The Spice of Life
“The spice extends life, the spice expands consciousness, the spice is vital to space travel.” At least that’s according to Virginia Madsen in the opening monologue of David Lynch’s cult classic, Dune. In reality, Spice does not extend life, it does not expand consciousness and, unless NASA has come up with some new propulsion technology they’ve yet to divulge, it is not vital to space travel. Spice just gets you high. A mixture of herbs and chemicals sealed in a space-age bag, it is sold in head shops and on the internet as a legal alternative to cannabis. Now I have to admit, until a few hours ago, I had never heard of Spice. It could have been a made up drug. Like cake. But with the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs today calling for the concoction to be banned, Spice has been all over the news.
It could be that Professor David Nutt, chairman of the advisory council, had some bad acid at Woodstock. Or it could just be that he’s a confused individual. The same man who earlier this year said ecstasy is “no more dangerous than horse riding”, today recommended banning Spice on the grounds that it can cause “paranoia and panic attacks.” Much like alcohol can cause vomiting, embarrassingly over-affectionate behaviour, singing at unreasonable volumes and the odd knifing outside a pub. Indeed it was Nutt himself who, only in 2006, posed the question that teeth-grinding ravers have been asking themselves for decades: “Why is ecstasy illegal when alcohol, a considerably more harmful drug, is not?” Sound reasoning, but a confusing message.
The government has flip-flopped on the issue of drugs over the last few years, knocking cannabis one letter down the alphabet, then upgrading it again when they realised it might send a few kids crazy. The message, however, from governments around the world, ever since the US spearheaded a campaign of hysteria best demonstrated by the film Reefer Madness, has always been consistent. Drugs are bad. Professor Nutt’s approach to the legality of recreational substances, be they smoked, sniffed, snorted, swallowed or injected into the eyeballs, is actually refreshingly nuanced. What’s confusing about his latest soundbites, however, is that he actually thinks banning Spice might help.
There is no doubt that, like alcohol and tobacco, illegal drugs have side-effects. From being unable to get a stiffy to becoming a stiff, they range from the mildly irritating to the genuinely dangerous. Banning drugs, however, has never proved a successful deterrent. Gordon Brown’s justification for the reclassification of cannabis this year was not just that the new stronger strains could cause mental health problems, but that it was a “gateway drug”.
Cannabis is a gateway drug. It’s not a gateway drug because kids taking their first toke behind the bike sheds immediately feel like racking up a line of coke, anymore than someone drinking their first pint wants to nip to the toilets for a wee and a fix of heroin. Its potential as a gateway drug arises because dealers selling cannabis will often sell harder drugs. And if they don’t sell harder drugs, chances are they know someone who does. It is precisely cannabis’s illegal status that opens a gateway for users to this black market and provides access to drugs they might not otherwise encounter. Needless to say, if cannabis were legal, if it were sold in shops, taxed, regulated by the government and removed from the streets, parks and schoolyards, the gates would be much easier to close.
The war on drugs, like the war on terror, is unwinnable. Decades of paying corrupt and bankrupt governments in Latin America to destroy coca plantations upon which the livelihoods of some of the poorest depend, of boarding boats and border checks, of funding the Taliban and locking up teenagers for committing the victimless crime of recreation, have failed to make a dent on supply or demand. Banning a substance will not prevent its use. If there’s a market for it, it will be bought and sold, whether the government permits it or not. As it stands, the main market for Spice, which has similar effects to cannabis but is more expensive, is people who are willing to pay a little bit more for their fun to avoid breaking the law. It is possible that banning it will reduce its use. But only because, with its main selling point removed, people will choose to smoke cannabis instead.
The answer to the most harmful effects of drugs, then, cannot be in prevention. It has to be in cure. Only through legalisation, regulation, and legitimate licensed sale, can the majority of drugs be made safe. If one accepts that people will smoke cannabis or take ecstasy regardless of the law – and they will – then surely it is preferable for those users to know the strength of the weed they’re puffing or exactly what’s in the pill they’re popping. The argument that legalising it will increase its use falls flat when one looks at the Dutch example. Amsterdam’s famous coffeeshops are packed with foreign tourists, but less than 3% of Dutch people over the age of 11 smoke weed themselves. Compare that to just under 30% of Britons aged 16-24 and 14% aged 25-34 who smoked it in the last year alone.
