Should Meth/crack be legalized?

[epepke]

Why conflate meth and crack here? They are very different.

 

[Cainkane1]

Meth and crack are dangerous both to the user and to people around them. I was once attacked in a company breakroom by a crack user. Meth is the same way. Irrational unfounded anger leads to situations like this. If it only hurt the user then maybe I'd agree to legalising it but its dangerous to everybody.

 

[3point14]

Meth and crack are dangerous both to the user and to people around them. I was once attacked in a company breakroom by a crack user. Meth is the same way. Irrational unfounded anger leads to situations like this. If it only hurt the user then maybe I'd agree to legalising it but its dangerous to everybody.

I was attacked by a drunk man once. If it only hurt the user then maybe I'd agree to it staying legal, but it's dangerous for everybody.

 

[epepke]

I was attacked by a drunk man once. If it only hurt the user then maybe I'd agree to it staying legal, but it's dangerous for everybody.

Right. There are many things that are dangerous to the user and people around them, including alcohol.

Why, specifically, meth and crack?

 

[Dessi]

Right. There are many things that are dangerous to the user and people around them, including alcohol.

Why, specifically, meth and crack?

Probably it has to do with the fact that a crack head and meth head look like crack heads and meth heads. Long-time users have a very visible, almost mutilating look to them -- meth mouth, needle marks all up and down their body, behave like jittery schizophrenics. And it happens almost all regular users.

That just how cultural norms work. People stigmatize things they can see. I think cigarettes would be criminalized right away of users lungs were on display at all times.

Here's another way to think of it: a lot of users of "soft" drugs, cannabis and alcohol in particular, view the drug as a net positive in their life, at least as long as it doesn't develop into a problem. Meth heads don't usually feel that way, its a net negative and most of them will develop into addicts. No surprise that harm correlates with dependence.

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Family? Friends? Employers? Society in general?

Again I can hurt all those people just by being a total jerk, should I be thrown in prison?

Personally I say no, those people are not required to associate with or employ me. For minors obviously the equation is different. (And minors DO get thrown in boot camp type places sometimes for being jerks )

 

[Information Analyst]

I'd like to examine this idea of how much 'regulation' is required in a 'legalized' drug environment. Its been proposed here, that some drugs should be legalized, and others not. Or conversely that all drugs be legalized, but a number of steps be taken to mitigate certain drugs - a different kind of regulation, if you will.

The first scenario I'd like to explore, is the concept of using MDMA in a 'medically supervised' environment - ie, at a nightclub or similar facility, with some sort of medic/assistant on hand. It was pointed out to me that in some venues in the UK, this already happens. I presume in these cases, the nightclubs in question have found it expedient to fund this - through reduced security incidents, reduced insurance premiums, reduced legal issues, reduced bad publicity. I am making the assumption that the government is not involved in this supervision.

Not at a national level, but having medics in certain nightclubs may be demanded by the local municipal authorities as a pre-condition for granting the venue a licence to operatre, along with other harm-reduction measures like having specific chill-out areas for clubbers to take breaks in. It is, however, a national legal requirement for venues to provide free water unconditionally. On top of that, the regulation of the security industry has effectively eliminated the previous issues of criminal and/or un-trained staff. These are all measures that were borne out of the negative experiences of the late-1980s/early-1990s, when firstly the main cause of death via heatstroke was not understood.

Although governments like to espouse tough rehetoric on drugs, the pragmatic reality is that both venues and the licensing authorities know that most users can easily get into a club with a moderate amount of MDMA, amphetamine, ketamine, or whatever, for their own use, and nothing short of a strip-search at the door is going to prevent it (asking customers to take off their shoes is about the limit that can be legally done). In that context it is better to minimise the know dangers through the sort of measures outlined above. The likely risks are well known, and to be frank most venues are more concerned about weapons getting in than small amounts of personal-use drugs.

Pretend for a moment, that the government DOES decide to fund medical supervision in venues where drugs are commonly used. If we assume that say... 1:1000 incidents of MDMA use requires a medical intervention of some kind. Are there any other recreational activities with similar risk rates where the government supplies supervision? Downhill skiing? Skateboard/bmx parks? Community team full-contact sports such as rugby or lacrosse? I can't think of any.

Horse riding is the most well-known example of an activity that is reckoned to be more dangerous than MDMA use. Skiing is a much greater risk.

 

[Mark6]

Think about sex-education: almost everyone understands that abstinence-only education does not work, and its actually more harmful

Everyone?

If everyone, or even "almost everyone" understood that, US would not have the half-assed sex education it currently does. Sorry to break it to you, but this country at least has a very significant population which thinks "abstinence-only" is the way to do sex education. If at all.

 

[Virus]

I was attacked by a drunk man once. If it only hurt the user then maybe I'd agree to it staying legal, but it's dangerous for everybody.

