Prohibition.

[ranunky]

"Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes crimes out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded."
---US president Abraham Lincoln

I like this quote.

Most people are ignorant when it comes to drugs. I also know guys who will ONLY drink and smoke weed, even though they do a lot of both. Clearly (to those in the know), alcohol is a hell of a lot more damaging to both th individual, their close ones and society in general than say MDMA or magic mushrooms but prohibitionists (like most of the rest of the general public) are pretty clueless. I know guys who shoot OxyContins (a potent prescription opiate painkillergiving roughly the same effects as heroin but without the name) - but wouldn't snort a line of H cause of the stigma, ignorance is rampant and is the #1 cause of the damage done by drugs.

People have this notion that some drugs will have you hooked from your first hit, Heroin for example is roughly as addictive as nicotine, some junkies who smoke say the dope is harder to quit, a lot of others say it's the ciggies. I know I wasn't addicted to nicotine from the first cigarette, and I also know that I can avoid addiction from nicotine in spliffs by regulating how often I smoke and taking regular breaks. Sure after the first crack cocaine high you may fiend for more but this is not the same as having a fully blown physical addiction after the first go! With responsible usage, education and knowledge the harm done by drugs is slashed. Know your drug and know your body.

What are the opinions of the elightened here on prohibition?

 

[Steezie]

This is a sticky subject.

Drugs do a lot of very real dammage to people, even the "safe" drugs like weed.

Allowing them to be freely loosed on society I think is a bad idea. Many drugs are highly addictive and build tolerance with use. With the way our society over-indulges on things such as food, alcohol, and tobbacco it really makes me nervous to think what would happen if all of a sudden such addictive poison was legalized. Moderation and control are NOT buzzwords in our society.

I personally think the drug business is probably the easiest to torpedo, people just dont want to deal with the colateral.

 

[WatersMoon110]

Some people can become mentally addicted to something after the first use. Others might use (hard or soft) drugs for long periods of time and never become dependent on them (though I feel this is far less likely).

I really feel that activities that don't harm anyone (but the user, as in drug use) should not be illegal. I think they should be discouraged, through education, and treated (in cases where treatment is needed because of dehabilitating addiction), through rehab. But I don't see that locking people in jails or prisons (over half of all prisoners are there for drug charges) is helping the problem. It isn't as though they can't get drugs in there...

 

[bgrass1234]

Prohibition is the initiation of violence upon others and is wrong.

 

[judy]

I like that quote too. A guy smoking dope in his basement is no more of a criminal than the same guy having a beer in his basement. Human beings will never learn.

Why oh why do people shrink from the idea of legalizing pot? The substances that are already legal in our society, that we all think of as "harmless in moderation," have been proven to cause liver damage, brain damage, car accidents, abusive behavior, lung cancer, emphysema, etc. etc. Alcohol and tobacco are not harmless, and even though I myself abstain from both, and hope my children will also, I would never want to illegalize either one, and I would like to see all recreational drugs legalized. Along with legalization, we need to educate people about the harm that can be caused by drugs, the same way we have educated people about tobacco, resulting in a drop in tobacco usage.

It's the only way we'll ever win the war on drugs and hit the foreign drug cartels right where they hurt - in the pocketbook.

 

[Peach81]

"Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes crimes out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded."
---US president Abraham Lincoln

I like this quote.

Me too.

What are the opinions of the elightened here on prohibition?

It's got to go. It's pretty apparent that it doesn't work. My generation has proved that the "Just Say No" campaign is a complete failure. And in a free society, people should be free to put whatever substance into their bodies as they see fit. Putting people in jail for getting high is insane. As long as someone is not imposing on anyone else, it is a person's own business to get intoxicated.

Yes, I'm saying it, and I'm someone who has never smoked anything, never taken a sip of alcohol, and my own useless mother was a drug addict... and I'm still saying prohibition needs to end. It's not the drugs that ruin lives; it's the people who take drugs to excess, just like alcoholics.

 

[wmc1982]

People who want to get high are going to get high. Sniffing spray paint chemicals and glue is legal, and a lot more damaging than heroin, cocaine, and every other drug on this earth.

I think legalizing marijuana would give people a safe and legal way for people to get their buzz that they are determined to get. It would also get rid of a lot of crime.

Prohibition for alcohol didn't and won't work. I wish it was never discovered. Alcohol is the worst plague we have in this nation. But society seems to think they know what is OK, and for some reason society is still ignorant in comparing the risk/benefits of alcohol and marijuana. It's a lot more plausable idea of responsible marijuana use, than responsible alcohol use. Many people are born alcoholics and grow up thinking it is OK for everyone to drink. There are no "marijuanaholics". How many marijuana related traffic fatalities or fatalities in general do you ever hear about. Alcohol and nicotine are the killers.

