Solar wrote:Thanks for that, madeofstaples.
quok wrote:@madeofstaples: that's some really great information there, thanks for that!
No problem!
Solar wrote:Just one note - I wince everytime when "recreation" and "drug" is mentioned in the same sentence. When I think "recreation", I think a stroll in the park, a good book, or playing with your children...
I have to agree. Unfortunately some people have different priorities, which often just means that they started using drugs in the absense of good weather, a good book, or children to play with. At that point, it's easy to condition the behavior.
quok wrote:IMO, it's been almost proven that by making something legal and easier to acquire, the use of said product becomes (if only slightly) safer, and may even decline. Crime related to that product would also subside, and the government would enable yet another source of income via taxation on the product. Both alcohol and tobacco products are taxed heavily here in the US, and most everyone knows the health risks of using such products.
This is a little iffy when generalized so much. Opiates, for example, even when legally prescribed, can lead anywhere from forged prescriptions to pharmacy break-ins and usually end in court trials where the defendant pleads necessity; making them completely legal for any personal use would likely just augment this behavior.
Drugs like cocaine and methamphetamine are known to escalate to $500/day habits easily. When the money runs out, it's much harder to get more (whereas bumming a cigarette isn't too big of a deal, not to mention cigarettes are a little easier to fit into one's budget), and the withdrawal can be very damaging, if not deadly. Legalizing such substances would be good in that everyone would be using pharmaceutical-grade drugs rather than homemade concoctions cut with who-knows-what, and it would probably lower the cost a bit, but it would still be ridiculously more expensive than tobacco. Additionally, nicotine dependence/addiction is fairly easy to treat with other drugs (chantix, I believe is the brand name of one?), whereas other substance abuse is treated with slightly lower doses of similar substances (e.g, methadone, which causes even more issues on its own!).
From a slightly different viewpoint, consider the scenario where drugs are legalized for personal use and where a responsible someone wants to use, say, cocaine personally. So this someone picks up a conservative amount of the white powder at his local pharmacy and tries it. At this point, he has skipped all otherwise-required consultation, and if he has any of several heart conditions, he may be dead in about 10 minutes. If he has one of several other neurological conditions, he may find himself in the hospital if he's lucky enough that someone discovered him having seizures, at which point he probably has sustained substantial damage not only to various areas of the brain but also all over the body from the convulsions. If he happens to respond well and enjoy cocaine, and in the rare case that he can safely, on his own, maintain his dosage, then over the course of a decade or so of usage he will almost definitely have introduced himself to several neurological conditions. Now he finds himself having trouble understanding abstract reasoning, or he has developed Parkinson's disease and of course, these alarming changes suggest it is time to see a doctor. But this late in the game, what can the doctor do? When so many different psychoactive substances are legal, how can the doctor possibly know what to consider? The patient is hardly in a condition now to fill out a long check list of questions regarding his usage. Even if he has stopped cocaine (temporarily or not), should the doctor give him L-dopa? What if he starts cocaine again? How can the doctor possibly explain, or expect the patient to read and understand, a long list of substances that he should now avoid?
Why should a doctor have to help you now, when earlier in the game you decided that no doctor should be able to tell you what you can or can't put in your own body? Why should hospitals dedicate their resources to you instead of someone else in need, when your condition could have been avoided in the first place?
It's hard to say that legalization of all substances would stimulate the economy, because this would greatly destroy jobs at the DEA and probably many at the FDA, as well as at pharmaceutical companies, since there would no longer be the necessity to do a certain amount of research on new chemicals before putting them on the market for human consumption.
So like I said, given what we currently know, the current laws are reasonable.
quok wrote:I won't mention the numerous studies that have shown the use of alcohol in moderation is actually a GOOD thing for your health, nor will I mention all the vitamins you actually get from drinking the spent yeast found in the bottom of naturally carbonated and thus unfiltered beer.
"Moderation" here is usually more moderate than most people think, but this is true; red wine comes to mind with its antioxidants.
quok wrote:just look at that can of Mt. Dew sitting on your desk. It's just loaded with caffeine (which is highly addictive) and high fructose corn syrup, and entirely too much sodium. I stopped drinking any caffeinated beverage a couple months ago, and cut my sodium intake and avoid anything with high fructose corn syrup or partially hydrogenated anything, and I've lost a good 15 pounds (6.8 kg).
I stopped drinking just about all soda around the end of high school (not really a conscious decision, I was doing a bit of weight training at the time and water always just looked more appetizing than soda), and I lost about the same amount of weight very quickly.
quok wrote:Of course, I will admit, some of that is due to the medicine I'm on, and because of that medicine I was able to stop drinking caffeine cold turkey, but I did basically trade one addictive substance for another. Mmm, amphetamines.
I lost a concerning amount of weight on a certain medication that works on similar receptors (Bupropion, brand name Welbutrin). It also introduced involuntary mild convulsions so that I couldn't even use a dropper to add chemicals into a test tube. For these reasons I discontinued the medication (I later found out that my brother was diagnosed as a child with a mild case of Tourette's syndrome, which is a contraindication for going on Welbutrin...).
But I wanted to say that amphetamines are interesting in that, when used therapeutically, especially in the case of adolescents, the patients have been shown to be significantly
less likely to abuse any substance (be it their own medication or new substances) in adulthood. Out of curiosity (and sorry for going a little off topic here), would you mind discussing which amphetamine-based medication you are talking about? I've been particularly interested in Shire's latest d-amphetamine formulation called Vyvanse (Lisdexamfetamine), I'm particularly impressed that it had some grounds for being scheduled lighter than Adderall (Mixed Amphetamine Salts), Dexedrine (d-amphetamine), or even Concerta and Ritallin (methylphenidate), even though the FDA didn't end up granting the re-schedule.
Edit: typo
)
, This is one of my stupid philosophy . I am not an atheist , it is the presence of God that makes Lucifer's life purposeful . In a similar manner , God makes my life purposeful ( but in a positive way 
, so Saint prefixed) .
