And not just recreational drugs. All drugs.
We trust people to manage their own life, this includes medicine. Maybe insurance won't pay for it without a Dr, but if someone wants to self pay, that's their choice.
We trust people to manage their own life, this includes medicine. Maybe insurance won't pay for it without a Dr, but if someone wants to self pay, that's their choice.
Misuse of antibiotics affects everyone, not just the person taking them.
Plus, drug interactions are hard even for professionals to manage.
I don't think it's a good idea to let people self-prescribe prescription drugs for themselves and others (like their children).
Morality and what not should not be forced on people. And most people with drug dependency issue deserve to be in hospitals NOT prisons.
Let's have some compassion as a society instead of fueling the drug -> prison -> poverty because dad-in-jail/single-mom-as-a-result cycle that's so prevalent in the lower class.
We should be doing this anyway for the sake of treating people humanely instead of cruelly. The fact that it'd probably be cheaper and would result in more productive, healthy citizens is just a pleasant side-effect.
There should be a good middle ground here: one where people have access to drugs, but there's some accountability (or at least a speed bump) to prevent people from causing harm to themselves or others.
I think we all agree that dishing out jail time for getting high doesn't work.
Do you agree also with the statement above?
My view is that most of the externalities of drug uses should be managed by taxation, not forbidden. But there are some externalities that require more brutal coercion than just taxation.
If someone is driving after consuming a drug throw the book at them. But if they're just chilling at home that's a completely different matter.
No. They are not ridiculously high. They are minuscule.
"In 2015, nearly 1.1 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics. That’s one percent of the 111 million self-reported episodes of alcohol-impaired driving among U.S. adults each year"[1]
Assuming that all the drunk drivers that hurt someone else are arrested and most arrested ones haven't hurt anyone, odds of hurting someone when drinking & driving are way less than 1%.
(This is not to imply that I would like to allow drunk driving.)
[1]https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impa...
I totally get the argument that the drug war is insane---it creates a black market, fuels organized crime, puts harmless folks in jails, unfairly targets minorities, and so on. And I generally agree that people should be able to do what they want to their own selves.
And yet, drugs are clearly bad, and I fear that legalizing them is a hugely normalizing move.
I do like to drink, but it's clear that alcohol is absolutely everywhere in the US and that this causes huge collateral damage. Yes, it's absolutely possible to drink occasionally, and responsibly, and have a great time, and what's not to like? But people still very frequently kill each other by driving drunk, or they drink themselves to death and leave their families to deal with the mess, or they use alcohol as a tool for rape, or they simply drink more than they should, and more frequently, to the detriment of their health, careers, marriages, and general potential. It's generally expected and accepted that it is normal for high-school kids to be drinking, and maybe this seems OK to some folks, and maybe nothing can be done for it, but it bugs the hell out of me, because I have kids, and because, from my own personal experience, the line between recreation and dependence is very thin, indeed.
Legal or not, pot is implicitly and increasingly acceptable almost everywhere. I hear that more than half of US adults have tried it. And I have friends, with little kids, who regularly use it and keep it in their homes. They provide excuses about why they need it and explanations of what it does for them. As an outsider, it seems like total and complete bullshit, and I don't want any part of it.
Fortunately I'm old and stubborn enough to set my own, clear boundaries. But my kids are a lot younger than me, and not so inflexible. I very much don't want them to be pressured into alcohol and pot and all the rest when they are so young. I'll teach them as best I can, and they'll decide to do what they will. But as drug use becomes more normal, acceptable, and pervasive, I fear we'll inevitably see a lot more folks (especially kids) being pulled into it, and I think that will cause a lot of damage.
Of course, hopefully I'm wrong.
No, they aren't. There's a spectrum. Some are bad all the time, some are bad if they're abused. And I'd like to look at it the other way: some are great if not abused. Are we going to continue throw that away because abuse is possible?
> They provide excuses about why they need it and explanations of what it does for them. As an outsider, it seems like total and complete bullshit, and I don't want any part of it.
