Because the difference between that happening here and now and 1830's China is what?

So you do think there are more/less benign drugs, but think that alcohol and heroin are on equal footing here?

@ Sam: i totally agree. The Uk didn;t really have much of a drug 'problem' until it outlawed certain drugs. Several of our top police peeps have suggested that the biggest danger from heroin comes from its illegality and have further suggested that it would be better legalised.

We lose waaaaay more people to alcohol and tobacco related illness than we do all other drugs put together. The deaths that do occur from drugs are predominantly due to the impurity of streetsold substances. It's ridiculous that alcohol and cigarettes are legal and other 'drugs' aren't.

Dana do you have any stats on people who can't hold down a job because of their nicotine addiction?

Do you think candy bars should be taxed to fund diabetes treatment centers?

I know plenty of people who can't hold down jobs because of alchohol addiction.

I watched my father die a hideous, painful, lingering death due to smoking.

I have played with heroin a couple of times; Cocaine, amphetamines, ecstasy and lsd rather more extensively; cannabis, tobacco and alcohol are regular staples.

The only drug i have never been able to step away from is tobacco.

I saw a programme a few years ago looking at a history of drug use and drug legislation in britain. One of the things that surprised me was the fact that lots of heroin addicts prior to its being made illegal were able to hold down jobs just fine.

Oh and just to step away from statistical arguments and whether or not one drug is more dangerous than another: the purpose of drugs legislation is supposedly to prevent drug use. It doesn't. it just makes drug use less safe and less controlled. Much as prohibition of alcohol didn;t stop people drinking, it just increased the likelihood people would be drinking dangerous moonshine and gave the Mob a new commodity to play with.

Also, from a purely ethical standpoint: what i do in the comfort of my own home is my business. What i put into my body is my business. Give me the warnings. But then let me make my choice. And the 'cost' argument when it comes to healthcare is totally off the wall when you look at the cost of alcohol and tobacco related illness. They outstrip anything that is spent, or would be spent on helping people with health problems related to other drugs. By far the biggest cost to society associated with drugs, is the cost of policing, trying, and imprisoning addicts and dealers.


[eta] it always amazes me that the country that purports to want small government that keeps out of your personal life, also wants that government to regulate what you put into your mouths and veins. It doesn't get more personal than that. It is not the state's job to decide what I eat, smoke or inject.

And now i am starting to feel really wound up. Nothing personal jinx, but this is one of those subjects that has me climbing the walls and throwing things about in anger :P So... I am off to bed before I burst a blood vessel.

Just as quite a few clinical alcoholics can and do hold down jobs. Some can't. They have a disease and need medical treatment. The questions are; are opiates more addictive/more destructive than alcohol, which is legal. Would it be more harmful if made legal and more available than it is now*.

I saw a program about China in the 1830's a while back. It made me rethink the whole everything should be legal and it'll work out great idea I was thinking before.
I'm still listening for a good argument though, I just don't think personal anecdote carries much weight. I've quit every drug I've tried/used. Doesn't mean I don't believe that addiction exists.

:right:

I have a friend who used heroin and smoked cigs. He held down a job, pissed away most of his money but managed to keep just above water. He finally cleaned up and said it was a walk in the park to kick Heroin in comparison to quitting cigarettes.

I think Malcolm Gladwell talks about why cigarettes are so much more addictive than H.

Wm. Burroughs has a chapter in Naked Lunch where he discusses why the war on drugs will always fail and he advocates for making it legal at the cost of probably losing a generation to people going wild until the novelty wears off and then people decide if it is something they are interested in after seeing the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving
hysterical naked,
dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry
fix,

I thought quitting cigs (twice) was a walk in the park compared to pot.

Not if what you do on in the comfort of your own home affects what you do on company time. What i f you are a doctor on call and you're high as shit when "the call" comes?

Comparing a psychological addiction to a physical one is difficult. Substances that are physically addicting can be easier to beat once the substance is gone. However the psychological addiction never leaves. Beating it depends moreso on a persons desire to quit and determination.

I didn't realize one could quit pot...

It's easier if you're pregnant, so that leaves you out. :p:

Seriously. My anger wasn't at you. But the topic we were discussing was making me angry. Which is why I tried to soften my post with a ':P'

This is one of those subjects which I find deeply upsetting and angering. Having seen people's lives wrecked not just by drugs, but by the way society deals (or fails to) with drugs and drug use. Sometimes I'm better off stepping away from the argument before I become completely incoherent with frustration and rage. Partly at the subject and partly at my inability to articulate why I am angry. These days I actively avoid documentaries about drugs and drug use because I just end up incandescent and upset; regardless of whether they're pro or anti legalisation. The entire subject is a red rag for me, much like the subject of asylum.

You put forward good points. I don't have the answers. But I 'know' that the current method of dealing with this problem is failing and harming those who do use drugs without in any way reducing drug use more generally. It is that system I am angry with, not you. But I find myself unable to be reasonable on the subject sometimes and, frankly, you deserve better than me ranting as an answer to your points *smiles*

Since I am in a more reasonable frame of mind, I'll post a piece from 2002:

This was from Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom, speaking at a conference in Wales on how we deal with drugs and calling for a different approach:

I'd say that articulates my opinion somewhat.

I don't think heroin is 'safe'. I don;t think opiates are 'safe. But I also don't believe the current laws are in any way effective in stopping people using heroin. They simply make the social and personal cost of doing so much, much higher.

I second pretty much everything Dana has said (and said quite well, I thought).

In response to Classic:
This applies just as much to alcohol.
It is part of a doctor's duty, if they are on call, to stay capable of responding. So it is not connected to the "privacy of my own home" argument.

On that topic, this is a well-explored problem with the liberty principle. Suppose we consider the liberty principle as: you can do what you like to yourself, provided that you don't harm others.

The obvious problem is that no person is an island, and virtually everything everyone does affects others. Recall that woman who wanted to reach 1,000 lbs? Well, the *main* harm falls on her: she'll die early. But there will be many other effects: her child will receive less parenting from her than otherwise, she will be less economically productive and contribute less socially, and incur extra health care costs.

So the liberty principle needs to be reformulated. In social philosophy, that debate is still underway.
In the meantime (and as part of the debate) what we can do is look at lots of examples that we generally agree on.
People are allowed to be obese or very underweight; even deliberately so. People are allowed to go skydiving (1 in 4,000 chance of chute failure), fishing (kills about 50 Australians per year) or do boxing (causes brain damage). We're allowed to drink and smoke, binge on cheese and chocolate, and sit on our increasingly increasing posteriors and guzzle mass-media.

In all of these cases there is harm to the individual and some cost to society. Most are in some sense addictive.
Yet an individual is "allowed" to make decisions about doing these things.
Can anyone tell me a good reason why recreational drugs should be treated differently?