How should society treat psychoactive substances in legal terms?

[Tomtegubbe]

Recently the PM of Finland has been the center of attention over video material that got leaked from a private party she attended. On the videos there are allusions to drug use, though no hard evidence. The PM was very strict about not having ever witnessed drug use among the people she hangs with. It's probably difficult in her position to say anything else, but this brings us to the question that has bugged me a lot: how should the society How should society treat psychoactive substances in legal terms?

The war on drugs has gone badly awry and harsh punishments for victimless crimes erode the trust in the righteousness of the laws, which in turn erodes the trust for the society as whole.

However, with regards to many psychoactive substances, let's take MDMA as an example, there are people who know the risks and can handle them and then there are people who disregard the risks and cause great harm to themselves with it. On general level I believe the alcohol has the worst track record of all substances, but on an individual level there are different kind of risks involved with the controlled substances, that can be sudden and critical.

Then there are a range of substances that cause a lot of misery, but are very addictive. Should the war still be waged on them?

The difficulty with these substances is, that they can be fun and relatively safe for some, but bad for others. The western society rests upon the principle of equal rights. Then again, we have such concepts as driving licenses.

Decriminalizing everything doesn't seem like the ultimate answer as it can generate additional problems when there is no legal source for the stuff.

With regards to plant medicine, I see no reason why they couldn't be legalized everywhere immediately and treated like any plants.

So, what do you think? Should we head towards a society where all the common substances are produced and sold legally, despite the risks? Should the grey market just be tolerated? What about private clubs with legal vendors for people who can handle their stuff?

These are the kind of questions that can't be postponed for much longer in the modern world.

 

[Voidmatrix]

I'm not sure there will ever be a "satisfactory" answer; the whole topic is too nuanced and complex which will lead to difference of opinion and applications in different places.

The "war" part of all of this is obsolete. It may be better approached through education and tempered tact. However, many rules we have are similar to why we have locks on our doors... many people aren't mindful, or practicing self-reflection, or altruistic, etc.

A self-harming scenario still effects the overarching scenario an individual is a part of, so if we have massive amounts of drug accidents of varying kinds without anything to curtail it, the societies it occurs in plays the price.

Consider the last two statements, we can look at the opioid epidemic in the US. Doctors failed to appropriately guide and advise people how to use the substance, and were also encouraged to do so by financial temptation.

We have a long way to go to find some approach that is sustainable, but it first will require that the powers that be augment their stance, change their perspectives, and be willing to broaden their understanding.

Nothing is all good or all bad. Not pharmaceuticals, psychedelics, the black market, the pharmaceutical industry, the government etc...

A good place to start is a balanced perspective.

One love

Ps, sorry this isn't how I'd usually say this, but am at work and couldn't help myself lol.

 

[ShadedSelf]

Love is always the asnswer, society is fine as it is, that doesnt mean that things shouldnt change, they should and will.

I feel like the root is way deeper than any law or even any philosophical answer that I could give you, things as they are generate a particular experience, which is fine.

On the other hand prohibiting, censuring and what not doesnt really achieve anything, those things we as a society try to burry are all facets of ourselves, and, like always, truth is whats important.

What is a drug?
Feed a human with honest information and it will make better choices, feed it with biases and it will bounce from end to end of the spectrum seeking balance, mistakes will be made either way, teach them to learn, not to avoid.
Thats kinda my take anyways, I tend to prefer absolute freedom over structure, which is probably a bias, thats why I think my first statement is important.

Another key point is that a biased society cannot really feed unbiased information back into itself, it must learn, like all individuals do.

Also, in terms of thinking about how society should be, does this kind of thinking really come from the heart?
I actually ODed on MDMA and kinda fried my brain, but thats on me, it was really bad and also what I needed, I do believe that trying to shift the balance is impossible, the universe is inherently balanced.

 

[Tomtegubbe]

Also, in terms of thinking about how society should be, does this kind of thinking really come from the heart?

I believe this question can be approached from two quite different perspectives.

From an individual perspective, the society is what it is. It will never be perfect and no amount of blaming the society will make you happy. But from a collective perspective, I find it important that we try to understand what is righteousness and what kind of rules and compromises are necessary for societies to thrive and people to live good lives. The clearer the perspectives are, the easier it is for people to adopt them and bring change.

