Should Meth/crack be legalized?

[HansMustermann]

Doesn't make faulty logic less faulty.

Let me be more explicit this time: Your lack of understanding logic doesn't make it faulty. There was no genetic fallacy there at all. Your being unable to understand logic is just your failure, not mine.

 

[HansMustermann]

Well elephants did. Namely Tusko after 300mg of LSD.

Considering that the active dose is about 20-30 MICRO-grams, then basically you're saying that someone can die if they exceed the active dose by literally 10,000 TIMES. As in a million percent. Literally.

While that's, of course, good to know, that would still make it incredibly safer than a lot of stuff that is legal.

By comparison you get about 1mg of nicotine absorbed per cigarette, and the LD50 (50-50 chance to live or die) for an adult human is 40-60mg. So about 40-60 active doses can kill you. Stone dead.

Plus, if someone's going to exercise as little judgment as to take 10,000 doses of LSD, you need to be even less stupid than that to kill yourself with cigarettes. You just need to eat a pack of cigarettes to kill yourself. Most of the nicotine is actually burned while smoking the cigarettes, so you get IIRC about a tenth of it. Eat a pack and you've just taken in some 200mg or more.

As another comparison, for alcohol you get tipsy and euphoric anywhere between 20 and 100 mg/dL, and death by respiratory failure occurs around 400mg/dL. So you can only exceed the dose to get mildly buzzed by 4 to 10 times before you die. And I'm not talking the dose to be drunk off your ass, which would be a more apt comparison to what those 30 micrograms of LSD do to one, in which case you might have as little as 50% margin before you kick the bucket.

As another comparison, for caffeine the LD50 is estimated at about 150 to 200 milligrams per kilogram of body mass. Which does mean about 80 to 100 coffee cups for an adult, but again, it just shows that between what passes for an active dose and what kills you, you only have an about 100 times difference. And while it's hard to do with brewed coffee, you CAN kill yourself with caffeine pills or powder, and I remember at least one case where someone took a bunch of caffeine and washed it down with an energy drink, and promptly kicked the bucket. So, again, if someone was determined to try 10,000 doses like with the LSD comparison, they'd kick the bucket about 1% into it with caffeine.

Basically I'll gladly concede the point that you can kill yourself with too much of anything, including LSD, and even including water. But, you know, it still would make LSD incredibly safer than a lot of other things which are legal, freely available and don't even need a prescription.

 

[Antiquehunter]

Its a thorny dilemma to be sure. I am pretty clear that the situation we have today is untenable and isn't really serving anyone's interests. Drug users/addicts are a major problem, and the crime associated with the drug trade does indeed permeate into areas of personal security. Again, I'll point to my time in Afghanistan, and being witness to a number of (jaw-droppingly large) drug-burns in country. Those guys buying $20 hits of heroin and killing themselves around the corner are indeed, economically tied to the people who fly planes into buildings.

Fundamentally, I think we all need to take a different view to the entire issue of 'drugs'.

People like to ingest/do things that make them feel 'good'. Even when we know that ingesting these things are 'bad' for us. Whether its eating too much ice cream, drinking, smoking, or taking heroin, the underlying motivations are similar.

We regulate many (but not all) things that are dangerous. If we regulated and legalized 'hard drugs' much like we regulate alcohol and tobacco, I'm pretty sure the drug dealers would simply shift and start selling 'overproof' cocaine. Presumably one of the advantages of dispensed & monitored cocaine would be to ensure that only 'recreational' strength product, and 'safe/clean' product is on the streets. Humans being what they are, will be drawn to purer product, or differently-processed product (consider, crack) and will quickly find a way to subvert this regulation. Presumably all it would take is a guy standing on the corner in front of the licenced & regulated 'normal' heroin dispensary to say they have 'better' crap to shoot up, and we're back to square one. And the 'war' on drugs and the illicit trade carries on.

