game).

I love when one can learn valuable life lessons from computer games. :)


Anyway, that's the problem. How much damage are you willing to tolerate in order to do this or that study? Usually the answer is "not a lot".
 
Yeah I heard that marijuana is now legal in Spain, Switzerland AND The Netherlands. Scientists should take some gear over there.

But regardless, I think marijuana and psychedelic mushrooms should be entirely legal. Hell, why not all drugs?

Some of them are actually dangerous.
 
Replace "drugs" with something like "rape" or "murder" and you'll see the problem.
But you can't consent to rape by definition, so it's impossible to test, and murder leaves you with one very definite irreversable outcome. Replace drugs with, er, drugs, as in the sort that already get tested on humans, and you'll see despite risks, it's very plausible.

Smoking and alcohol are enjoyed commonly, and it would be absurd to compare to rape and murder! People seem to be stuck with this idea that every illegal drug must be far more harmful, which isn't true for all of them.

Anyway, that's the problem. How much damage are you willing to tolerate in order to do this or that study? Usually the answer is "not a lot".
Bearing mind that there exist people who take illegal drugs anyway, note that you wouldn't be putting people under additional risk of harm. Possibly less risk, and you'd be able to monitor them and treat them.
 
Some of them are actually dangerous.
Even for actually dangerous ones, I don't think the current model of illegality works, or makes sense. Sure, restrict production, import, sale or advertising - but to punish someone for using it? "You've done something harmful to yourself, therefore we're going to harm you and generally mess up your life far more by criminalising you."

The reasons for drug laws seem very confused; supporters usually flip between protecting people who do drugs (by putting them in prison? Very nanny-stateish, and doesn't really protect or help them at all), and claims that drugs harm others (all without evidence, and misses the point that someone committing a crime whilst on drugs would still be committing a crime if drugs were legal; just as with people who commit crimes whilst drunk).
 
Legalize it all and set up shops which sell (or order in) any chemical you care to buy.
Then you watch what people buy and tax it.
 
Yeah I heard that marijuana is now legal in Spain, Switzerland AND The Netherlands. Scientists should take some gear over there.

Not only there, here in Germany you can own a few grams without penalty. Step in the right direction.
 
Top Bottom