Addiction Science Forum

Hi Professor,

Not an easy question to answer and not without debate from any position. Never the less, I am wondering if we should take a lesson from the Dutch and examine drug use in Amsterdam for the answer or even more questions. I believe the Dutch would view the issue of soft-drug use as a health matter and a matter of choice for the individual. Maybe someone in the forum can comment on the epidemiological evidence of soft-drug use in Amsterdam and harm to the individual and/or society. Possibly, a portion of the answer may be in how society uses alcohol. Especially, considering we may know more about the neurochemical actions of other soft-drugs than we do about alcohol. Not to mention how harmful excessive alcohol use is to the individual and the toll it takes on society (other soft-drugs maybe less harmful when compared to alcohol). A lesson from history can be remembered prohibition did not work and may have made things worse. Another, recent lesson from the Dutch could be their revised stance on hallucinogenic mushrooms (maybe some restraint in the laws is needed). Before commenting further I think I will do more reading on the subject and resolve some of my own internal debate on the question.

John

Thanks for your comments, John. I'm very familiar with the Dutch experience, both from travel to Amsterdam and from discussions with my Dutch colleagues (and I've also reviewed some of the data). I'm withholding comment now to encourage others to express their views. But (surprise, surprise ) I have a lot to say later.

It seems we spend a lot of time and money getting marijuana off the streets that could be spent focusing on the harder drugs. I'd be interested to know how much effort and money is put into this by agencies such as the DEA. I think we're ready for the gradual legalization of some of the softer drugs.

i think this is a really great question although highly debatable. my personal opinion is that people living in a free society do have the right to do any drugs they want whether legalized or not. however it is what people do while they are on these drugs is what needs to be regulated. people have the right to put themselves in harms way by taking the drugs but once they leave their home and enter into society they are not only putting themselves at risk but innocent people as well. for example, if someone were to get high while sitting at home with friends i have no issue with that and i believe it is fine. however once that person decides to go driving to a friends house while high, i believe that that behavior is not acceptable bc they are putting other peoples lives at risk while performing that task. so in my opinion, people living in a free society have the right to do whatever drugs they want however once they leave the privacy of their homes and enter into society their behavior and actions should be regulated.

We are all aware of the woes of the American economy at this point in time. I recently read an article about the state of California's projected $20 billion budget deficit. It went on to explain how legalizing marijuana would save the state billions of dollars, bringing in not only revenue from the legal taxationof it but it would also eliminate petty drug charges that require the use of the court system, jails and prisons, and many other resources that cost the taxpayers millions of dollars every year. Proven to be a non-addictive drug we need to take a lesson from the rest of the world. Something that can easily be grown in your backyard that has no major effects on the human body (other than causing motivational problems, which is not always a bad thing, b/c you do not see too many marijuana users looking for a fight) should have zero government restrictions. We are not free the government tells us how we should live. The use of psychotropic drugs should be a personal choice. Big Brother does not give us the "choice", rather we are told what to do. The dictionary defines freedom as,1. the power to determine action without restraint, and 2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc. Can we truly say we live in a free society, as outlined by the American founding fathers???

What is a free society anyways? Seriously. The word "free" is thrown around but its not so cut and dry/ black and white. Is a free society one where you can do whatever you want, paying no regard to anything else like safety? Would you want to live in a place like that? I'm guessing not. Although we say we want a "free" society, what we really want, and need, is a society that has certain restrictions. We need a balance. That being said, I think that people should have the right to use psychotropic drugs in their homes. A lot of people could get out of jail saving us $, crime would go down, and we could tax the drugs. There would be some definite positive outcomes. HOWEVER we need to be VERY careful as a society to set up restrictions. It should be legal to use only in private settings. I would not want my kids interacting with some guy tripping on acid at the supermarket. It should also be completely illegal to drive under the influence. If psychotropic drugs were legalized, would companies start to market the products (like cigarettes) to try to get as many users as possible? Would all of the "Truth" commercials become "drugs are cool," commercials? And even if we do put restrictions on advertising, would corporations find a way to glamorize drugs? Hey, they did it with cigarettes. How about gateways drugs? Would legalization just draw people to seek an alternate state of mind and then draw them to hard drugs? Legalizing psychotropic drugs would not be as simple as many people may think. There would be a LOT of implications. Its not always black and white guys...there's pros and cons to everything. Try to think of what kind of society you would want your kids to grow up in. On a side note...is it true that if you trip on LSD more than like 7 times you go permanently crazy? If that's the case it should stay illegal.

