Should Meth/crack be legalized?

[This is The End]

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.

Is that really true? If someone ate 20 cigs they would likely die?

Or if a dog ate them?

 

[Antiquehunter]

I suspect that if one ate 20 cigs, they would likely be horrifically ill & puke up the contents of their stomach (repeatedly), before the nicotine absorption took place. Much the same reason why many suicides with prescription medications / alcohol fail.

 

[Darat]

Is that really true? If someone ate 20 cigs they would likely die?

Or if a dog ate them?

For animals: http://www.petplace.com/dogs/nicotine-toxicity-in-dogs/page1.aspx

 

[Mark6]

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

Dessi, put your avatar picture onto bottle, and I'll drink that!

Even better if you wear a fur bikini, ride a polar bear and hold a gigantic, physically unwieldable sword... wait, someone did that already. (Although not with your face.)

 

[Eddie Dane]

I suspect that if one ate 20 cigs, they would likely be horrifically ill & puke up the contents of their stomach (repeatedly), before the nicotine absorption took place. Much the same reason why many suicides with prescription medications / alcohol fail.

I heard that people used to commit suicide by eating cigarettes in concentration camps.

So being in poor health probably makes it possible to die from nicotine poisoning.

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Regardless of how trafficking and selling drugs like meth/crack is handled legally, there can be no justification for imprisoning someone for mere use and possession. The end user of crack is the victim of the drug, to then throw them in a concrete box on top of the damage the drug has already done to their lives is senseless barbarism.

 

[Antiquehunter]

Regardless of how trafficking and selling drugs like meth/crack is handled legally, there can be no justification for imprisoning someone for mere use and possession. The end user of crack is the victim of the drug, to then throw them in a concrete box on top of the damage the drug has already done to their lives is senseless barbarism.

Well, I'm not quite sure I'm on board with that statement. At least, if we're talking about the status quo. (I've already said that I'm not necessarily against outright legalization). I don't think very many drug users are pure 'victims of the drug'. Its unlikely someone held them down and forced them to take that first hit, and then the drug turned them into drivelling fools to seek out more of the same. I will say, that from what I understand of US drug laws, that the punishment for possession / use of narcotics does seem to be ridiculously heavy-handed. And with that 3 strikes you're out rule, genuinely inhumane.

If the goal was to try and help these people, then making it illegal to be in possession would work if the 'punishment' was forced rehab. Not of the AA variety - more along the lines of medical / psychiatric care. Without some sort of legal backbone, courts wouldn't be able to 'force' anyone into care.

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

I don't think very many drug users are pure 'victims of the drug'. Its unlikely someone held them down and forced them to take that first hit, and then the drug turned them into drivelling fools to seek out more of the same.

Whether we call them "victims" of their addictions or not, they're still the only ones being harmed by their actions unless to support the habit they start committing real crimes (the kind that do have victims).

Rehab is one thing, but treating drug users the same way we treat real criminals that really harmed other people is abhorrent.

 

[Virus]

Whether we call them "victims" of their addictions or not, they're still the only ones being harmed by their actions unless to support the habit they start committing real crimes (the kind that do have victims).

Drug use is linked to violent crime, antisocial behavior, psychiatric disorders and birth defects. They do affect other people.

Rehab is one thing, but treating drug users the same way we treat real criminals that really harmed other people is abhorrent.

They're not. They're given a slap on the wrist. If anything.

 

[JJM 777]

Should we ever stop the war on drugs, should we legalize all drugs or keep the worst of them illegal?

My answer is:

Ban all drugs which are a one-way road to hell: people getting seriously hooked, demanding increasing doses, which lead to health problems.

For the rest of drugs which have potentially serious health effects, legalize them in medically controlled environments such as night clubs where a doctor is present and people might wear a wrist band that alerts the doctor if something is going wrong with somebody (for example dehydration because the raving person forgets to drink anything for hours). With some drugs the drug itself is not what kills, it is the uncontrolled behaviour changes (or dehydration after tireless partying) that kill people.

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Drug use is linked to violent crime, antisocial behavior, psychiatric disorders and birth defects. They do affect other people.

