Legalize Drugs & Solve the Depression

[JCSkinner]

fellas,
drugs are freely available retail nationwide (I'm not talking about booze, fags, or the multitude of synthetic products available).

They call it 'aromatic herbal incense', but it ain't like any incense I've ever come accross. Fact is it's stronger than most cannabis hybrids but it has no THC. It's cheap, non-addictive, hell it even smells nice!!

I wonder how long before it's banned.

Nice ad.
What are the ingredients?

[CitiZenJonredux]

Nice ad.
What are the ingredients?

Thanks, I really should be in marketing.
The boys down at the lab tell me it contains, Verbascum, Cinamomum, Aesculus and a few others.

I guess my point would be the law can not account for every sundry compound in our scientific lexicon; soon as one is banned a substitute is found and utilised - laws can always be circumvented.

Ultimately it might prove more productive to address the social/personal issues that lead to drug use/abuse.

[Almanac]

The Trinity study, as you summarise it, at best exaggerates, and at worst misrepresents a causal link between serotonin production and clinical depression.

You mean Dr Thomas, commenting on the study. No he doesn't. Depression often correlates with low serotonin levels but correlation is not causality. The cause can be any number of things; one of the effects is a low serotonin level and a low serotonin level can induce depression and has been shown to.

(Experientially obvious to anyone who has taken Ecstacy and experienced the aftermath.)

Another study you cited was apparently done by a Chinese quack nutritionist. The rest are flawed due to their reliance on self-reporting street usage for data.

What study was conducted by a nutritionist?

The longitudinal study's conclusions are supported by many other studies and supported by animal studies.

Monkeys aren't people, and animal studies do not easily map onto human experiences.

I'm sure scientists are aware that monkeys aren't people. Nevertheless animal studies are valuable.

And for the reason above, it is not safe to make those assumptions. Look, let me make it easy for both of us, because I'm not going to spend all night rebutting every single result you get when you type 'ecstasy is evil: research' into google. I suspect that prolonged use of MDMA is neurotoxic in ways that are primarily reversible through abstinence, but in some cases and in relation to certain cognitive effects, may not be entirely reversible.

I agree with you here. Reinnervation of pruned 5-HT cells has been observed in some animal species but in a highly erratic fashion. There is also the consideration that some effects may not become manifest until much later on (when huge numbers of cells start to die off) . Despite your assumption, it is probably for similar reasons to yourself (nothing to do with the legalisation argument) that I am quite interested in the long-term effects of Ecstacy.

However, that's what happens when you take a psychoactive substance. And people do, in their millions every weekend of every year, and have done for a long time. And those people injure themselves and others less than alcohol users, die much, much less often as a result of their drug use than drinkers and tobacco smokers and cause much less social ills and discomfort than either.
It remains risible that some of those substances are legal, and have dire and well-chronicled social, physiological, psychological and mental results on large numbers of people, while other safer substances are proscribed.

Is the fact that some highly toxic substances are legal a justification for legalising others? Nicotine would be banned if it had been recently discovered and rightly so. Alcohol though often does convey social benefits without damaging one's health (eg. easing of inhibitions, relaxation, increased sociability) when used responsibly (in moderation). Other illegal drugs may convey social benefits (depending on your interpretation) but they are unique in that even low single doses may cause lasting harm. Cannabis I would argue against on the same grounds as nicotine but with additional reasons.

[shutuplaura]

You mean Dr Thomas, commenting on the study. No he doesn't. Depression often correlates with low serotonin levels but correlation is not causality. The cause can be any number of things; one of the effects is a low serotonin level and a low serotonin level can induce depression and has been shown to.

(Experientially obvious to anyone who has taken Ecstacy and experienced the aftermath.)



What study was conducted by a nutritionist?

The longitudinal study's conclusions are supported by many other studies and supported by animal studies.



I'm sure scientists are aware that monkeys aren't people. Nevertheless animal studies are valuable.



I agree with you here. Reinnervation of pruned 5-HT cells has been observed in some animal species but in a highly erratic fashion. There is also the consideration that some effects may not become manifest until much later on (when huge numbers of cells start to die off) . Despite your assumption, it is probably for similar reasons to yourself (nothing to do with the legalisation argument) that I am quite interested in the long-term effects of Ecstacy.



