GOOBERS
2014-02-04 20:24:06
If the conversation is simply limited to the decriminalization of the common "problems drugs of abuse" such as cocaine/crack, heroin, and illegally used prescriptions, I think decriminalization is a step in the right direction but overall not an effective method for handling the societal problems brought up by people abusing and becoming addicted to these substances. In a lot of ways, the addiction potential is the most dangerous aspect of the abuse, not the actual immediate effects on the body (the highs and side effects). Addictions literally change the biochemical structure and function of the brain, and over time, the skewed chemical systems of a chronic user (the case of most addicts) wear down harder and in different ways than a normally stressed or aging body. In regard to governments having the ability to control the addiction factors and potential in a population, the modern publishing world's understanding of the whole process of drug use must be revisited and reanalyzed, then expanded appropriately.
The fact that these substances are the major manifestations of a drug abuse problem arising from human nature (drug abuse/addiction is a global issue), I don't see how simply banning, criminalizing in any way, or demonizing these substances is going to accomplish the goal of creating a population that does not abuse or become addicted to substances such as coke, heroin, meth, etc. From a chemical standpoint, there exists a ridiculous count of drugs that have a multitude of effects on the human body and mind, and the main functions of different types of chemicals give rise to classifications and identified uses for each. To a chemist, cocaine is methyl (1R,2R,3S,5S)-3- (benzoyloxy)-8-methyl-8-azabicyclo[3.2.1] octane-2-carboxylate; to an "entry-level" user, a few hours of fun; to an addict, medicine and a small amount of comfort. This is the link that connects these substances existing with these substances existing in the human body; the link in our minds between using (ingesting/injecting/smoking/inhaling) these chemicals and creating consequences (both good and bad) leads to certain needs attempting to be met (often directly, often in a roundabout way, often not at all) by the "use" of these substances. In the case of an addict, the needs being met by the continued use of the substances to which they are addicted are not just recreational needs any longer (if at all). Maybe for a time, they were, but the use became a problem and the problem was allowed to progress to the point at which the addict in a completely different situation (being an addict) than they were when the use first began ("entry-level"), and this change in situations has only somewhat recently been recognized in official medical practice and the justice system.
Understanding that these chemicals are just a few of dozens to thousands of others did eventually seep into the legal system, but it is very far from appropriately effective. The initial bans of the specific substances as cocaine, heroin, cannabis, and even alcohol led to the creation of analogue compounds that serve a similar/nearly identical function as the banned compound does in the human body (designer drugs). In a reiteration of the process, these new designer drugs filled the niche left open by the illegality of the original drugs, and eventually the use/abuse of them led to the illegalization of these chemicals, although this time the courts took an approach based on the chemistry behind the drugs. The analogue restrictions on compounds make all compounds similar to ones that are made illegal also illegal, for the sake of preventing the population not from having certain compounds, but from having something to use in the way that the compounds are used – what are targeted by illegalization are the tools used to meet certain needs that the government apparently doesn't want met. This isn't officially recognized, though. The official pillars defining the illegality of the Controlled Substances in the U.S. are "lack of accepted medical use", "high potential of abuse" and "a lack of accepted medical safety of use under medical supervision".
In terms of tools used to meet needs, drugs are one of the most effective tools in the world, when used properly. The impact pharmacology has made on medicine has been so large (in good and bad ways) that the idea of taking drugs to meet needs actually comes from the medical world in the first place. If there is any such thing as a "gateway drug," it would be something more along the lines of Tylenol, Advil, or aspirin, certainly not a cannabinoid or cannabis itself. Part of the context of this thread is the growing movement for medical and recreational marijuana legalization in the U.S. (which, if it holds, can likely spread through the UN around the world) and this is a fine example of how modern definitions of such things as medicine, abuse, help, responsibility, safety, and more are being revisited for use in solving the problems arising from marijuana illegalization. Once doctors began looking at the realistic effects and consequences of cannabis use in legitimate situations, the medical potential became very obvious. The legality and societal depiction of cannabis and illegal drugs had unfairly/unrealistically sealed the opinions/mindsets of medical doctors regarding their use as medicine, but in recent years, the pull towards them has started to overcome the dogma pushing them away. Marijuana is still a key point in the debate here, but it is a lesser point that has been covered in many ways multiple times over the past few years of debating how to handle MMJ/RMJ laws. The idea of marijuana being a drug is a split notion: THC and other cannabinoids are by definition drugs (inarguable) and arguing that cannabis is an herb/flower, not a drug, is a trivial point either way, but stoners often don't consider themselves chronic drug users and often condemn the use of other substances, so there is some discrepancy between how weed/cannabinoids are viewed and how "other" drugs are viewed. The main drugs that come to mind are crack/cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, prescription drugs, and psychedelics and this brings me directly through to the medical discussion.