We can talk about birth defects and psychiatric disorders. Crime you can just as easily draw racial and socio-economic correlations to so I'm throwing that one out. And "antisocial behavior"? That argument works as well or better against TV, the internet, video games.. I really don't get how other people's "behavior" is any of our business in a general sense.

They're not. They're given a slap on the wrist. If anything.

I'm not gonna bother to google some very contradictory examples, but come on.. Ever see "Where the Buffalo Roam"? The trial scene wasn't that far from the truth in many cases.

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

For the rest of drugs which have potentially serious health effects, legalize them in medically controlled environments such as night clubs where a doctor is present and people might wear a wrist band that alerts the doctor if something is going wrong with somebody (for example dehydration because the raving person forgets to drink anything for hours). With some drugs the drug itself is not what kills, it is the uncontrolled behaviour changes (or dehydration after tireless partying) that kill people.

Haha harm reduction! How novel! (nowadays)

 

[Eddie Dane]

My answer is:

Ban all drugs which are a one-way road to hell: people getting seriously hooked, demanding increasing doses, which lead to health problems.

For the rest of drugs which have potentially serious health effects, legalize them in medically controlled environments such as night clubs where a doctor is present and people might wear a wrist band that alerts the doctor if something is going wrong with somebody (for example dehydration because the raving person forgets to drink anything for hours). With some drugs the drug itself is not what kills, it is the uncontrolled behaviour changes (or dehydration after tireless partying) that kill people.

Doesn't sound doable, or affordable.
I say good information and reliable products are the solution.

Your suggestion is similar to assigning a doctor to each bar and have them monitor the drinking behaviour of the customers.

There will always be a small percentage of people who will abuse any substance they can get their hands on.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

What are we talking about when we say 'legalization' here?

Are we talking about not prosecuting people found to be taking it, possessing it, selling it?

Or are we talking about legitimising the drugs industry so that we have a fully regulated and controlled system with companies manufacturing, packaging and marketing drugs for retail sale?

Or something in between?

I'm not sure if I would be OK with selling Meth or Crack to anyone who wants it, even with a label saying 'this will probably kill you and if it doesn't it will definitely f up your life'

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Whether we call them "victims" of their addictions or not, they're still the only ones being harmed by their actions unless to support the habit they start committing real crimes (the kind that do have victims).

Rehab is one thing, but treating drug users the same way we treat real criminals that really harmed other people is abhorrent.

Family? Friends? Employers? Society in general?

 

[Eddie Dane]

What are we talking about when we say 'legalization' here?

Are we talking about not prosecuting people found to be taking it, possessing it, selling it?

Or are we talking about legitimising the drugs industry so that we have a fully regulated and controlled system with companies manufacturing, packaging and marketing drugs for retail sale?

Or something in between?

I'm not sure if I would be OK with selling Meth or Crack to anyone who wants it, even with a label saying 'this will probably kill you and if it doesn't it will definitely f up your life'

Legalisation would mean a legal industry, controlled distribution and taxation, IMHO.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Legalisation would mean a legal industry, controlled distribution and taxation, IMHO.

What do you mean by controlled distribution, would it be made available to people who are not already hooked?

I'm struggling with the concept of the government testing and approving something like Meth or Crack as 'OK for consumption' by the general public.

 

[Information Analyst]

Drug use is linked to violent crime, antisocial behavior, psychiatric disorders and birth defects. They do affect other people.

Another ridiculously un-focussed blankety statement. Most violent crime and anti-social behaviour associated with drugs is a direct result of their illegality, not the actions of the drugs themselves. Some drugs but all drugs may cause psychiatric disorders or birth defects, but the same can be said for legal drugs.

 

[Eddie Dane]

What do you mean by controlled distribution, would it be made available to people who are not already hooked?

I'm struggling with the concept of the government testing and approving something like Meth or Crack as 'OK for consumption' by the general public.

I think drugs could be distributed by government-run pharmacies.
Booze is distributed this way in Sweden, I think. The off-licenses are state-owned.