With regards to your MDMA OD experience, I believe such instances can't be prevented altogether, but there are lots of ways more eased laws can help in harm reduction. If, you know what you are taking and how much you are taking, and maybe even have some trustworthy information on how much you should be taking, and still decide to go your way, there's probably no way to stop it, but there's a lot that can be made to reduce the suffering that comes from stupid accidents.

But I believe I understand your point about freedom and personal responsibility being values that should be held in high regard.

Ps, sorry this isn't how I'd usually say this, but am at work and couldn't help myself lol.

You're most welcome

 

[Jees]

Where I live, there was a time that a person who wanted to fly an Radio Control plane or drive an RC car, it was mandatory to have a licence to "broadcast" in the frequency bands, also for those who wanted to operate a CB (citizen band) transmitter. It involved being educated (and pass a small test) about the principles at hand, even tho the equipment used was regulated already to comply on technical aspects, the person who used them had to prove having notions of basic transmission knowledge.
Soon this evolved in no education aspects anymore, just paying for your licence, and now the whole licence thingy is gone too.

But al in all, I find this education aspect not a fool thing at all. A sort of driving licence for substances, what can be against this? It could be a modular system going from alcohol to whatever.
Only those not complying would still take from a hugely shrunken black market where control over quality is far to seek.

 

[Hyper Turtle]

I am of the very firm opinion that all drugs have to be legalised/decriminalised.

For use and possession of self use quantities, it's easy to see why.
- If the drug is good for the person, it makes no sense punishing them for taking it.
- If the drug is bad for the person, it makes no sense adding to the problem by punishing them for taking it.
- Confiscating drugs from addicts can only lead to them getting more, which may involve non-drug criminality to be able to afford them.
- Legality probably doesn't increase the number of users, and certainly not the average frequency of use. As far as i'm aware, every single place that legalised saw less users (especially severe ones), and higher age of first time use.

I really don't know of a single argument for criminalising users that doesn't fall apart quickly when thinking about it.

With manufacturing and trading, it's easier to find arguments for making/keeping it illegal. However, i still think it's pretty straight forward:
- If people are allowed to use a substance, they have to get it from somewhere.
- Ideally, we want people to know exactly what they are using. Therefore, we want some degree of regulation regarding quality and labelling. If you outlaw something, you can't further regulate it.
- "no legal sources" has one single cause: the law that makes them illegal. It's impossible to be legal source of something that is illegal per se. So you have to legalise if you want legal, accountable (and known) sources.
- Even if you think that every entitiy earning money by selling drugs is inherently bad, you have to be aware that they make much more money when it's illegal. And then society gets nothing in return (no taxes), but has to pay for the expensive 'enforcement' of prohibition, which usually focuses on the little guys because it's easier to get reportable successes that way, rendering it extremely ineffective.

So i don't think it's even a question whether we should legalise all drugs. Prohibition just doesn't survive logic. Unless your logic says that users + black market with no regulation and all kinds of abuse (fentanyl lacing of non-opioids, sexual coercion, armed territory conflicts, widespread sale to minors, and whatnot) is more desirable than users alone.

The real question is how much and what specific regulation should be applied. And what the punishment should be for violating it.

Clearly, monetary fines aren't enough to keep businesses honest. There has to be real personal risk for the owners and top level executives of companies that sell legal drugs in immoral ways - like marketing addictive substances as non-addictive.

 

[Tomtegubbe]

One point against having all drugs legally available is that some substances have such a great addiction potential that increase in their availability is likely to increase the amount of curious (and desperate) people who get hooked.

I recently read about the laudanum wine (opium+alcohol combo) that was widely available all over the modern world at the turn of 20th century and got many hooked. Making the laudanum available only to physicians as a legitimate analgesic seemed to have the desired effect. Less people got hooked.

This is one core issue which makes the legislation difficult. I too find the liberty of the individual to be of great value, but addictions are kind of diseases that cloud your ability to make good judgements. You may be in a low point of your life when you don't just care and are willing to do just anything you get your hands on. If that bad stuff wasn't in your vicinity at the moment, you could have got over your bad situation and evaded the addiction.