Going to a free-wheeling environment requires us to make some very difficult ethical decisions. Are we enabling an environment where someone can simply waste away through the unfettered use of 'hard' drugs? And would making drugs legal REALLY do away with the illicit trade in drugs? Wouldn't drug dealers turn to more dangerous R&D / designer drugs to keep on coming up with new and more compelling stuff to pump through our bodies?

I don't offer a solution - but I don't think that the current situation is what modern society wants, nor do I think that the solutions on offer present a clear choice as to what is the way to go.

 

[Skepticemea]

Wouldn't "overproof" cocaine be pretty lethal? There was a recent "fake" alcohol bust over in the south of England where a gang manufacturing counterfeit branded vodka in the back of lorries were arrested. The fake product contained seriously harmful levels of methanol. I'd forsee the same situation were other intoxicants made legal - most people so inclined would buy the real thing whereas those buying "off the back of a lorry"... well, caveat emptor.

 

[Antiquehunter]

Wouldn't "overproof" cocaine be pretty lethal? There was a recent "fake" alcohol bust over in the south of England where a gang manufacturing counterfeit branded vodka in the back of lorries were arrested. The fake product contained seriously harmful levels of methanol. I'd forsee the same situation were other intoxicants made legal - most people so inclined would buy the real thing whereas those buying "off the back of a lorry"... well, caveat emptor.

Well, the analogy I used may be off - I am not a cocaine/heroin/meth user so my jargon stems from anecdotes.

However my understanding is that cocaine, like alcohol, is sold in 'diluted' formats. Everything from baby laxative to icing sugar to lord knows what is added to the 'pure' cocaine to stretch the profits for the dealer and make sure the end user gets enough of a hit to keep them going, and to make sure they come back for more.

One of the arguments above, is that with regulation, at least we'd know that the lines we're snorting contain say 20% cocaine and inert/safe 'mixers'. And presumably for 'recreational' users they'd be happy to know this - much as I don't question the 40% alcohol content on my Crown Royal.

But then the motive for the drug dealer becomes 'my cocaine is 'better' than the regulated stuff'. Or is processed differently (like crack) to produce a different effect. I think its here that the analogy to booze breaks down.

I don't know of any drinkers who pursue stronger liquor because they prefer the 'drunk' they get off it. I mean, one CAN buy stronger booze - grain alcohol for example - which I suppose is pretty dangerous misused. Over proof rum. But the motivations for buying & drinking those products I think are different than the 'drug addict'. I could be wrong.

In the case you pointed out, of the vodka by SmirImaknockoff - the motivation was presumably cheaper booze. Maybe that is how the dealers will get ahead of the 'regulated' drug trade - buy the government junk, cut it and repackage it at a discounted price (but with more inherent health risks).

 

[Information Analyst]

Wouldn't "overproof" cocaine be pretty lethal? There was a recent "fake" alcohol bust over in the south of England where a gang manufacturing counterfeit branded vodka in the back of lorries were arrested. The fake product contained seriously harmful levels of methanol. I'd forsee the same situation were other intoxicants made legal - most people so inclined would buy the real thing whereas those buying "off the back of a lorry"... well, caveat emptor.

That's skewed by alcohol pices being artificially skewed in the UK by excessive duty, and the same applies to the black market in cigarettes. Faking or illicitly importing alcohol or cigarettes would not be lucrative enough to both if there was no or significantly less duty on both.

For some drugs, it is the illicit supply chain that makes them expensive; legal production and supply could massively under-cut them, and still turn a profit. In the case of something like MDMA, it can be got for £4/100mg or less on the current illicit market, and 300mg would be more than enough for most people in a single night, which would cost a lot less than their peers would be spending on alcohol at the same time. If certified 100mg MDMA tablets produced by recognised pharmaceutical companies were on sale for a comparable price or less, who would risk illicit product simply to "save" perhaps only two or three pounds over the course of a single night?