That does not mean that we should make highly addictive substances, like heroin and crack cocaine, that have the potential to destroy communities, freely available. But there is no sense in turning users into criminals, pushing them under the radar, beyond the pale and beyond help. Portugal’s move to decriminalise drugs in an effort to manage the problem is the perfect example of the way to approach the issue. The British government’s hysteria was a bad trip from the start and Professor Nutt’s call today to make Spice illegal is another misguided step on a road that’s going nowhere. Spice might not extend life, expand consciousness or facilitate space travel, but it gets you high. Unlike Spice, banning it will have very little effect.
Reader Comments
Curious that the author knows so little about the drugs issue that “until a few hours ago” he did not know what “Spice” was, yet is ready with an instant solution to the problem of drugs in society through ” leaglisation regulation, and legitimate licensed sale, can the majority of drugs be made safe”.
If legal sales made drugs safe, tobacco would not cause cancer and other illness, alcohol would not cause social and peronal mayhem and bad health as it plainly does. Legal crack cocaine bought over the counter from Boots will still be highly addictive and damaging (just assuming Boots could get product liabilty insurance!)
This is sloppy journalism of the most trivial and superficial nature. If you do not know about all the issues, have not properly studied the problem, better not to write too much about it-surely? Certainly do not come up with trivial and superficial solutions.
On the basis of the tobacco/alcohol model worldwide, that is on the basis of the EVIDENCE, the harm of those substances increases where there are no social, legal or religious taboos against use. Of course if drugs use remains illegal, there will always be SOME use. the proponents of legalisation produce no evidence that use or consequent personal & social harm would reduce through legalisation, they cannot, there is none. Use would be BOUND to increase, youthful experimentation would extend to whole of life use with consequent personal and social costs and harm from drugs is not just to the user. As for Gateway theory, cannabis plainly is a gateway drug, just like tobacco is. Drug use is cultural, anything we do or say that affects the drug using culture will aggarvete the problem. Irresponsible journalism is in the mix. If you had done proper research you might have discovered that cannabis mayn well affect the brain of some users and soften them up for using other durgs. Cannabis is not called “dope” for nothing.
Well now, I am honoured that the illustrious David Raynes of the National Drug Prevention Alliance has deigned to comment on my piece of sloppy journalism of the most trivial and superficial nature.
David, most children learn to read before they learn to write. This seems to be something that was lost on you. If you’d read my article properly before launching into your self-righteous crusade you would have noted that:
1) I admit quite freely I had never heard of Spice. As you well know, Spice is a brand name for a certain type of herbal high used as an alternative to cannabis. Like Tannoy is a brand name for a type of public address system. Or Hoover is a brand name for a type of vacuum cleaner. One does not have to know the name of every brand of PA system or vacuum cleaner to know about the commodity and its market. To pretend otherwise, as you do, is pure sophistry.
2) You will have noted I praised David Nutt’s nuanced approach to the harm of tobacco and alcohol relative to illegal drugs. We all know they’re not safe. The hypocrisy comes in making drugs that Nutt’s own study declared less dangerous illegal. Are you really proposing as a solution that alcohol and tobacco be outlawed too?
3) Of course you’re not going to make cannabis safe by legalising it any more than you can make crossing the road safe. Smoking anything will damage your lungs. What you can do is regulate for strength and provide information on potency, as they do in Dutch coffeeshops. You will notice that I did not refute the harmful mental effects of cannabis. I’ve seen enough burnt out dope junkies who smoke the strongest skunk and can’t live without a spliff in their hand to know what it can do. But the government’s own rationale for reclassifying cannabis was the effects and the strength of these new strains of skunk. The only way to challenge that is through regulation and information. The black market will never do that for you.
4) You say use would be BOUND to increase with youthful experimentation. What you’ve failed to tackle is the Dutch example which I clearly set out. Would you care to tell me, according to your EVIDENCE, why a significantly smaller proportion of Dutch people smoke cannabis than British, or Americans.
5) I quite clearly stated that cannabis is a gateway drug. Culture is a factor. But I’m sure you’ll agree that the culture of chemically-enhanced recreation is not limited to illegal drugs. Alcohol and drugs have a very fluid relationship with one another. As such, chemically and culturally, alcohol is as much a gateway drug as cannabis. What makes cannabis more significant as a gateway drug is economic, as I have explained. Its illegal status makes harder drugs much more readily available through the same channels.
6) Please tell me where I advocated legalising crack cocaine. I believe I specifically argued against it. What I said was that criminalising users pushes them beyond help. It further entrenches them in a cycle of poverty, crime, addiction and often homelessness from which there appear to be few legitimate means of escape. We’re talking here about demand, not supply. If you’re finding my ‘sloppy journalism’ easy to attack, David, it’s because all you’re hitting is the straw man you’ve set up.