MDMA (crystal ecstasy, "Molly"; a weak psychedelic) is being used and studied as a treatment for PTSD, interpersonal therapy, autism, and trust/team building. LSD and psilocybin (the psychedelic drug in 'shrooms) have been studied for applications in treating cluster headaches, end-of-life stress/terminal illnesses, depression, autism, OCD, addictions, and more. DMT (dimethyltryptamine, a powerful psychedelic growing in popularity due to its association with dreaming, mystical states, and beginning/end of life phenomena) was the first psychedelic drug to be research clinically in almost 40 years in the 90s, and Dr. Rick Straussman's DEA-FDA approved research has served as a catalyst for all kinds of new research into the uses of psychedelics in direct, physical/bodily medicine, indirect, holistic treatments, and more. Psychedelic drugs offer a huge array of possible uses for individuals and society as a whole, and come with very small and manageable side effects, if any; psychedelics aren't addictive, aren't destructive to the body's systems, and research actually shows psychedelic use to be associated with higher quality/more satisfying lifestyles and greater overall health, as well as having shown negative correlation with the stereotypical mental problems and radicalism associated with psychedelic use (people reporting previous/lifetime use of LSD + other psychedelics report higher quality of life, lower stress, show better vitals, and display fewer mental health problems than the standard population).
You might be asking yourself "If psychedelics don't cause all of these problems, why are they grouped in with these drugs that clearly cause all kinds of problems?", "How does this relate to the decriminalization of the harmful, problematic drugs?", and most importantly "… and why do I care?" and the answers are woven together. In the case of medical marijuana and psychedelics, drugs with high potentials of abuse, the lack of accepted medical safety and medical use is entirely subject to the practices and mindsets of the user, and have nothing to do with limitations of the actual chemical. Clinical trials conducted with MDMA, LSD, psilocybin, DMT, THC/other cannabinoids, and more have shown ample medical safety, with or without medical supervision, and the acceptance of the medical uses proposed for the substances is a matter of filling in the gaps with more research and development. The high potential for abuse is intrinsic with anything that people enjoy doing, but, just like teaching a child that he cannot play video games all day, understanding that one cannot be high all the time would reduce abuse of these drugs, which already have built-in mechanisms to reduce abuse in the form of tolerances, no addiction potential and the body's homeostatic mechanisms. No matter how much you love LSD, you aren't going to want to trip everyday for the rest of your life, even if you had enough of it to do so with the massively increased tolerance from just one dose, and you aren't going to get addicted to it. The drug will have almost no effect on your physical body, even at completely insane overdoses; experiences with upwards of 250,000 hits have been reported and the individuals are as physically healthy as they were before they started their super-trip. Mentally, spiritually, and emotionally, psychedelic experiences hold a lot of sway and power, but the classic risk of a "bad trip" ruining your life isn't a real concern. Bad trips are reported to be simply intense trips characterized by a negative emotion, not some kind of poisonous experience, and are easily managed by responsibly using the drugs. Managing one's self, set and setting when dealing with drug experiences is the surest way to ensure safety with getting high.
Why drugs that offer so many more potential benefits without nearly as much risk are considered equally as harmful and dangerous as ones that cause legitimate problems is a matter of public mindset and the societal niche drugs have been forced to fill vs. the natural role they play in human-environment interactions. Going back as far as 16th century England, with the rise of caffeine shops selling coffees and teas, drug use has always carried a mixed appreciation. Some see it as pure evil, while some see it as a godsend; some think drugs should be outlawed 100% while other think the government should be making and producing the country's drugs for the population, and this is simply the nature of the issue. This isn't a discussion of right vs left wing, or creationist vs. evolutionist, but this is a discussion of worldview that is rooted in morality. Essentially, the issue is an engineering problem: How do we change the system of drug use to better suit needs X and Y? Manipulate factor N, M and P to lessen the effect of R, thus increasing Q. The question behind the core issue here, then, is "How do we manipulate the legality, and by extension, the societal role of drugs of abuse in order to maximize [productivity/GDP, overall happiness, or any other large scale State goal] and reduce [medical harm to population, cultural devaluing, economical impact of drug abuse, etc]?" where you pick your goals first.