 

[Eddie Dane]

Going to a free-wheeling environment requires us to make some very difficult ethical decisions. Are we enabling an environment where someone can simply waste away through the unfettered use of 'hard' drugs? And would making drugs legal REALLY do away with the illicit trade in drugs? Wouldn't drug dealers turn to more dangerous R&D / designer drugs to keep on coming up with new and more compelling stuff to pump through our bodies?
I don't offer a solution - but I don't think that the current situation is what modern society wants, nor do I think that the solutions on offer present a clear choice as to what is the way to go.

Personally I don't think so.

That is what I have put up for discussion:

If the government provides a legal, high-quality drug for every consumer niche, there is no room for basement-cooked crap.
There's uppers, downers, music enhancing, sex enhancing, hallucinogenic aaaaaaand, that's it. I think.

Only self-haters with a death-wish would buy new stuff from a street dealer.
Not a big target group, I suspect.

Would you buy illegally made absinthe? To name an illegal substance that is a bit more interesting than what you can buy at the off-license.

Plus: a legal drug market would get big pharma on board. Their R&D would yield completely new designer drugs that might be much less harmful and even beneficial.

 

[Antiquehunter]

Personally I don't think so.

That is what I have put up for discussion:

If the government provides a legal, high-quality drug for every consumer niche, there is no room for basement-cooked crap.
There's uppers, downers, music enhancing, sex enhancing, hallucinogenic aaaaaaand, that's it. I think.

Only self-haters with a death-wish would buy new stuff from a street dealer.
Not a big target group, I suspect.

Would you buy illegally made absinthe? To name an illegal substance that is a bit more interesting than what you can buy at the off-license.

Plus: a legal drug market would get big pharma on board. Their R&D would yield completely new designer drugs that might be much less harmful and even beneficial.

I probably would, actually. I mean - not from Crackhead Bob, but if I knew someone with a home still operation (I do) and they convinced me they knew their way around a piece of wormwood (they don't) - for something like absinthe, I would give it a try. There is a certain romanticsm attached to (real) absinthe that intrigues me - I hope its not a 'gateway' booze. That experimental approach doesn't extend (in my case) to sampling MDMA or freebasing coke - but I guess its interesting to explore where everyone's boundaries lie.

The issue with legalization, is that I don't think its true that the market for drugs is saturated, with 'something for everyone'. There will always be something new/better on the horizon. Perhaps I'm wrong - maybe the out of work drug dealers will find some other way to make money. But it seems implausible to me that legalizing drugs will cause drug dealers to put on suits and go become investment bankers.

 

[Information Analyst]

There is a certain romanticsm attached to (real) absinthe that intrigues me - I hope its not a 'gateway' booze. That experimental approach doesn't extend (in my case) to sampling MDMA or freebasing coke - but I guess its interesting to explore where everyone's boundaries lie.

From personal experience I'd say absinthe is way nastier than MDMA (ansinthe in relation to freebasing, I wouldn't know), so I'm not sure where that leaves your analogy....

 

[Eddie Dane]

The issue with legalization, is that I don't think its true that the market for drugs is saturated, with 'something for everyone'. There will always be something new/better on the horizon. Perhaps I'm wrong - maybe the out of work drug dealers will find some other way to make money. But it seems implausible to me that legalizing drugs will cause drug dealers to put on suits and go become investment bankers.

Actually, my greatest fear regarding ending prohibition is that career criminals will look for other ways to make easy money.
I suspect shaking down, robbing and kidnapping members of the upper-and middle classes would increase.
Though with not enough of those available, gangs in Mexico will happily target the working poor, schools etc.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

I don't know of any drinkers who pursue stronger liquor because they prefer the 'drunk' they get off it. ...snip...

Non-affluent alcoholics do look at the strength of the alcohol they are buying, so if there are two cheap "ciders" to choose between they would go with the one that offers more "drunk per buck""

 

[Virus]

Could you be more specific, or are you just trolling?