Great article and refutations Sal; you can tell this guy cruises the blogosphere looking for left liberals wheeling out arguments which he thinks roughly approximate ones that he encounters daily (cue weary ‘I see it all the time, I do’ soliloquy delivered in the affectedly battle-hardened manner of a south east London murder squad detective), seeking to refute them with his rote-learned standard spiel. I’m interested to see what he comes back with now that the issue clearly requires deeper analysis and he hasn’t seen off his adversary in the first round.
The reasons cannabis use is typically less in much of the Netherlands is because of culture. there is much more preventive effort there against drug use than there is in the UK. Culture and social acceptability drive all drug use, of legal or illegal drugs. Use of tobacco for example is much stronger in many parts of eastern europe than it is in the UK. Explain that. If I am right and culture is the driver, if you want to look to why the UK culture on illegal drug use is one of the worst in Europe, (and it was not always thus), you would have to look to the other influences, some are social and to do with strength of family others are to do with the enormous media advocacy and the substantial paid advocacy for legalisation and liberalisation of illegal drugs the UK has had over the last five years, far stronger than anywhere else bar the US and Australia. The reclassification of cannabis was primarily because the government knew Blunkett had made a mistake. The message was that cannabis was LESS harmful than thought in the years before, all the evidence is it is more harmful. One of the main drivers was the position of the UKs Director of Mental Health.
As you say, you have known enough people wasted on cannabis. Your solution then is differrent to mine. In terms of TOTAL personal & social harm it is quite possible that cannabis is only beaten by the legal drugs. The legalisation argument is sloppy journalism because you and others fail to deal with the obvious evidence about increases in use of drugs through legality. The argument about cannabis users getting something else from the same dealer is largely illusory. Most early users of cannabis get it through social dealing beteen user friends. I did not suggest you wanted to legalise crack, I used crack as an example. You did not specify, but you did say this:
“Only through legalisation, regulation, and legitimate licensed sale, can the majority of drugs be made safe”.
Wrong, very wrong, the legal drugs are not safe, tobacco for everyone, alcohol bar in modest quantities, for everyone. we are where we are with those. The case for legalisation of more substances is not made out. Plainly they cannot be made “safe” by legalisation. They reamain iherently unsafe, legal or illegal. Your thinking is defective. No currently illegal drug would be inherently safer if legalised and if use increased, as on the evidence it would, there would be more consequent personal & social harm. Methadone generally comes from the state, there are plenty of methadone deaths. As for Portugal, yet again you have not done your research, users and addicts in Portugal mostly have to be processed through a Police Station to get into the treatment regime. In the UK that would not be possible because of our legal system without the power of arrest. Your criticism of the changes proposed for Spice are surely misplaced. Governments have a duty to inform and protect citizens. If Spice is not suitable for human consumption the ACMD is correct.
David seems to be persistently misinterpreting Salman’s statement that “Only through legalisation, regulation, and legitimate licensed sale, can the majority of drugs be made safe” as 100% literal when it should be clear that he can hardly mean totally free of risk. Rather, the rational case against prohibition is that yes, recreational drugs are inherently harmful, but I believe (and I think Salman meant) that the risks are best **reduced**, not in a futile fight to drive them underground, but by careful regulation. Drugs may not be made SAFE by legalisation, but they are made SAFER. Think about it – a huge proportion of the damage done by drugs originates from unreliable quality and unreliable strength. With quality control to protect consumers from “cutting”, and clear labelling to indicate active ingredient content, we can drastically cut these dangers.
Protected from charlatans and uncertainty, informed adults can then make their own personal decisions about drug consumption – which is ultimately what this all comes down to. I have no desire to take cocaine, but that is MY CHOICE and not one for the David Raynes of the world to make for me. The principle of drug prohibition means that David Rayne and the state must be effectively laying claim to at least partial ownership of my very body – for if my body was mine and mine alone, surely I would be allowed to put what I want in it?
legal or illegal, drugs will continue to be used. If tobacco and alcohol were illegal people would still obtain them much like they do with today’s illegal drugs. The only way to actually have any impact on drug use in this country lies in education. Now I don’t mean school assemblies where the local police say ‘drugs are bad’ while half the kids in the back row snigger, but real, honest education, looking at why people use drugs, what drives them to it. People can only make choices based on what they know and a more honest and frank approach to education on these matters will enable them to make better choices.