If the goal of the current system is to meet the moral and medical needs of the population but ignore their higher-order needs such as satisfaction, spirituality, personal growth, self-awareness and more, then the past decision to eliminate the legality of substances that could be used safely in medicinal and recreational settings was appropriate. However, if the governmental rulings are meant to best serve the population, empowering and emboldening them to be better citizens and people, instead of oppress and shape them into no more than standardized machines to do work with, then the approach to such a problem as drug abuse would be completely different from the ground up. The approach wouldn't be founded on getting people to work harder or be more manageable or fit into a certain range of definitions, and the problem wouldn't be viewed as one where evil people participate in an uncontrollable, heretical treason against working class America. In my ideal worst case scenario, the matter of drug use would be viewed as one where people who don't have a better solution for X Y or Z consume a chemical that they hope will fit the bill and that's as far as the line of distaste towards drug use would go. Maybe the abstract needs of recreation, new experiences, and satisfying curiosity/adventurous desires need to be better understood, maybe the path from synthesis to metabolism of these drugs needs to be modified, but the undeniable fact of the matter is that the case is not yet closed on how to properly handle drug abuse and the existence of substances that do the things that have been witnessed in abusers.
My suggested solution to all this relies on an empathic understanding of the human experience that extends into the realm of drug use, a reasonable understanding of the risks, benefits, and consequences of drug use (encouraging proper use reduces potential for abuse), and a shift from viewing drug use as some foreign evil to be fought off and demonized to viewing drug use as a result of the living conditions and life situations of humans around the world, for good and bad reasons, and to good and bad ends. Instead of viewing drug use as fringe, anti-social, rebellious, or in any way dark other than risky, an approach more like gambling and drinking alcohol, which is a sort of halfway point; alcohol is a drug, but alcohol abuse falls under the same category of unsolved problems because the underlying problem and factors have been overlooked/misunderstood/ignored for so long. The power of the new approach to drug use lies in realizing drugs are just part of the human condition and their existence is just another part of growing up, living and working, and being an adult citizen in a modern country. Whether or not one approves of or chooses to participate in drug consumption, criminalizing it and oppressively causing serious problems in the lives of those who do is not only immoral, reckless and destructive, but it is irresponsible, unreasonable, and literally quite counterproductive. It is as if the whole argument against drug use is a house of cards on stilts made of pretenses of safety; not only does the whole thing fall apart even if the stilts hold, but arguing illegality over legality for the sake of the children, for instance, is ridiculous when the model for illegality has been shown to fail time and time again. Not only are the effects of illegality a massive running total of costs, large chunks of dissatisfied population, and a complete nonevent in the realm of drug supply-demand, but children, those most prone to the dangers and risks of using drug improperly, are drawn more to the "forbidden fruit" of drug pleasures, and have an easier time accessing illegal drugs than the do alcohol, a properly controlled substance. It certainly seems to strike a nerve in most parents when I suggest that near-total drug legalization is probably the best method to handling the drug abuse problems most countries see, but given the failures of the current system and how much access the children being so eagerly protected currently have to drugs that could literally kill them (nothing like a few too many Xanax (how-many?)'s and a few too many beers, right?) it is shocking to think that this new approach hasn't been suggested 100 times already.
Simply put, I believe all drugs need some element of legalization and they need to be ingrained more openly into the society. It isn't like such things as crack and heroin don't currently have a place in society - they certainly do and it obviously cannot be removed - but the full extent of this role is mostly run into the ground by the media and politicians behind the illegalization. The role's identity simply needs to be recolored or spun a new way. This is certainly not to say that I support heroin use, or that I want more heroin users/addicts, or anything of the sort, while in all honesty, my motivations have nothing to do with the reduction of heroin use in the country, and entirely to do with the reduction of heroin abuse. Offering citizens who have their acts together the right to use the drugs they wish under close medical scrutiny, at their own taxed expense, is in no way a new idea (ever been to an alcohol or hookah bar?) but extending the range of drugs to be purchased from nicotine and alcohol to at least include cannabinoids, psychedelics and others and deeply reinforcing the safety aspects of the system, I propose, would greatly reduce the count and severity of cases of drug abuse. Instead of forcing all heroin use to be underground, unsupervised, uninformed (completely amateur with no medical advise) and clandestine, which results in greater rates of infection, overdose and addiction, anyone that had an interest in using heroin for any reason would have a legal channel to go through to satisfy that interest. Whether they feel like they want to do heroin because one of their idols used to be a heroin addict, they feel it will bring them closer to God, they have legitimate physical pain, they are on a mission to try every drug once, they lost a bet, or they are a scientist working in the realm of perception and internal experiences, there will be some legal manner in which it can be resolved, because at its core, the only drug use that is bad is drug abuse. Reducing the amount and rate at which drugs are abused doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how much actual use is taking place.