"One bad thing deserves another" is not a sound argument for legalizing methampetamines and crack cocaine.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Abstinence-only approaches to recreational drug usage don't work either, so the focus should be on harm reduction. People end up in the hospital all the time from heroin usage not because they overdose, but they blow an air bubble into their veins. People seriously injure or kill themselves because they don't have access to information which could have potentially avoided the situation.

Okay, I thought I was liberal but I'm having trouble with the idea of "shooting up" classes in school or college.

 

[Dessi]

Okay, I thought I was liberal but I'm having trouble with the idea of "shooting up" classes in school or college.

I agree, that kind of information probably shouldn't be taught in schools (though it probably wouldn't be inappropriate in a college setting).

Eventually though, many users are hard drugs find themselves asking questions like whether you can clean a used needle, whether you'll go to prison for possession of you call an ambulance to report a drug overdose, how certain drugs interacts with prescribed medication like birth control or blood thinners, etc.

What possible advantage do people have not knowing the right answers to those questions? I can't think of any. I think education is a better harm-reduction strategy than learning by trial and error.

 

[Antiquehunter]

I agree, that kind of information probably shouldn't be taught in schools (though it probably wouldn't be inappropriate in a college setting).

Eventually though, many users are hard drugs find themselves asking questions like whether you can clean a used needle, whether you'll go to prison for possession of you call an ambulance to report a drug overdose, how certain drugs interacts with prescribed medication like birth control or blood thinners, etc.

What possible advantage do people have not knowing the right answers to those questions? I can't think of any. I think education is a better harm-reduction strategy than learning by trial and error.

I'm a little squeamish to think that these topics should be taught in general population classes. I don't know what the percentile is of hard drug users. Lets say its something around 10% - hopefully less - much less - than that. I don't think that a 10% population means that we need to actively TEACH something. Pamphlets, outreach, readily available information at your local shooting gallery / disease prevention unit - absolutely.

To draw an analogy - I think as part of sex ed, it is relevant to demonstrate how to use a condom, and to discuss how a condom should be used to protect against pregnancy & disease. Do we need also to discuss the safe way to engage in say S&M play? Some of the more extreme forms of S&M play? Show Bob Flanagan's film 'Sick' as a documentary to a broad student population?

It is assumed (at least I assume) that everyone suggesting legalization isn't HOPING that more people start using drugs - particularly not the known devastating/debilitating drugs. In a course, a mention of 'if you are using an injectable drug, or are thinking about using an injectable drug, then download a copy of flyer 'x' from website 'y'' really should suffice.

 

[Eddie Dane]

Right. There are many things that are dangerous to the user and people around them, including alcohol.

Why, specifically, meth and crack?

I singled out meth and crack as the worst drugs because there seem to be no problem-free casual users. And the physical and mental destruction seems so severe.

I did not include heroin because I have compelling anecdotal evidence that most of the negative effects come from the combination of it's illegality and addictive properties.

To illustrate:
A school friend of mine went to West Africa for six months (his parents lived there) and came back addicted to heroin. Which is apparently popular with the locals.
Back in the Netherlands he got a job and seemed to function well. After about six months he was fired for stealing from his employer. Same at his next job.
He drifted into crime, has no friends left (he stole from me), and lives a pretty terrible life as far as I can tell.

My parents worked in psychiatry in the sixties (they met in a madhouse as we like to joke).
One of their friends/colleagues would help himself to the opiates in the institution's medicine stock. When he was fired for stealing, he had to switch to heroin and couldn't afford the drugs any more.
He stole from my mother. Or to be specific: he stole the money my grandfather had given my mother on his deathbed, my mother was highly pregnant and the money was to buy baby-stuff. The money was in locked cabinet and our "friend" had copied the key by making prints of it in piece of clay. Not really an impulsive action.

The thing is: before being fired, he had been an exceptionally good employee. Especially noted for his empathy. Re-watch One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest for an impression of what psychiatric care could be like in those days.

It seems that people who can afford their heroin, keep functioning quite well.
As soon as they can't, they resort to some pretty desperate crap.

Cocaine: while high on the harm-index that Desi posted, has mostly casual users and a small percentage of serious addicts.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Abstinence-only approaches to recreational drug usage don't work either, so the focus should be on harm reduction. People end up in the hospital all the time from heroin usage not because they overdose, but they blow an air bubble into their veins. People seriously injure or kill themselves because they don't have access to information which could have potentially avoided the situation.

I dunno, they worked for me. Don't you think if we started teaching safe drug use then the whole element of 'scary' that you say keeps people away from heroin and crack and the like might be somewhat diluted?

 

[Eddie Dane]

I'm a little squeamish to think that these topics should be taught in general population classes. I don't know what the percentile is of hard drug users. Lets say its something around 10% - hopefully less - much less - than that. I don't think that a 10% population means that we need to actively TEACH something. Pamphlets, outreach, readily available information at your local shooting gallery / disease prevention unit - absolutely.