Those already addicted should have a legal way to use whatever they are using anyway or if there is a less harmful option available, that could be offered instead (like buprenorphine instead of heroine), but the access to these substances probably should be limited. Go to doctor and tell you are an addict and get the dose. If you are going to use it recreationally and not trying to just fight the addiction, maybe you could have the right to do that and get a prescription for a higher dose.

Maybe we can't have a one-size-fits-all solution, but need some substance-by-substance evaluation on what can be used recreationally realitively safe, what is just nasty and should only be handed to those already struggling with addiction and what should be banned altogether. This takes of course lots of open-mindedness and knowledge from the law makers and requires lots of responsibility from the users.

 

[Jacubey]

I'm of the belief that, before ingesting any psychoactive substance, a person should be able to pass a basic test about that drug that cover its interactions, complications to watch out for, and appropriate set and setting.

Legally I imagine this would be done through some website where your profile is maintained in some database, and associated with your license or other government ID. I imagine that when you go to a store, they check to see if you've passed the tests for the restricted substances. From here, any harm that may come from cheating is self-inflicted, and peddling these substances on the black market to uneducated individuals should come with some kind of punishment.

Drugs that are dangerous and have addiction potential like fentanyl I don't think should be illegal, but should be regulated in a way that it is pre-dosed clearly and non-lethally, and a lethal quantity should not be sold in a single transaction.

Plants should be completely omitted from this conversation. Anybody seeking out a plant and processing it in to a drug has certainly undergone the study necessary for them to safely partake.

 

[MAGMA17]

Governments outlaw drugs simply because this is what their electorate wants. They do not do it to "protect" the population or for a moral issue. The majority of the people who vote are people who live a normal, quiet life, they don't think much, they have their mortgage, the dog to take for a walk, the daily program to follow that starts at 9pm on TV. A life where everything is under control. Predictable, and that's what they want. Drugs and people who take drugs are unpredictable. Both for good and for bad.

The majority of the population sees it this way, and consequently governments do what the majority wants. First, the mentality must change, the vision of the world, and then things may be different. There must be a cultural change. After that you can also change the organization of society.

This is the problem of democracy ... it is not based on right, or on logic. It is useless to make almost mathematical speeches, it is not important what is right for those who govern us. What it sells is important. And they have to sell their person to be voted.

One thing I've always thought is: the majority of the interventions carried out by human beings in these millennia have always been something that basically had a positive vision, they wanted to "improve" something. Plastic, if we go back to the 19th century, doesn't seem like an invention that bad ... I don't think anyone could have foreseen the environmental disaster it would have caused.

we have no way to understand and predict with certainty what is best for society, for the environment or for I don't know what. We don't have the necessary knowledge.

 

[Voidmatrix]

Governments outlaw drugs simply because this is what their electorate wants. They do not do it to "protect" the population or for a moral issue

This is hard to concede to when we consider that many drugs can be dangerous and many have high abuse potential.

One love

 

[Hyper Turtle]

One point against having all drugs legally available is that some substances have such a great addiction potential that increase in their availability is likely to increase the amount of curious (and desperate) people who get hooked.

How does legalisation mean increased availability though?

In the mid 90s, i could not go anywhere without someone trying to sell me heroin. Every train station. Every park. Some streets, just passers-by. Every time of day, even when all stores were closed. People were smoking heroin on the tram, no joke.

Legalisation doesn't have to mean everyone can get everything. Illegality does. Legalisation means the possibility of some control over availability, not to mention quality.

For example, alcohol is legal, but minors aren't supposed to be able to get it. Some places even have laws that forbid serving alcohol to people who are already obviously drunk. Or after a certain time of night. In my country, only certified distillers are allowed to make spirits.

Antibiotics are legal, yet for many you need a prescription to get them.

Sulfuric acid is legal, but it's not easy to get here.

Leaving things to the black market means that availability is only governed by demand. If a block has enough users, dealers will be there 24/7 and ask no questions (besides "are you a cop" ).

It is true that a certain demographic might be willing to try but not to buy on the black market. But it's also historically true that a lot of people got into addictive stuff because some dealers offered a broad spectrum. Came for the weed/ecstasy/LSD, stayed for the sugar/coke/whatever. And i can't even really blame those dealers too much - if you risk prison anyway, why not earn some money. Most of them were probably mostly trying to finance their own habit anyway.