That is of course your choice, and I have a ton of respect for you for setting your own boundaries and sticking to them, as so many people have trouble doing that (myself included, sometimes!). But at the same time, I and others have different boundaries, and people like you need to stop trying to legislate what those "must" be.
I'm sick of people being told how to live their lives, especially in cases where doing so doesn't harm others. But guess what: sometimes people will harm others, and so you deal with that. Assault is already illegal, whether you're high or not. Maybe penalties for assault should be higher if under the influence of a drug, but that in no way means the drug itself must be made illegal.
I saw a cited stat in this thread somewhere that 1.1M people in the US were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol in a recent year. That seems like a lot until you read that 111M people admitted to driving under the influence, whether they were caught or not. I'm not sure what percentage of the 1.1M arrested hurt or killed someone, but even if it was every single one, that's still less than 1% of the total. Also not sure how many of those 111M hurt anyone, but one can expect that to be a pretty small number since alcohol-related car crashes don't often go unnoticed by the police. So it's not even true that people who drive drunk hurt people even a decent percent of the time, let alone a majority. I'm certainly not in favor of legalizing drunk driving, but it's a fine example of how hysteria and fear campaigns make problems seem much larger than they are. I think that's a fine example: alcohol itself isn't illegal, but if you do certain potentially-harmful things while under the influence of it, penalties are higher.
Assuming humanity survives another 100 years, my guess is our current attitude toward drugs will be one of those things that our future counterparts will find crazy, and shake their heads ruefully at those silly primitive past humans.
Distribution can be regulated.
There are more than one party involved here.
You think plain heroin is toxic, wait until you see the engineered drugs that are created by big pharma in comparison.
Do you think I should be able to purchase any drug, re-engineer it myself and consume it? I'm not selling it...
Say I'm not even a scientist, I don't know the dangers of what I'm doing, should I be allowed to have access to those chemicals just because they exist?
There is only one party involved in possession and use, by definition of those terms.
> you think I should be able to purchase any drug, re-engineer it myself and consume it? I'm not selling it...
Purchase - depends on the drug. Prohibiting trafficking in some items is outside of the scope of my comment, and I can see some cases where it might be warranted.
But if you somehow obtained some drug, and decided to tweak it and consume it? Sure, you should be able to. Most certainly, if you do it and survive, we shouldn't lock you up because you might have hurt yourself - that's evidently pointless.
I don't think that the public should be able to get a device which they can, using rudimentary skills, turn into a proverbial nuclear weapon.
I.e. buy cheap drug, make it better, die.
> There is only one party involved in possession and use, by definition of those terms.
I cannot possess something that I did not manufacture myself if I did not procure it from someone who did. They are a party. My point is that there are parties who engineer for profit without limits.
Though I agree with you on possession/use and prison sentences. It doesn't solve a problem worth solving.
> Prohibiting trafficking in some items is outside of the scope of my comment
Hurrah, I believe we agree good sir.
You can, e.g. by taking possession inadvertently. But setting that aside, I suppose I could clarify it to possession/use/procurement - but excluding distribution. So, buying something like that shouldn't be illegal, but selling it might be (and the buyer could be subpoenaed to testify etc).
In any case, the distinction is clearly important from legal perspective - it's why our drug laws (and gun laws etc) all talk about possession and transfer separately.
It isn't acceptable to just put the risk on the average, uneducated person, who is easily swayed by the way media portrays something. We have experts for a reason, which is to guide us in what choices are safest, or "best" in the current circumstances they face.
Here's a little example, which is fairly common:
Alice has borderline personality disorder. Most people don't notice, she just seems to be rather outgoing, and prone to depression and anger. Alice isn't sure she has it.
Bill, Alice's husband, convinces her to go to therapy, where the psychologist practices Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (as CBT is the only government-approved therapy), which has no affect.
Alice's psychiatrist puts her on quetiapine.
The amount is strongly controlled, because an overdose is very likely to be lethal, and one of it's known side-effects is suicidal ideation.
