For a long time, I was a proponent of blanket deregulation of all drugs/psychoactive substances. I did not think the government had a place in regulating what people use to alter their consciousnesses, especially when such things would be available and probably more dangerous in black markets. I cited countries like Portugal where minor possessions are treated like public health problems rather than criminal ones and the apparent success they have had there.

I still believe that no one should go to jail/prison for only possession of small amounts of any drug, as this just feeds the recidivism and addiction cycle as well as disproportionately allows for targeting of lower-class/minority people. For extremely addictive/destructive substances, such as opiates, meth, and heroin, there should be some kind of rehab program instead of jail-time in my opinion.

However, I think we would run into problems with legalizing and/or totally deregulating "hard drugs." We may have corporations mass-producing and marketing them for profits (as many are doing with recreational marijuana in some states in the US) and more addicts from more casual experimenters. I read many sad posts about usually-past addiction on the Nexus, so I am curious what your opinions on legalization/deregulation of hard drugs are.

Should our governments restrict supply of dangerously addictive substances? Do you think addiction rates would go up or down with legalized hard drugs? Would there be more crime resulting from this drug use (like people robbing to pay for addictions) or not? Why?

To be clear, I totally support deregulation of psychedelics and all non-addictive drugs, but I do worry that similar methods with supposed hard drugs would end up hurting many more people through increased addiction than are now (even with rehab instead of jail-time).

There is a good argument for legalising and regulating the sales of ALL drugs, haven't you been following the media about this, or Professor Nutt?

I have used meth recreationally and been terribly addicted to caffeine. I think it's silly to set a legal definition for what constitutes a "hard drug" and whether it is acceptable for human use. I'm really of the belief that drug addiction results from a myriad of factors in which the chemistry of the drug is only partially relevant and as such no one persons choices should be dictated by the experiences of others. Since becoming incredibly ill I am strongly against the consumption of junk food, but I don't feel i should impose restrictions on others consumption. Whether or not corporations should be able to target vulnerable populations is another question entirely. I would rather see corporations liable for marketing disease promoting food products to young children before restrictions on the purchase of psychoactive drugs by informed adults. But likewise, i would not support a laissez-faire approach to drug dealing. I believe sophisticated measures can be decided on which can improve the harms associated with drugs without infringing on human rights and resorting to prohibition.

One thing to remember is that the patents for drugs like heroin and cocaine have long since expired. This means they are not going to generate enormous profits if distributed within a legal context.

Also these drugs are already available for prescription/medical use. Heroin, Cocaine, and Methamphetamine are widely used in medical facilities around the globe. Not to even get into things like Oxycontin, Ritalin, Adderall, and the hundreds of other slightly modified versions of these drugs prescribed en masse to the masses.

The programs that have launched in places like the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark and even the UK that provide government regulated heroin either by prescription or in a supervised clinical setting have had quite impressive results.

Exactly how much harm would come of legalization/decriminalization/regulation largely depends on how it is implemented. However, in every single case the statistics show, it sure beats prohibition.

I believe that if you legalized the sale and possession of all drugs, there would be an increase in the usage of drugs coupled with a decrease in the harm that drugs would do.

The prohibition of drugs has led suppliers to produce drugs that are more potent. When drugs are illegal, it is in the best interest of the supplier to decrease the volume of the drug in order to make it easier to transport and more difficult to find. This is not an isolated incident, as the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s led to a massive increase in the average concentration of alcohol in alcoholic beverages. Today, marijuana is, as many point out, several times more potent that it was decades ago. Similarly, crack cocaine was invented only because of prohibition.

Cocaine was put in Coca-Cola before prohibition, yet there was not a massive outbreak of cocaine-related problems during that time. Why? Because there was a small amount of it in the product and it was taken through a healthier route of administration.

Methamphetamine is still occasionally (albeit rarely) prescribed to kids with severe ADHD. Why is it that the individuals who receive methamphetamine as medicine do not end up like the people in propaganda posters? Because there was a (relatively) small amount of it in the product and it was taken through a healthier route of administration.

Prohibition has also done a great deal to increase the amount of violent crime. Why is it that such a large proportion of those who have committed violent crimes have also abused illegal drugs? It is because prohibition has made drugs too expensive. It is often said that drugs like heroin are cheap, but this is far from the truth. A full blown heroin addict can easily spend $200+ dollars a day on heroin, though the price may fluctuate depending on location. On the other hand, a man who smokes a pack of cigarettes a day may be able to fund his habit with as little as $7 per day. When the addict can afford his addiction, he need not resort to violent crime to feed it.

In my eyes, the War on Drugs is a failure of socialism. The government took it into its own hands to regulate the supply of a substance, and ended up doing far more harm than good. Only a legitimate market can effectively allocate drugs in the manner that will do the least harm.

Every single negative consequence of drug use is exacerbated by prohibition.

People OD on drugs due to varying potency, take a substance believing it is something else and end up hurt, end up in jail when there was no crime committed other than possession, not to mention the impact on societies in other countries that have cartels and violence to support the rest of the world's drug habits.

There may be an uptick in people trying hard drugs if they were legal and available, but I don't think it would be huge. People who don't try heroin don't because they know if is addictive and dangerous. And there are no people out there who think to themselves, "Man, I really want to do heroin, but I won't because it's illegal." Just doesn't happen.

Worth noting that increased awareness to social and political issues is an effect of psychedelics rather than heroin for example.
Going out on a limb here... i suspect heroin or meth users are not sitting on forums such as the nexus, debating issues of the day and on the same token it is unlikely that "hard" drug users will join any political or social group to advance their agenda.