The reason why I brought up psychedelics and cannabis for making the point that heroin, crack and meth should be offered through a government-owned/supervised system is to reinforce the idea that there are positive uses for drugs as well as negative ones. Whether it is easy to see it or not, I am sure there have been some benefits to society from "hard drug" use (Red Hot Chili Peppers, for instance, lol) as well as the consequences we all know about. There have been some benefits to the world from the use of psychedelics (the cultural explosion of the 60s, Kary Mullis creating/discovering the polymerase reaction chain that allows for genetic research in humans, Steve Jobs' and Apple) as well as drawbacks (myths, Tim Burton scaring little kids, Timothy Leary scaring the public with thoughts of LSD being dropped into municipal water systems). The goal of any government is to minimize the drawbacks and maximize the benefits of anything at the disposal of their population, and yet the ball has been dropped so hard in this circumstance, and so many times, that it is a wonder it isn't broken already.
It feels like I've been writing an essay on the legalization of psychedelics, but the question was whether all drugs should be decriminalized or not. My answer to this is a resounding "NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO, drugs should NOT be decriminalized, they should stay how they are or be brought past decriminalization into a state of supervised legalization. Harder, more hazardous drugs (especially addictive ones) such as crack/cocaine, heroin, meth, alcohol and nicotine would be more strictly regulated and individuals' health and behavior would be watched more closely than lesser dangers such as LSD, psilocybin and cannabis (if it stays regulated). If anything, decriminalizing drugs would put us farther away from where we want to be because it would reduce the likelihood/ease of using modern injustices to catalyze political reform, and it wouldn't actually solve the problems laid out by having drug use viewed and treated the way it is in the country. There should be no interactions or worries about interacting with the police or law enforcement during the drug use experience. If anyone, the authority figure that would be directly responsible for managing an individual's drug use would be the clinical doctor where they're getting their drugs, or their own personal doctor, not the local judge or sheriff (people completely untrained in the areas of medical care and treatment). A radical shift in how drug use is treated and perceived would end up turning the problem on its head. Instead of trying to socially engineer a solution to the existence of drugs, stop viewing it as a problem to be solved and start trying to socially engineer a solution to the actual problems of drug abuse, while simultaneously trying to engineer newer and better ways of harnessing the creative, productive potential that could be brought out of the country.
I feel like this is pretty wall-o'-text-esque and it surely has some poor grammar, some typos, and some mismatched clauses in there somewhere, but I feel like this should contribute quite nicely to the debate. I wrote a term paper on the legalization of psychedelics and much of the information in this came directly from my research there. I'd certainly love the opportunity to pick apart and try by fire each of my points and the argument as a whole, because it would help me in the long run to strengthen and refine my case, haha.
Gunner
2014-06-15 01:42:05
I think the world would be a much better place overall if everyone would just mind their own damn business. Stop threatening people with *insert any version of hell* if they don't believe in your particular god. Stop demeaning people because they do or don't have tattoos, piercings, whatever. Stop making people feel like they're a failure in life because they didn't choose your path. And finally stop telling people what they can and can't put into their own damn bodies.
If drugs weren't so taboo-ed, they would have less of an effect on the people that use them. Most notably, they wouldn't be sending otherwise good people to prison for no other reason than "drugs are bad, mmkay?". Drugs make people happy, period. That's the only reason they use them. It's the same with adrenaline junkies, they are addicted just as much as a heroin addict. Yet, adrenaline junkies are somehow higher on the social ladder? They're doing the same exact thing. Artificially stimulating the release of dopamine. And just like a heroin addict, the more activities the adrenaline junkie does, the more he has to do to maintain the same level of euphoria. If people didn't feel like they had to hide in a closet because of their DOC, they would be much more productive in general.
Before I get all the flames, know that I am NOT advocating driving while drunk/high, working while drunk/high, or anything else that would possibly affect any other member of the human race. If drugs make you happy, be it good or bad in the long run, then do it. If jumping off skyscrapers makes you happy, then do it. If tattoos make you happy, get them. If people choose to work in a factory for the rest of their life instead of sharking on Wall St, let them. Quit judging everyone based on what YOU think life should be, and let them live like THEY think life should be.
*This public service announcement has been brought to you by an atheist. You know, those evil people who think everyone is equal, has the same rights as everyone else, and lives life to the fullest day by day. Because there are no second chances.
Sadly from 1997, would like to view an updated one (2007 +) 