As for legalizing all drugs? This could actually work. This would take a huge chunk out of world wide crime. All we would have to do is take 1% of our budget from the "war on drugs", and put that towards educating young people about the risks, dangers, and responsible use of drugs.

 

[The Nihilist]

Well, I know weed and booze won't put holes in my brain, so I'm going to stick with those.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

My generation has proved that the "Just Say No" campaign is a complete failure.

I completely agree. Unfortunately for the government, many of us are not as stupid as they would like. The exaggration and flat-out lies have meant that many have decided not to trust the official dogmas at all. Wisely, I would say, given the sheer volume of misinformation and just how inaccurate it is.

Exaggeration doesn't work, because our common sense tells us that it's absurd, and we instinctively reject all information from a source we know lies to us on some matters.

The government should give the information and let us make our own decisions. Common sense tells us that 30 minutes of second hand smoke can barely cause a lasting cough let alone kill (as has been claimed), thereby undermining any validity that smoking bans may be able to scrape.

The same is true of illegal drugs. It is obvious that, despite the claims of one 70s report whose name escapes me (the Shafer Commission?), cannabis doesn't make one 'more susceptible to communist propaganda and less able to resist homosexual advances.' In fact, no study--to my knowledge--has linked cannabis use to social or behavioural problems. When one study showed ver slight brain wave differences, the government in the UK leapt on it, producing ads that suggested one needed a new brain after smoking weed. What they didn't say was that the slight change in brainwave patterns, despite numerous attempts, has never been linked to any significant mental problems.

The officials need to stop lying in a poor attempt to scare us like overly protective nannies. They have no right to control our bodies, merely an obligation to provide accurate information and leave us to make up our minds.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

I think it's also important to realise that drug addicts are not, and should not be treated as, criminals. They should be treated as patients who need medical attention. We don't throw alcoholics in prison for drinking too much, nor do we send anorexics to prison for not eating enough. Nations that take this approach, like Spain and the Netherlands, have much much less problems with drugs.

 

[jayem]

Before we can even contemplate a long term solution, we need to understand the physiology of addiction. It's my theory that all forms of chemical dependence--alcohol, tobacco, drugs--trigger a common pathway in the brain that drives the addictive behavior. It may involve a "pleasure center," or endorphin release, or something similar--but there must be a neurochemical basis for addiction. (The same or similar mechanisms may also be involved in overeating, and compulsive sex and gambling.) But once we understand it, we can try to block it at the source. Which I think would be a far more effective treatment that all the 12 step programs in the universe. And it will be a sure Nobel Prize for whoever figures this out.

But in the absence of any direct physiologic treatment, I'm tending to favor supervised medical maintainance--at least for the hard drugs. Which is to allow addiction specialists to prescribe cocaine, or oxycodone, or heroin, or other drug(s) of choice to addicts. They'd get just enough to prevent withdrawal and allow some productive social functioning. They'd be dispensed pharmaceutical quality drugs at regular prices so they wouldn't have to go to the street. And to get it, they would have to appear regularly for followup, and have blood levels monitored to ensure they're actually taking the prescribed dosages. But there aren't nearly enough physicians who are willing or knowledgeable enough to do this, and the cost would almost surely be prohibitive.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Before we can even contemplate a long term solution, we need to understand the physiology of addiction. It's my theory that all forms of chemical dependence--alcohol, tobacco, drugs--trigger a common pathway in the brain that drives the addictive behavior. It may involve a "pleasure center," or endorphin release, or something similar--but there must be a neurochemical basis for addiction. (The same or similar mechanisms may also be involved in overeating, and compulsive sex and gambling.) But once we understand it, we can try to block it at the source. Which I think would be a far more effective treatment that all the 12 step programs in the universe. And it will be a sure Nobel Prize for whoever figures this out.

Very interesting theory. I'm probably wrong, but I was under the impression that we already understood enough of the neurochecmical activities of the brain to have a rough understanding of addiction. There are already medications available that block the receptors for certain harmful drugs. For example, there is a pill available on the NHS that blocks any pleasure received from nicotine...it's totally different from NRT (nicotine replacement therapy) so you can smoke as much as you like, but won't get any pleasure from it as the receptors in the brain are blocked.

Also, there are drugs that strip the relevant receptors of all opiates present instantly and then block any future access by opiates, thus forcing heroin addicts to go 'cold turkey'.