Illegality doesn't improve anything. Reasonable regulation does. Replacing stigmatisation with support and broad education does.

When i was a kid, we were taught all drugs are bad. You smoke weed, a year later you're on heroin, and another year later you're dead. That kind of education. You know what a lot of people did? When they tried weed and learned that it wasn't all that bad, they thought the same was the case for all the other drugs. And got hooked because everything was always available everywhere.

The amount of people hooked to opioids in North America right now is not because they were all curious. It's because doctors hooked them, be it purposefully or by neglecting what they should have known all along. It's because big money companies' legal threats were more convincing to the government than science or common sense. And the reason drug cartels have a big part of the market is because availability was regulated in an idiotic way: push it on everyone at first, then make it legally unavailable and/or unaffordable to them when it's too late.

Btw, one major reason for the decline of laudanum popularity was the availability of morphine and later heroin. Both were praised also as cures for addiction of their predecessor, with no addiction potential. Heroin is actually a brand name, it was introduced at a similar time and by the same company as Aspirin. There were posters advertising both.

 

[Voidmatrix]

Legality usually leads to regulation; illegality is by definition unregulated.

In some instances, with "proper" oversight, legality can make the harm reduction side better.

But again, think of the opioid epidemic...

One love

 

[MAGMA17]

Governments outlaw drugs simply because this is what their electorate wants. They do not do it to "protect" the population or for a moral issue

This is hard to concede to when we consider that many drugs can be dangerous and many have high abuse potential.

One love

In my opinion the fact that certain drugs can be dangerous is a factor that determines the thinking of the voters, but not of the government. The government reflects the thinking of the majority of the population (who vote). So the government's primary motivation for doing what it does is to stay behind the voters (as they must ensure a continuation of their mandate) while the danger would be a secondary motivation.

 

[Voidmatrix]

Governments outlaw drugs simply because this is what their electorate wants. They do not do it to "protect" the population or for a moral issue

This is hard to concede to when we consider that many drugs can be dangerous and many have high abuse potential.

One love

In my opinion the fact that certain drugs can be dangerous is a factor that determines the thinking of the voters, but not of the government. The government reflects the thinking of the majority of the population (who vote). So the government's primary motivation for doing what it does is to stay behind the voters (as they must ensure a continuation of their mandate) while the danger would be a secondary motivation.

It's usually governmental agencies and bodies that highlight potential dangers of drugs; entities that receive at least some funding from their respective governments.

All the same, I understand you better with your rephrasing. You know how I am (and you definitely do!)

One love

 

[hug454]

Plants should be completely omitted from this conversation. Anybody seeking out a plant and processing it in to a drug has certainly undergone the study necessary for them to safely partake.

What if they give the processed product or sell it to someone who does not have the ability to safely partake?

I can't think of any way really to treat drugs in legal terms that will suit everybody. My view about it is that every drug should be legalised and the tax revenue by law should be spent on improving education and healthcare. The drugs that have a high addiction/abuse risk are far more dangerous when you don't know how much or what exactly it is that you are putting in your body.

 

[Hyper Turtle]

Governments outlaw drugs simply because this is what their electorate wants.

That may be true today in most places. And people want it because they think it should be that way, because it has been that way for all their life.

Quasi-global prohibition was established by the UN though (Internation Opium Convention of 1912, Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961), and i suspect most countries did not consult their voters about it.

 

[Hyper Turtle]

Plants should be completely omitted from this conversation. Anybody seeking out a plant and processing it in to a drug has certainly undergone the study necessary for them to safely partake.

A handful of Brugmansia tea deaths every year in Zürich disagree.

 

[Hyper Turtle]

Legality usually leads to regulation; illegality is by definition unregulated.

In some instances, with "proper" oversight, legality can make the harm reduction side better.

But again, think of the opioid epidemic...

One love

I am thinking of that. It did not happen because these opioids were/are legal, it happened because the pharma pushers managed to prevent the government from creating reasonable regulation by misrepresenting the dangers. Iirc the government tried to tighten the screws and was threatened with litigation for billions by the pushers, but i can't find links confirming that rn.