Is the fact that some highly toxic substances are legal a justification for legalising others? Nicotine would be banned if it had been recently discovered and rightly so. Alcohol though often does convey social benefits without damaging one's health (eg. easing of inhibitions, relaxation, increased sociability) when used responsibly (in moderation). Other illegal drugs may convey social benefits (depending on your interpretation) but they are unique in that even low single doses may cause lasting harm. Cannabis I would argue against on the same grounds as nicotine but with additional reasons.

Possibly true but largely irrelevant because these drugs are freely available anyway. The amount of money required to fully prevent the supply reaching consumers would be astronomical. And there is no guarentee that its even possible. Meanwhile people are having their lives ruined by criminal gangs.

Question for you, do you think organised criminals want legalised drugs?

I'd say not.

[Almanac]

Question for you, do you think organised criminals want legalised drugs?

I'd say not.

There would still be a black market. Look at the black market for tobacco. And presumably the "harder" drugs would not be freely available.

[shutuplaura]

There would still be a black market. Look at the black market for tobacco. And presumably the "harder" drugs would not be freely available.

Hard drugs not freely available. Available at treatment centres with doctors appointments. That was the system that they had in the UK and Ireland up until the 1960's. It worked well then. Its also the system used in certain european countries. The only problem there is that it attracts addicts from neighbouring countries without this scheme but we could guard against that.

We give addicts methadone anyway. clinically administered herion is actually just as safe and would attract addicts to these treatment centres. They would ne a lot less likely to die from overdose because the streength of the drug they use is known and its not cut in dirty labs with impure substances. Contact means that they can be channelled through social services where those seeking support can get it. Needle sharing also becomes less of a problem. This could be paid for by taxing soft drugs if you want.

As for soft drugs. Well, why go black market when you can get it in a coffee shop? The cigarette market is different because its price is deliberately inflated to discourage use amung the young. There will alwys be a black market in everything, even babies nappies but it will become miniscule.

[Dreaded_Estate]

Whether drugs are damaging to the users health is irrelevant to this debate IMO.

The main consideration should be whether the harmful effects of drug use are better managed by regulating and legislating the industry or giving that control to criminals.

It will never be possible to remove the demand for drugs and I think any strategy that is based on that notion is doomed to failure.

[JCSkinner]

Thanks, I really should be in marketing.
The boys down at the lab tell me it contains, Verbascum, Cinamomum, Aesculus and a few others.

I guess my point would be the law can not account for every sundry compound in our scientific lexicon; soon as one is banned a substitute is found and utilised - laws can always be circumvented.

Ultimately it might prove more productive to address the social/personal issues that lead to drug use/abuse.

You need to get new boys down your lab - 'Aesculus' is a genus - could be any buckeye or horse chestnut. Verbascum aids breathing. Cinamomum, again, could be any of dozens, but I'd assume it's simple camphor.
Not a psychoactive agent among them. No known intoxicating properties whatsoever. If you think you're getting high off this, it's the placebo effect.
One of the benefits of legalising and taxing the availability of something like cannabis is that is would devastate forever the market for muck like this.

[silvamuppet]

There would still be a black market. Look at the black market for tobacco. And presumably the "harder" drugs would not be freely available.

There will always be a black market wherever the profit margins are large enough.
There is a black market for cigarettes due to the huge amount of duty we put on them. It's worth a smuggler's while to buy cheap fags abroad for sale here.

[myksav]

i think cannabis should be legalised. I would have reservations about any 'hard' drugs being legalised like cocaine, heroin etc...

But would the smoking ban impinge on the legalisation of cannabis?

At present, the law is a bit weird on the smoking ban. If a Garda finds someone smoking tobacco in a bar, for example, the smoker gets a fine, the bar owner gets a fine (3000, I think) and some other possible penalties.
If he finds someone smoking cannabis in that same bar, the owner gets a small fine, if any, and the smoker gets it in the neck, severity depending on the Garda's mood.

Going by the Dutch system, who have a smoking ban as well, if there's tobacco in the smoke, it has to be consumed outdoors, if pure cannabis it can be smoked indoors on the premises.
If it became legal, I'd say it should not be smoked indoors in public places. Apply the same laws as for tobacco.