Surely if these are available we already have the knowledge about the neurochemical basis of addiction?

 

[ranunky]

Robbie_James_Francis: A drug like you descibed for treating Opiate addiction exists alright - htican'tpostlinkstp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suboxone , never heard of the nicotie one though... any chance of a link?

It is a partial opiate agonist though so does help with withdrawl a little bit and would cause some euphoria in somone with no tolerance. Of course if an addict cracks, he/she can simply stop taking the suboxone for a day or two then get wasted again. This would give the addict more time to get resolve though and continue in withdrawl.

 

[wmc1982]

So why are some of these drugs illegal? Being illegal seems to cause so many more problems. And people are being made into criminals who have addictions.

Anyone think a possible legalization of some things might take place in the near future?

 

[wmc1982]

(Quote: ranunky "never heard of the nicotine one though... any chance of a link?")

I've heard of this nicotine vaccine. I don't think it's been FDA approved yet.

http://www1.umn.edu/umnnews/Feature_Stories/Nicotine_vaccine_may_help_smokers.html

 

[jayem]

Very interesting theory. I'm probably wrong, but I was under the impression that we already understood enough of the neurochecmical activities of the brain to have a rough understanding of addiction. There are already medications available that block the receptors for certain harmful drugs. For example, there is a pill available on the NHS that blocks any pleasure received from nicotine...it's totally different from NRT (nicotine replacement therapy) so you can smoke as much as you like, but won't get any pleasure from it as the receptors in the brain are blocked.

Also, there are drugs that strip the relevant receptors of all opiates present instantly and then block any future access by opiates, thus forcing heroin addicts to go 'cold turkey'.

Surely if these are available we already have the knowledge about the neurochemical basis of addiction?

We know about the receptors in the brain where drugs bind. And, as you note, some of these we can block, which may reduce the "high," and precipitate withdrawal symptoms.

But I'm talking about the cognitive and affective phenomena of addiction. How do drugs alter the brain so that addicts develop drug craving, and compulsive drug seeking, and physical withdrawal sickness? What is the neurochemical mechanism by which addiction occurs? Presumably, these are cortical, or thalamocortical processes; and like most such functions, are still poorly understood.

 

[GryffinSong]

I wish it were legal because I suffer from migraines, and have heard that marijuana can be an effective treatment. I have NEVER understood how the lessons of prohibition haven't carried over into other intocoxicants like pot and such. I think dangerous drugs such as crystal meth (if it's as dangerous as I've heard) should be eliminated somehow. But marijuana seems a whole lot safer than alcohol. And the dangers seem to be from the illegal infrastructure, not the drugs themselves. I suspect that addictive personalities will find an addiction of some sort, and perhaps if more things are legal they can get the help they need so that they don't die of it. The drugs, if legal, would presumably be safer too, as there'd probably develop standards in terms of strength and such, and safe manufacturing methods.

 

[stelow]

oops

 

[WatersMoon110]

I wish it were legal because I suffer from migraines, and have heard that marijuana can be an effective treatment.

It can be, but not always. I get horrible migraines and would say that marijuana helps about 75% of the time.

I think dangerous drugs such as crystal meth (if it's as dangerous as I've heard) should be eliminated somehow.

I wish that were possible. But it isn't.

But marijuana seems a whole lot safer than alcohol. And the dangers seem to be from the illegal infrastructure, not the drugs themselves.

Depends on the drug. Marijuana is safer than alcohol (and not linked to domestic disturbances) and safer than tobacco (and safer than caffeine). But harder drugs (like meth, cocaine, and heroin) do have a lot of danger associated with them.

The drugs, if legal, would presumably be safer too, as there'd probably develop standards in terms of strength and such, and safe manufacturing methods.

That's true. At the very least, if all drugs were legal, they would be far more controlled, in content and in amount.

I don't think that more people would do drugs if they were legalized. I mean, I wouldn't do heroin, ever, because it scares me. Even if heroin were legal, I would never have any desire to use it, because I have all sorts of reasons (other than its legal status) that convince me that it is bad to use. I think that most people also stay away from drugs for reasons other than their legal status.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

But I'm talking about the cognitive and affective phenomena of addiction. How do drugs alter the brain so that addicts develop drug craving, and compulsive drug seeking, and physical withdrawal sickness? What is the neurochemical mechanism by which addiction occurs? Presumably, these are cortical, or thalamocortical processes; and like most such functions, are still poorly understood.

Oh, I see. I didn't realise our knowledge about these things was so poor. Interesting.