She gains 10kg in a month, and her mood is barely affected, but people feel more comfortable around her. The weight gain depresses her.
The psychiatrist moves her to lithium.
Alice finds she can live a normal life, and no one notices her being outrageous anymore.
Alice and Bill decide to have a child.
Here's the hard part of "best": lithium is class D for pregnancy.
It's probably the best medication for Alice though, who has demonstrated she is fully capable of being a normal and productive member of society.
The same problems will continue if Alice chooses to breastfeed, which is best for the baby, so long as they are careful around medications.
---
Neither Alice nor Bill are remotely qualified to determine what will, or will not, harm a child.
> We trust people to manage their own life
No, we don't.
We create laws, and regulations, to guide people into making safe choices.
Seatbelts are every bit as useful as a prescription.
> where the psychologist practices Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (as CBT is the only government-approved therapy), which has no affect
CBT is a short form therapy, normally about 8 weeks.
Do not use brief psychological interventions of less than 3 months. https://www.nice.org.uk/donotdo/do-not-use-brief-psychologic...
> Alice's psychiatrist puts her on quetiapine.
Antipsychotic drugs should not be used for the medium- and long-term treatment of borderline personality disorder. https://www.nice.org.uk/donotdo/antipsychotic-drugs-should-n...
> The psychiatrist moves her to lithium.
Drug treatment should not be used specifically for borderline personality disorder or for the individual symptoms or behaviour associated with the disorder (for example, repeated self-harm, marked emotional instability, risk-taking behaviour and transient psychotic symptoms). https://www.nice.org.uk/donotdo/drug-treatment-should-not-be...
What Alice probably needs is a long form talking therapy. Have a look at Meeting the Challenge, Making a Difference for more information: http://www.crisiscareconcordat.org.uk/inspiration/meeting-th...
Maybe there might be an argument for people to be able to choose to obtain drugs like the ones mentioned by GP, but not without some kind of control-mechanism to at a bare minimum ensure they have been presented with the risks and have given some level of demonstration that they understand them.
E.g. I quite like the mechanism now in place for online pharmacies in the UK, where you can buy prescription drugs like Viagra, or OTC but restricted products like Daktacort (combination anti-fungal and steroids), but need to convince a doctor (for the former) or pharmacist (for the latter) in writing that you've at least bothered to read what they've written about the drugs (since nothing stops you from just faking the symptoms, but you at least need to describe relevant symptoms free-form semi-coherently, or they'll do additional checks before selling to you).
It has weaknesses, and certainly won't stop people from abusing abusable drugs, but it at least makes it possible to pick up on the most idiotic attempts at misusing drugs they don't even understand.
Alternatively, I've used PushDoctor a couple of times - a UK service that connects you with an actual GP via video chat; the last time it took me 10 minutes from I scheduled an appointment until I'd uploaded pictures of a rash, had a conversation with the GP and had the prescription passed to a local pharmacy electronically; even if one were to consider taking away their "gatekeeper" role in terms of letting them deny treatments they don't think are necessary, I don't think it'd be unreasonable to still at least require a consultation like that for the most dangerous drugs to give an opportunity to at least inform.
They are easily opted out of - they won't prevent you from e.g. buying whatever you want from China, and that's by design. There's no point in protecting a customer that doesn't want your protection.
As opposed to drug laws, which are designed to make drugs hard and dangerous to buy, even if you really want them.
I'm aware of the harm. But it is the start of therapy programs in several nations, Australia, New Zealand, France, United States of America, among others.
> Do not use brief psychological interventions of less than 3 months.
Precisely, but the therapy with the most proven effectiveness, dialectical behaviour therapy, has little support from the government programs. In fact, CBT has proven to be harmful for those suffering from BPD, but is a requirement when you first begin treating a patient in some of the above nations.
> Drug treatment should not be used specifically for borderline personality disorder
However, it is commonly used to start treatment, and supplement ongoing talk therapy, with the ultimate goal of removing it.
> What Alice probably needs is a long form talking therapy
Which is not available to her.