It would be difficult to give some of those substances a FDA approved status, as they are too harmful. Others, like LSD are too small of a social problem/cartel cash-cow to even bother with.

Things like MDMA are significantly less dangerous than for instance horseback riding.

The real dilemmas come with things like cocaine and heroine. Organised crime thrives on it, there is a big market and it is also in the top five most dangerous drugs according to professor Nutt.

 

[Antiquehunter]

A candid commentary on drug dealing, and the anecdotal reality of same. I have known 3 drug dealers in my life.

1) Stupid university kid who would buy a largish amount of pot, and break it down into small bags that students were likely to buy. Through skivving and maybe adding in a little oregano, he was able to skim enough profit to smoke himself for free. We're talking gross revenues of maybe $1000 a month, of which I would estimate 25% was 'profit'. Presumably he has moved on to being a pot-using productive adult, not dealing drugs later on in life.

2) Successful businessman in the jewellery trade, bought a notorious bar/hotel with proceeds from jewellery business. Became a cocaine user. Decided to get involved with the business of cocaine. For awhile, was wildly successful, and I knew him to be rather flashy, bought and wrecked a brand-new 280SEL. His own use became out of control, and he had too many 'hangers-on' and he was too generous with the product. Got into legal troubles - not so much from the dealing, although he definitely felt under pressure from the police, but he stopped paying taxes on his legitimate businesses. Eventually lost both the bar/hotel & his jewellery business, ended up buying/selling antiques & junk at the flea market. Quit cold turkey when he just couldn't afford it. Came into some money after 4 years of not using, went out and bought an 8-ball, OD'd and died.

3) Older gentleman (in his 70's) has a legal medicinal MJ grow licence as he is nursing his adult son through late-stage MS. He is permitted to grow 25 (!) MJ plants, and be in possession of the proceeds of same. This is obviously far more than one person can use. So, word gets out that he has surplus. The kid who mows his lawn doesn't get $20, he gets a little party loot bag. Some more organized individuals take the bulk of his surplus off his hands - to the tune of about $1500 a month. Presumably this product goes about 20km south into the US. Nice little income addition for someone on a pension, and essentially zero risk of getting in any serious trouble.

What would 'legalization' of drugs change in any of the above three scenarios? For legalization, read the definition put forward by Eddie Dane.

In case #1, he may or may not be out of business. Considering the barriers to growing and repackaging marijuana, it is plausible that if this person is motivated to make a couple of extra hundred a month, he would find a way to continue to do so. Also, I posit that this person poses no 'threat' to society - he's not selling 'hard' drugs, and has no inclination to do so - he's just supplementing his income in a very minor fashion. No worse than the guy who buys stuff at garage sales to sell on Ebay, except for the commodity involved.

#2 - This sort of operation, of the dangerous and harmful to society nature MAY be rendered unfeasible under a legalization structure. However the end result - of someone ceasing to be a valuable member of society, living marginally, and in the end dying an untimely death would likely not be solved. It might take longer, the slide may be more gradual at $50 a day instead of $1000 a day. However my understanding of the drug involved, and watching & knowing this person over a period of about 10 years implode, suggests that legalization may make the process look a little less seedy, but would have the same end result.

#3 - Less victimless than the example #1. That's a sizeable chunk of tax-free income my friend is earning, that isn't something that should be overlooked. Likewise, if the legalization scenarios we're bandying about here aren't applied at least on a continental scale, if not a global scale, then the issue of cross-border traffic - whom my pensioner friend is contributing to - will remain a major problem. Again, is what he's doing acceptable? I don't think pot is that big a deal, and certainly he individually isn't involved in any 'hard' drugs. However the people who are buying up the surplus may well be - they're sufficiently well organized to run this stuff across the border. Would legalization end this sort of trade? Only if adopted at minimum by Canada, US & Mexico. And even then, H. is still going to grow his 'tomatoes' rather than pay someone for the stuff his son smokes. And he'll probably grow enough to remain under the police radar, but still enough to make sure that friends & neighbors know where to go for their party favors. Not a big deal - people make their own beer & wine, maybe pot should be treated the same way.