It is irrefutable that most heroin deaths are due to either contamination, unexpected variance in strength, or infection transmission. It has already been noted elsewhere in this thread that where users have access to pure heroin in controlled and clean conditions, deaths and infection are virtually eliminated. Experience in Portugal has shown that de-criminalising use has not lead to an increase in use, and - for other drugs - this may be corroborated with the experience with cathinones in the UK. In that context, the idea that legalisation will lead to more use and therefore more deaths has no logical basis. And even if use does increase, it would have to be to to an unreasonably massive (i.e. impossible) level to counter-act the decrease in harms.

That's not legalization. That's decriminalization. They aren't the same thing.

 

[Darat]

Actually, my greatest fear regarding ending prohibition is that career criminals will look for other ways to make easy money.
I suspect shaking down, robbing and kidnapping members of the upper-and middle classes would increase.

...snip...

Wouldn't they not probably move into the "legit" business?

 

[Virus]

Wouldn't they not probably move into the "legit" business?

They're probably not the sort of people who have much respect for a 9-5 job.

 

[Antiquehunter]

Non-affluent alcoholics do look at the strength of the alcohol they are buying, so if there are two cheap "ciders" to choose between they would go with the one that offers more "drunk per buck""

I hadn't thought of that - I suppose you're right, with the proliferation of cheap and unpalatable fortified wines etc... So perhaps there is another niche the drug pushers (or 'legit' businesses could pursue) under a decriminalized / regulated drug economy. Hi-test for the die-hards.

 

[Antiquehunter]

From personal experience I'd say absinthe is way nastier than MDMA (ansinthe in relation to freebasing, I wouldn't know), so I'm not sure where that leaves your analogy....

Don't think it impedes anything - I'm simply saying I'm the kind of person who probably would try absinthe in an 'uncontrolled' environment, yet wouldn't try MDMA/freebasing. I don't know where that places me on the drug/alcohol user sliding scale, but that is where you'd find my dot. YMMV.

 

[Information Analyst]

That's not legalization. That's decriminalization. They aren't the same thing.

No, some is one, some is the other. Portugal has de-criminalised use; but the experience with cathinones in the UK was essentially akin to legalisation (i.e. they were legal long enough to have a measurable effect before they were made illegal). Legalisation would include de facto de-criminalisation, so you cannot seriously suggest that the effects of either are mutually exclusive, and that therefore actual experiences with de-crimiminalisation can't be used to guage the effects of legalisation.

Perhaps you would actually care to deal with specific points, rather that repeating the mantra of "it's not the same thing"?

 

[Information Analyst]

They're probably not the sort of people who have much respect for a 9-5 job.

Maybe. It certainly seems that some low/medium-level fraudsters put as much if not more effort into their scams than would be needed to earn a comparable amount legitimately. But if drug dealers can't make as much as they want from drugs, what other illegal activity would have comparable returns?

 

[Information Analyst]

Don't think it impedes anything - I'm simply saying I'm the kind of person who probably would try absinthe in an 'uncontrolled' environment, yet wouldn't try MDMA/freebasing. I don't know where that places me on the drug/alcohol user sliding scale, but that is where you'd find my dot. YMMV.

In that sense it's probably the case that while there may be a generic sliding scale that could apply to most people, for some the order of substances on the scale is different. IIRC, LSD should be within my "range," but it doesn't interest me in the slightest.

 

[Dessi]

I don't know of any drinkers who pursue stronger liquor because they prefer the 'drunk' they get off it.

Non-affluent alcoholics do look at the strength of the alcohol they are buying, so if there are two cheap "ciders" to choose between they would go with the one that offers more "drunk per buck""

What if one of the bottles has a pretty lady on the label? Ermrmmrmr...

I watched one of my friends almost kill himself as a result of his alcohol problem (drunk driving, he didn't even remember crashing, he stopped cold turkey after spending two weeks in the hospital). Another friend is well on his way.

Both of these people buy higher proof vodkas, liquors, whiskeys and such and really do drink until they're plastered.