To draw an analogy - I think as part of sex ed, it is relevant to demonstrate how to use a condom, and to discuss how a condom should be used to protect against pregnancy & disease. Do we need also to discuss the safe way to engage in say S&M play? Some of the more extreme forms of S&M play? Show Bob Flanagan's film 'Sick' as a documentary to a broad student population?

It is assumed (at least I assume) that everyone suggesting legalization isn't HOPING that more people start using drugs - particularly not the known devastating/debilitating drugs. In a course, a mention of 'if you are using an injectable drug, or are thinking about using an injectable drug, then download a copy of flyer 'x' from website 'y'' really should suffice.

Information about safe drug use should be given with the drugs, not in school.

The percentage of people who will have sex is probably high in 90% of the population (well, I hope for them).
The percentage of people that will try had drugs, let alone keep using them? 10% maybe? I'm guessing here.

 

[Eddie Dane]

I dunno, they worked for me. Don't you think if we started teaching safe drug use then the whole element of 'scary' that you say keeps people away from heroin and crack and the like might be somewhat diluted?

Personally, the more information I had about those substances, the less likely I was to use it.
It should be honest information though. The US government really threw their credibility out the window with their Reefer Madness like campaigns.

If I remember correctly, Frank Zappa took his kids to a crack-house, showed them around and said 'Look, I'm not going to insult your intelligence by telling you that you shouldn't do this'.
Don't know if that anecdote is true, but I like it.

 

[3point14]

"One bad thing deserves another" is not a sound argument for legalizing methampetamines and crack cocaine.

No, but it's a perfect demoinstration of the utter lack of consistency in the whole thing.

I've encountered quite a few people in a fair scattering of different, chemically altered, states of mind, and the drunk comes a very, very long way up my 'cross the street to avoid an ********' chart.

If legality is to be decided on due only to how much distress is caused to other people by someone over-indulging in their drug of choice (and I think that seems a reasonable measure, once you've taxed the damn stuff to deal with the cost of the health issues) then alcohol is going to end up banned.

My argument might not be a sound argument for legalizing methampetamines and crack cocaine, but it's a bloody good argument for criminalising the production, distribution and consuption of that narcotic which wrecks homes, families, properties, people and lives - alcohol.

 

[nvidiot]

I singled out meth and crack as the worst drugs because there seem to be no problem-free casual users.

This bit leapt out at me.

Evidence for this? I suspect you may be surprised by reality.

 

[3point14]

I dunno, they worked for me. Don't you think if we started teaching safe drug use then the whole element of 'scary' that you say keeps people away from heroin and crack and the like might be somewhat diluted?

I think the 'scary' is overused and the misinformation I received about drugs as a schoolchild was scandalous.

I got the typical, southpark 'drugs are evil, mmmkay', and that was it. All drugs were evil and that was that, weed, heroin, crack, cocaine and MDMA were all guaranteed to wreck your life if you so much as looked at them.

Trouble is, like many young men, I found out that my drug education at school, partuclarly about cannabis was utter, utter tripe. The government line on cannabis is utter utter tripe. It's the same line the pedal for heroin, crack and meth.

The obvious thought process at that point is 'Well, they were lying out of their arses about dope...'

There can be no drug education at all until the governmnent (pick you own) are actually prepared to be honest about the whole thing, because any drug education that treats weed the same as meth is never going to work.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

It is important drug education is based on evidence about what works and what clearly does not work. Many drug education programmes have been evaluated in this country, other European countries and America. Collectively they show that:

-The impact of drug education on drug using behaviour has been shown to be limited. Drug education alone is unlikely to prevent young people from ever experimenting with drugs.
-‘Just Say No’ and ‘shock/ scare’ approaches are likely to be ineffective and may even be counterproductive.
-Good quality drug education can impact on changes in specific drug using patterns and reduce the use of drugs and associated problems for young people.
-Drug education can contribute towards decreased harm and increased safety for young people, their families and communities. Drug education has been part of effective needle exchange schemes, ‘safer dancing’ initiatives and ‘drink-driving’. However, the impact of more general, and particularly school-based, drug education on reducing drug-related harm (rather than whether or not people have ever used drugs) has not been measured in any studies.

http://www.drugscope.org.uk/resources/faqs/faqpages/does-drug-education-stop-drug-use

Accurate drug information is an important part of drug education. In the past young people have not always been given accurate information. There has sometimes been a tendency for teachers, and other adults, to exaggerate the dangers of certain drugs, often in an attempt to put young people off drug use; what one commentator has termed 'prophylactic lies'. Evaluations of drug education programmes emonstrate that 'shock/ scare' approaches do not generally prevent young people from experimenting with drugs. Young people find out, through their own drug using experiences and from talking to their peers, that they have not been told the complete truth. Adults then lose credibility as sources of drug information.

http://www.drugscope-dworld.org.uk/wip/24/teachers.htm