Harder drugs are already legal - alcohol and tobacco. They were classified as more harmful in a study by professor David Nutt in the UK. He was then sacked as Government adviser.
It sounds like a flippant remark until you realise it was triggered by him knowing people who have died or become brain-damaged pursuing equestrian hobbies. He then did the statistical calculations and found out that the risks of horse-riding were higher but roughly comparable to those of MDMA use.
People think MDMA is more dangerous mostly because of intense press coverage when someone does die from it. When was the last time you saw "girl dies in tragic polo accident" on the front page?
Imagine if the "girl dies in tragic polo accident" was slanted the same way, and listed recent horse riding accidents and interviews with people warning about how more and more young people ride horses...
Equasy – An overlooked addiction with implications for the current debate on drug harms. DJ Nutt Psychopharmacology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. Journal of Psychopharmacology 23(1) (2009) 3 – 5
http://www.synchronium.net/2009/11/02/equasy/
Non-statistical anecdote: in my own acquaintance, I've known countless people who have taken MDMA, but never has my attention been called to the fact that any of them suffered from an acute harm episode as a result. However, I do know someone -- very respected in his field -- who suffered from not only permanent nerve damage, but (obviously) noticeable personality changes due to the use (or overuse -- doesn't matter) of painkillers after a rather nasty fall from a horse.
Risk #1 - You may hurt yourself
Risk #2 - You may discover the emperor wears no clothes and you don't have to spend your life in servitude to the ruling classes.
Which one does the government _really_ fear?
It's about as convincing as "and they all lived happily ever after" at the end of a fairytale.
There are a great number of activities which slowly, in turn, help reveal that all power is within ourselves. Basically, any activity which takes us by surprise, including psychedelics but also including extreme sports, international travel. Hell, reading a good book.
and it's not as easy as realizing it to get out of the trap. that's like saying is easy to become an entrepreneur. it's about spending the rest of one's life devoted to seeking reality....
You value acquiring physical intelligence. You do not value spiritual exploration. FWIW, MDMA is not "bliss" and it's not "short." It's longer than your average horse-ride, and it's much more complicated than simple bliss (as I've read in numerous reports on erowid.org)
It is the government's responsibility to protect us through sharing appropriate information [1], not to ruin our lives through imprisonment when we undertake solo activities with no risk to others.
BTW, I'm not even an MDMA enthusiast. I just don't feel like it, too busy, but for those who want to, I just want them to be safe, have their stuff tested, etc.
[1] So, why are articles like "Death rates from ecstasy (MDMA, MDA) and polydrug use in England and Wales 1996–2002" [2] only available through a paywall!!
(Disclaimer: I've used horses recreationally. No, I did not inhale. I do not recommend inhaling. They smell bad.)
I'm not sure what you mean by 'getting away from ourselves', but considering one worthy and the other not is purely subjective and I would say prejudicial.
Deleted comment
Why is that so hard?
http://www.mnn.com/health/fitness-well-being/stories/david-n...
I'm not deriding him in any way (I hope he is successful with this product). Just thought I'd mention it.
There are already other known alcohols that don't metabolise in the same way as ethanol and don't result in hangovers. I'm not sure they're 'safe'. It's possible that Prof. Nutt is talking about a benzodiazepine derivative he's working on, though finding one without the addiction potential of its class would be hard work.
And it's entirely possible he's just trolling :)
His book, "Drugs Without the Hot Air" is well worth reading. It contains some of the basic neuroscience behind drug actions, explores a lot of societal stuff and, in general was just a good read, if you're genuinely interested in this stuff.
GHB was touted as alcohol 2.0 but is now illegal for being a "date-rape drug". The irony here is that alcohol is already the leading date-rape drug.
The real irony is it's only really effective as a date-rape drug in conjunction with alcohol.
You're right, though, crack and some others seem to have horrific addiction profiles and I've even heard of Brazilian drug-lords forbidding its sale in their territory because it destroys any sort of community stability and kills the market.
I do wonder if many people would bother getting started with crack if other drugs were open to them. I also think that if there wasn't the criminal stigma we could help more of them, sooner.
There's no perfect solution, but what we have isn't working.
I know it will sound a little bit... hmmm... not-what-a-good-guy-would-say but, with this kind of policy in 10 years most of addicts would be dead, dying or getting treatment.
It's a darwin-aware policy that would remove the main problems with crack: Drug traffic and crazy killer zombies on the streets.
If crack addicts had water slides and massages, would crack still be interesting? Mainly crack seems to be an escape hatch from the brutal realities of incomplete urban life.
Putting a water slide on every block and other nice things is easier said than done, I know. But we can start making the world into the kind of place where crack isn't attractive and we can do it cheaply with inexpensive and free activities like singing, dancing, story-telling, campfires, etc.