regardless of the legality of drug use people will make their own decision to use them or not. I believe that everyone should have the right to do what they want to their body; however, the real problem tends to be when the consequences of those choices infringe on others. that could mean anything from a car accident or when a family member or friend feels forced/obligated to extend care on the user. i guess what im getting at is that some of the harder drugs more often are accompanied by these problems, therefore i agree with legal restrictions even though that doesnt mean no one will break the laws, maybe just a fewer number of people. but i do also believe that some of the laws restricting the use of soft drugs could be eased. particularly in the privacy of your own home. driving restrictions should still stand.

This is a pretty difficult question. Firstly, is there such thing as a "free" society? I have never heard of one yet, if it even exists. The fact that all governments have laws implies that no citizen is absolutely free. If there is a free society out there, it would be in anarchy. It would not have any form of government, which leads us back to the question of will it still be considered a society then?
So understanding that there is no such thing as a free society (as far as I know), should psychotropic substances be legalized?
On one hand, our bodies belong to no one but ourselves, thus the argument will proceed along the line of: we should have the right to do whatever we want with ourselves. This is where it gets a bit sticky. One of the reasons why the laws exist is to give as much "freedom" as possible to the people as long as it does not infringe on the "freedom" of others. However the use of hard drugs will be obviously detrimental to others in society. Even soft drugs are questionable. Take marijuana for example, studies have found that the use of marijuana tends to diminish self control. Just this one effect has a huge potential of negatively affecting others in society. A person with less self control and is cognitively under the influence of the drug might not even honor the driving restriction or for that matter might not even isolate himself/herself from others in society. So my stand is these psychotropic drugs (hard and soft) should not be legalized. Although, I can see no harm in "life's little pleasures".
Sorry for being so long-winded, professor.

No harm, no foul...

If a person takes a drug and is able to refrain from negatively affecting others their actions should be permitted. If they cross this boundary, for example by committing a crime to acquire their drug or cause a car accident while under the influence of their drug, they should be punished and lose the right to use their drug.

In order to ensure safe drug use, laws and enforcement should be similar as done with alcohol. A person shouldn't operate machinery under the influence, use drugs in public places, or be inebriated in public. Furthermore, the user would be required to understand safe use of their drug and the consequences of its use. (They could then be licensed to use similarly to being licensed to drive).

I acknowledge that this is not a practical solution but in my opinion is how a “free” society would operate.

My short answer: yes! But this requires some explanation....

First, it seems like many of the comments are focused on whether or not a free society exists at all, which is a difficult question without defining 'society'. The social world on a broad scale could include your culture or your country which is inextricable from your politics - in that case, I don't believe I know of a free society that exists. But the "social" can also be the social world in which you live - the people you associate with, the networking that creates, the culture you take part in on a smaller scale. It's much easier to ignore the government on a smaller scale - people do this regularly (speeding, underaged drinking, etc) something that was popularized in the era of prohibition in which a generation of people subverted their allegiance to the law because, well, the law was ridiculous. In short, a free society is possible if you choose to live in one. Since society is a construct it is also malleable, so if you don't think you're living in a free society, then start! (if you want).

I think its also important that someone poses the following argument when discussing drug use: if people in a free society have the right to choice on all things that concern them, that includes their own health. Though it might seem like an absurd thing to say and is certainly counterintuitive, people must have as much a right to be miserable and unhealthy as they do to be healthy and happy. If we did not have the right to be miserable we would have to stop the radio from playing the music that allows us to be. If we did not have the right to be unhealthy, we'd have to shut down the chicken wing festival. And I for one do not want to stop listening to the radio, and I love the chicken wing festival. But in all seriousness, that is something worth considering - perhaps it is not entirely our place to dictate the health of others. Because it is inarguable at this point that people who use 'harder' drugs will eventually lose their ability to self regulate because of biological process (although some are still arguing that this isn't true: a professor from Harvard just published a book about the 'myth' of addiction as a disease), it is important to consider whether or not we have the right to intervene at all.