Q: What were the main drivers of the opioid crisis, and what are the report’s main takeaways on how to minimize the damage?

A: One major conclusion is that the crisis represents a multi-system failure of regulation. OxyContin approval is one example—Purdue Pharma was later shown to have presented a fraudulent description of the drug as less addictive than other opioids. The profit motive of the pharmaceutical industry remains ever present.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Post-approval, it’s usually left up to industry—not regulators—to educate and advise prescribers on how to evaluate and mitigate risk. Donations from opioid manufacturers to politicians continue to influence policy decisions. In addition, a revolving door of officials leaving government regulatory agencies such as the Drug Enforcement Agency regularly join the pharmaceutical industry with little to no “cooling off” periods. The report details these and other glaring examples.

EDIT:
Also IMO it should definitely be illegal to pay doctors for prescribing your product. And i feel like any MD not knowing that these things are super addictive after, say, 1995, should be liable to get their license revoked for malpractice.

 

[MAGMA17]

It's usually governmental agencies and bodies that highlight potential dangers of drugs; entities that receive at least some funding from their respective governments.

All the same, I understand you better with your rephrasing. You know how I am (and you definitely do!) Love

Surely there are many people who work in politics, in the social sector, who have a vision of caring for society. I know what you mean and I don't question it. I, however, speak of the apicality of politics, of those who make the laws. Also in Italy we have state entities whose purpose is to fight the mafia, but we know from certain historical data that the same government has been manipulated by the mafia and vice versa. Just to say...



The point of my speech is more that the laws we give to our society don't have much to do with logic, but more with culture, history, customs, "general" thinking.

Linking to the opioid problem: I find it hard to imagine something like this happening in any country other than the United States (there are a couple that come to mind, actually, but they are very similar, in fact). With all the respect I have for the country, God forbid. I'm not saying this judiciously. In my opinion it is always a cultural question.

Edit: sorry if I use the word "always", I'm not that dogmatic. It's just not my mother tongue.

 

[Voidmatrix]

I am thinking of that. It did not happen because these opioids were/are legal, it happened because the pharma pushers managed to prevent the government from creating reasonable regulation by misrepresenting the dangers. Iirc the government tried to tighten the screws and was threatened with litigation for billions by the pushers, but i can't find links confirming that rn.

I do feel that their "schedule" level in the U.S. was a direct factor that allowed them to do said pushing.

Also IMO it should definitely be illegal to pay doctors for prescribing your product. And i feel like any MD not knowing that these things are super addictive after, say, 1995, should be liable to get their license revoked for malpractice.

I've always thought that this was problematic, but it's an unfortunate side-effect of the structure through which money flows.

Surely there are many people who work in politics, in the social sector, who have a vision of caring for society. I know what you mean and I don't question it. I, however, speak of the apicality of politics, of those who make the laws. Also in Italy we have state entities whose purpose is to fight the mafia, but we know from certain historical data that the same government has been manipulated by the mafia and vice versa. Just to say...

I think this may be more of an issue with how informed law makers are and how much they fit into the status quo moreso than being uncaring and simply wanting votes. Fitting into the status quo of the majority, one may already feel similarly to said majority, and so in gaining votes, while potentially misguided, they are quite utilitarian.

We can agree that this is highly complex and nuanced.

The point of my speech is more that the laws we give to our society don't have much to do with logic, but more with culture, history, customs, "general" thinking.

Linking to the opioid problem: I find it hard to imagine something like this happening in any country other than the United States (there are a couple that come to mind, actually, but they are very similar, in fact). With all the respect I have for the country, God forbid. I'm not saying this judiciously. In my opinion it is always a cultural question.

Edit: sorry if I use the word "always", I'm not that dogmatic. It's just not my mother tongue.

Yeah.. as rational and logical as many people think they are, many are a bit unaware of what those topics entail, even in the political sphere. While debate does "attempt" to focus on logical functioning of an argument, it doesn't mean much to people who don't understand logical thought and the nature of implicit and cognitive biases as well as formal and informal fallacies. This is why large groups of people can be convinced by poor logical argumentation. As such, in many debates, it quickly devolves. It doesn't help that it is a practice focused more on winning and losing than veracity and investigation.

One love