How should society treat psychoactive substances in legal terms?

[fink]

In order for global societies to change the outlook on drugs those societies would need to change their ethos so drastically that the very thing most drug users are escaping from and rebelling against would no longer exist.

 

[MAGMA17]

In order for global societies to change the outlook on drugs those societies would need to change their ethos so drastically that the very thing most drug users are escaping from and rebelling against would no longer exist.

I agree :thumb_up:

It is difficult for me to imagine a society where, for example, death is seen with this enormous fear and despair, having a different vision of certain substances.

 

[Voidmatrix]

In order for global societies to change the outlook on drugs those societies would need to change their ethos so drastically that the very thing most drug users are escaping from and rebelling against would no longer exist.

If this were the case, I'd just do psychedelics in more public spaces more often :lol:

I'm not sure all drug use can be relegated to escapism.

One love

 

[Hyper Turtle]

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.

...

One love

You are of course right. Legality is a prerequisite for bad regulation, because illegality means no regulation for whoever decides to break that law. But i still think it's not fair to toss the baby of legality with the bath water of bad regulation.

Companies being able to legally bribe doctors into irresponsibly prescribing opioids isn't just an unfortunate side effect of money flow though imo, it is another case of bad regulation and legislation. Quite possibly even an example of blatant corruption preventing better ones.

For legality to be better than prohibition, good regulation is required (although one might argue that even the US opioid epidemic would be less catastrophic if people could continue getting known substance in known dosage after being hooked, rather than having to resort to the black market once the doctors don't renew the prescription).
And for good regulation to be possible, legality is required. That's what i was trying to say.

We don't have that epidemic in Europe because both those companies' and those doctors' behavior is illegal here - despite the same opioids absolutely being able to be prescribed where medically indicated.

--

I'm sorry if i was a tad aggressive yesterday. I'm very passionate about this topic, still bitter about the outcomes of two popular votes during my 'career' as a voter - once against legalising all drugs, once against legalising just cannabis. It kinda sucks to live in a direct democracy surrounded by people who think it's ok to criminalise people such as myself, and don't mind handing all the control and profit to organised gangsters for free. Sorry if i vented that frustration here.