I know, I sound like a fucking boy scout troop leader, but this kind of wholesome stuff can be good for us, doesn't depend on corporate culture and is likely what out bodies and minds evolved to perform well. We don't have to criminalize drugs, just make better things for people to do.
Thing is, you can't for certain say why someone is using some substance (excepting addiction, naturally). Some people as an escape from a less-than-great life, some people for fun, others for spiritual/religious reasons, some for just straight up curiosity.
Almost the same profile as any other enjoyable activity.
I don't think it's a matter of making better things for people to do.. partly because in some cases no such thing exists.
For instance, I challenge you to find any "non-altered" experience that can measure up to the reality-bending, introspective powers of chemicals like LSD or psilocybin, the compounds in peyote, and so on.
Unsure.
People say this stuff about heroin addicts too, but the truth with them is that, when provided with the sort of service you're talking about, they tend to be able to live normal-ish lives and a reasonable proportion eventually kick the habit.
I get the impression that crack (even medically pure) is way more damaging to the body though, so you might (sadly) be right. At least there would be less crime to fund the habit, and we could get help to more of them.
My girlfriend works at the state youth detention program (INAU) and she sees a lot of those.
But yes, crack cocaine and "pasta base" here ( cocaine paste - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine_paste ) does generate severe mental problems really quickly (she sees those everyday).
This means spending money where it does more good.
http://www.livescience.com/4060-hangover-free-buzz-star-trek...
You've stooped to an ad-hominem, implying that Nutt's statistics are somehow faulty because he's got an interest in something which might "compete" with a drug he identifies as more harmful, without providing any evidence that he's wrong. That's slimy.
Alcohol is toxic to most major organs, is one of only a tiny number of drugs that can make normally passive people become violent, and is the world's most prolific date-rape drug. If you've ever seen the emergency room in a typical hospital on a Saturday night, you'd see that many of the millions who enjoy a drink get violent and antisocial, injuring themselves and others. Then there's domestic abuse, drunk driving, risky sex, etc etc.
You'd need to take figures on all of those effects into account before deciding whether it's a 'stretch' or not. Which is exactly what Prof. Nutt did in his paper.
I do not believe that alcohol is a net negative to society. I'm pretty confident that crack cocaine is more damaging, especially to the individual user (and in fact you'll find that borne out by Nutt's research).
However, while perhaps "nobody robs a granny to buy a single malt," alcohol can very obviously have damaging effects, especially if it's misused. Sexual assault and drunk driving are just two examples.
That these exist does not mean that alcohol should be banned, and that crack is more damaging does not mean that the most effective tool to prevent it's use is criminalisation.
No, they rob granny to buy another bottle of $15 vodka.
Also, getting publicly sacked from your job is not great marketing, so seems inconsistent with the money-focused approach you are suggesting. However, it is entirely consistent with standing up for your belief in harm reduction above all else.
(By the way, if that last sentence is giving you cognitive dissonance, you need to stop and think hard about the statistics. The fact is that the most dangerous thing about pot, MDMA, LSD, and the like isn't their biochemistry. It's the fact that ignorant people have made them illegal.)
That depends what's in the pill, and how often there's a glass of wine, and if it's only ever one pint. Which I doubt.
Binge drinking is a very popular passtime here in the UK and is very dangerous.
Do you not think that when Prof Nutt makes these sorts of calculations they take this stuff into account? Or do you think he just pulls it all out of his arse?
You can rant and rave all you like, when the studies come in your (and my) favourite drug really is more harmful and more addictive than many/most others.
(--edit-- had the term kindling wrong, now right)
Can't do that with MDMA...
Just because you can find an article from 12 years ago saying a small glass of red may be healthy (and I bet I can find 10 more articles saying it isn't in the 12 years since that was published), doesn't mean that alcohol isn't addictive and harmful to its users. Hell, few brits drink that way anyway and your article posits that the benefit doesn't come from the ethanol but something else. It doesn't support your position at all.
Oh look I can google too - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23358078 - around 9000 people a year die directly from alcohol misuse in the UK.
Why do you have so much of a problem with this? Why do you think the experts are liars? Have you actually read any of Nutt's stuff? He doesn't actually advocate drug use, he's only interested in honesty and harm reduction.
--edit-- can I ask why you're so invested in this idea that alcohol must be less harmful than anything else?
I mean, the science is in. Booze is more addictive and more harmful (cancer, liver disease, alcoholism, alcohol related violence...) than lots of other drugs. Isn't an appropriate reaction to that news "oh, guess maybe those other things aren't as evil as I thought" rather than "but not really, because alcohol can't really be bad, we're only joking right lads? Booze is fine, right? I don't binge much, it's probably good for me eh? Not like those idiots taking pills"
They may well be idiots, but you're probably in denial too.