And i apologise in advance if i made an undeserved generalization

[CITATION REALLY REALLY NEEDED]

I know plenty of psychedelic users who are about as checked out from the sociopolitical realities of the day as it is humanly possible to be. MAYBE they follow drug policy enough to advocate legalization of the drug of choice, but ask them about global conflicts, systemic racism, or any of the other problems facing us today, and you'll probably draw a blank.

Also, if you hang out on some other forums such as Opiophile and some of the drug-specific subreddits, you can see astute analysis from people of all different backgrounds, including pretty long-term addicts.

Blessings
~ND

Assuming that no Nexus members have ever been addicts would be a mistake. Those of us who like to test boundaries sometimes make missteps. How else do you know your limits but occasionally crossing them?

A serious addiction will take up most of a person's focus and define them while they're in it, but it does not discount their intelligence or drive outside of that addiction.

A compassionate approach would be to mitigate the harm that addiction to hard drugs causes while helping to get our addicts back into the fold, healthy, and on the right path again.

Much love!

im non addictive.
people can have anything they want , and it doesnt phase me one bit.

I think people over a certain age should be able to risk destroying themselves if they don't have anything better to do. Adults shouldn't be treated like children which need protection from their own actions. Personally, I think there's dignity in having the freedom to make bad choices.

Funny, today I read that my country is taking a harsher stance on this topic. While the rest of the world seems to be moving past the clearly failed and corrupt "war on drugs", my own country seems to be picking up echoes from the past and think harsher drug regulations is a good idea to win voters. Some quotes for your pleasure:



Everyone can pick up his "daily dose" of tobacco and alcohol just fine, but we'll be damned if anyone can smoke a joint after a hard day's work! Also, clearly everyone eats mdma on a daily basis.



...

Continuum and ND, you both bring the voice of reason and i by all means see your point(s). will just add that as the saying goes: "There's no such thing as a bad dog, just a bad owner.” i believe the same can be said about our subject, i.e. there are no "bad" drugs etc. The human factor is the most important one imo since abuse, addiction and other kinds of self destructive patterns are human traits that developed and can be observed quite independently of any drug use. I can see them in my own mind as well as in others, even if they do not reach the threshold of having a dramatic effect on behaviour.




ND, see my point above. Also... generalizations are inherently problematic and in order to make sense at all they should be taken as probability signifiers rather than an ultimate statement about reality. i find that psychadelics have the potential of showing one the reality of her own mind as well as the universe at large ( which are not 2 disconnected things ) in the context of a bigger picture. Be it social, psychological or else.
BTW, that's why i find it outrages that these substances are declared illegal, while simultaneously i can see the reasons why any ruling body in modern society will do everything in their power to ban them.

*************************************

... not sure how all of the above relates to this thread anymore but sharing my thoughts nevertheless

ciao

I am anti-drug, in every way.

Though I still believe that total legalization and regulation is the way to go.

Making these compounds illegal does not stop their use, it actually increases it, it increases these compounds value, and creates black markets and criminal organizations.

The government (CIA;DEA) actually exploits these drugs contraband status to fund foreign rebel armies who are fighting America's enemies...most the armies do not have hard currency, but the generally have drugs, which our government will distribute on their behalf.
(*note: While there actually is quite a bit of evidence confirming this, it's still not considered "fact" )

So, people are going to us drugs, we can't stop this.


*even animal populations have drug users, in Mexico, on tourist beaches, there was a study done on monkeys who would steal tourists alcoholic drinks, some were loaded all the time, some were moderate, and some never touched it.
Even Elephants will eat fermented fruits, there are many examples of living beings seeking to alter their consciousness, this is totally natural.

...and nobody belongs in prison for it.

So if you can't stop it, perhaps you could design a system that takes this into account, and finds the safest possible way to deal with the issue....

We can't make these things just "go away"

I hate the response "are we just supposed to just give up on the drug war after all this time?"

The answer is YES!

If you were trying to build a ladder to the moon, and were dumping billions in funding into it with no result, and if people told you to give up, and you responded the same way, you would look like a fool, because you can't build a ladder to the moon...

and you can't win a war on drugs.



-eg

This is a great sentence/observation, continuum and i have to agree that it is hard to even know where one's limits are without crossing them at least once in every while...
It does however requires some clarification... what exactly are those limits and then why should one cross them ?

The above is a genuine question ( posed also to myself ) and not a criticism of any kind.

with warmest of thoughts...

Hmmm, well I really just meant to imply that the psychedelic community has it's fair share of members who, as by-in-large curious explorers, have ventured into hard drugs as well as psychedelics, and making a clear delineation between personality types of both groups is probably not accurate.

In the context of this thread, I know personally that heroin and blow don't work for me, not because I took someone's word for it, but because I spent many years wrapped up in both. I pushed those boundaries and know where they are from experimentation.

Generally, I can say the same for many other areas of my life. I've had many, many roles and been many, many people at different times, and because of that testing of boundaries, I know who I am, all of the I's, and I know what is outside my comfort zone.

I don't push anymore, not like I did when I was young, but I don't regret even many really dark decisions and periods because it led to me here and now.

My body is my property and I am the only one who has the right to decide what goes inside!
It does not matter how harmful the substance is; if I want to IV fentanyl, eat dhatura or even drink lye solution, it is my and only my decision.
Prohibiting another human being to consume something is saying "I own your body and decide what you do with it"
This is slavery.
Anyone arguing for prohibition is defending slavery.

You have the right teach about substances to get people into a position to understand the harm of substances and make an informed decision.
You have the right to offer medical help and assistance for people wanting to overcome addiction.
You have the right to stop people from pushing harmful substance use to other people.

But nobody has any right whatsoever to threaten me with violence to stop me from ingesting whatever I want to.
Free will and all.