Nevertheless, there is an element of morality that can't be ignored, and I do believe that those who choose to attempt healthy lifestyles should be given the right to education about drugs and their effects. I think we should be focusing much less on the legality or illegality of drugs (a partnership for a drug free america? I'll believe that when there is a partnership for an adolescent free, college free, concert free america) and much more on education. If people have the right to choice it is also our responsibility to allow them to make informed choice: marijuana, maybe a good idea. heroin, probably not a good idea. Respecting choice also means respecting people.

Lastly, even though I fully support the right to alter and experiment with one's own mind as much or as little as one wants without criminal implications, I have to agree with those who commented above about a person's right to choice so long as it does not harm others. I know one person mentioned driving under the influence, which I agree should be regulated, though should be researched, especially when it comes to marijuana: just how much or how little do certain drugs compromise the ability to drive? The broad-sweeping anti-drug sentiment can have serious implications for people who smoke a little pot before going to see a movie and end up in jail for two years at the age of 19. To me, that is as irresponsible and ignorant as using 'heavy' drugs. If I might make a broad-sweeping anti-societal metaphor, society itself is arguably the heaviest drug available. And to the example of the kid meeting someone on acid in a grocery store: is the person on acid violent? hurting your kid? scaring him, or bothering him? These things are important to think about, and these stigmas about drug use are really important to break.

This question is a difficult one especially since I'm not informed enough on the matter to have an opinion. But, if asked this question out of the blue without thinking too much, I'd probably have to say that people should have the right to do drugs as they please. If they don't want to deal with the world and it's problems, and ruin their lives, so be it.. it's their own fault.

However, after thinking more in depth you begin to realize that it's not as simple as that. Some of these people have gone through extraordinary traumatic events, some have been abused physically and/or sexually, others not educated enough, underdeveloped proper coping skills, and have been exposed to and live through the harshest of realities. Drugs give these people away of escaping the past and their problems, but they are obsviously not the solution. So, is it right that these people (under these conditions who have been led astray) should have the right to ruin the rest of their lives because of drugs, when their are other ways of solving their problems? Should they have a right to do drugs?

Drugs change people, sometimes drastically, and destroy communities. No matter what, drugs are drugs. Making the soft drugs legal is not a solution. Only when it comes to medicinal purposes should these drugs be legalized, however, all medical drugs should be used based on a cost-benefit analysis (they probably are, idk?) and they should be restricted to medical uses and monitored carefully.

But making recreational psychotropic drugs illegal is not the greatest solution either, more needs to be done or another solution needs to arise. Because sometimes the mere fact of them being illegal is what triggers many individuals to use them. Exposure and more extreme prevention programs (coping skills programs as well) should be implemented in schools and communities. (DARE probably does the opposite of what it's meant to do) These programs should not be led by authority figures or people in power but the common people, and more importantly drug addicts themselves.

Laws aren't fun at all, but sometimes their made to protect you from yourself.

I think in a free society people should be able to do what they want to their own bodies, as long as they don't pose a threat to others or infringe on others' rights in doing so. There should still be regulations like there are on alcohol and cigarettes (age restrictions, driving restrictions, etc.), but I don't think it's justified to stop people altogether from doing something they want, if it doesn't effect anyone else.

they're, not their...whoopsie!

dudenaspeedo OUT!

I think it is very hard to answer this, because like mentioned in the article sometimes people lose the ability to chose to use the drugs when they become addicted. Furthermore while I do think people should have the freedom to chose, I dont think it should ever be to the endangerment of other others.

In a free society, people should be able to do as they please since they have that right. Doing soft drugs such as marijuana, ecstasy, etc. is their choice. As most people stated, it's fine for recreational use in their home as long as there's no threat to society. It should just be legalized because people are going to do it anyway. I agree that there should be regulations like there is on alcohol and cigarettes.

Seems like a good way for governments to raise money (regulation and taxes).

Hmm......I think as long as the substance in question isn't one that is instantly addicting and have drastic harmful affects, it should be fine that someone should take them, as long as they regulate it. Particularly, when it comes to marijuana, I think if it is treated like alcohol, you'll be fine.