Ben is right. It would be an absolutely insane position for me to say that legalisation could make drugs risk-free. Most activities have an element of risk attached to them. The comparison of risk between ecstacy and horse riding by David Nutt is a perfect example. Both, in the vast majority of cases, are unlikely to kill you, but neither are without risk. It is for that reason that safety precautions are essential to reduce the inherent risk. In the case of horse riding, the answer is to wear a hard hat. In the case of ecstacy, legalisation, regulation and information so that users know exactly what they’re taking, how much of it they’re taking and that it’s not cut with anything harmful, will reduce the risk involved. It will not make taking ecstacy risk-free, anymore than wearing a hat will make horse riding risk-free, but it will make the immediate danger negligible. That’s where, I think, your argument that “no currently illegal drug would be inherently safer if legalised” falls flat. The long-term danger of drug taking is a different matter. There are of course health risks involved in long-term heavy drug use, just as there are long-term health risks of drinking too much alcohol, smoking too many cigarettes, eating too much red meat, living in a polluted city. These are lifestyle choices, and they need to be informed choices, arguably choices that should be warned against, but I don’t think anyone would suggest the government should go beyond its duty to inform by forbidding us to do them.
I think you’re all missing the point somewhat. It is not about what is safe and what is not safe, tobacco and alcohol would have been banned a long time ago if this were really the case. It is about control, it is about maintaining the status quo – bottom line… By taking the ‘mind altering’ drugs, the fear is that the existing power structures will be questioned, then challenged, and that cannot be allowed to happen.
Oh please. As someone who advocates both drug legalisation and a fundamental change to how we run our societies, the revolution will not be powered by acid. The problems we have are quite visible, and perceiving them certainly won’t be aided by some sort of irrational mysticism about special insight from hallucinogenics.
How do drugs like heroin fit into this hippy conspiracy theory? I’ve never heard of anyone who claimed some sort of “cosmic insight” from skag or cocaine.
Once again, I agree with Ben. I am both in favour of legalisation and decriminalisation and would encourage questioning the operations of government, but I think it’s a mistake to view drugs as anything other than recreation. At best some drugs may help with certain forms of creativity, but if you need chemicals to open your mind, I think that only displays a limitation in your own thinking.
Agree with salman.
One thing I do think though is that we should focus *too* much on the ‘peoaple will do it anyway’ type argument.
Its a bit like the argument about women getting back street abortions. Definitely a good one to pull out to win votes with. But it is also important to assert the sovereignty of the woman over her body. In the same way it is necessary to challenge the idea that the state has a right to prevent us from taking physical risks for the sake of pleasure.
*rolls up a cigarette*
Sal. Most of my best SPS essays were written at 3am in the morning when absolutely pissed after formal. Gutted to learn that it shows the limitation on my thinking
Totally agree with the article though. Why not have fair trade or organic drugs in the future? I feel David’s point about irresponsible journalism and lobbying to liberalise drug laws leads to a culture that increases drug taking. Journalists continually go on about the problems of binge drinking and there is a lot of media outlets demanding changes to alcohol laws (minimum pricing, bannning happy hours etc) yet despite these binge drinking continues unabated.
As Malcolm Gladwell notes the anti-smoking movement (often talked about in the US media in a positive way) has never been more prominent than it is today. Yet the number of college students smoking cigarettes in the 90s actually rose as a number of anti-smoking measures were put in place. Shifting cultural attitudes towards drugs is a lot more nuanced than is suggested.
Greg, my son, I’m sure you didn’t get pissed because you thought it’d help with your essays. You got pissed because you’re a wreck head
More government meddling in the daily lives of citizens.
You’d think they’d learn by now that they don’t have to bow to the wishes of the alcoholic beverage industry lobbyists who maintain a long standing stranglehold on recreational drug usage and hide behind the clergy egging them on to limit the ways and means a citizen can enjoy their lives through their own chosen medium.
I myself, like a large percentage of world citizens
really don’t care for alcohol, alcoholic beverages are distasteful to me as a drug of choice legal or not. Yet
I would never stop anyone else from enjoying alcohol.
Decriminalizing a recreational drug removes the criminal element, ergo, the profitability facor. All research indicates decriminalization of recreational drugs does not increase drug usage.
In their wisdom, the Dutch decriminalised prostitution. Rape and other sexual crime is virtually non-existent in Holland.
In their wisdom, the Dutch decriminalised marijuana cultivation and usage. Drug-related crime is virtually non-existent in Holland.
The government and police funding to combat prostitution and drug offences in Holland are put to better use in improving the standard of living for all her citizens.
More government meddling in the daily lives of citizens.
You’d think they’d learn by now that they don’t have to bow to the wishes of the alcoholic beverage industry lobbyists who maintain a long standing stranglehold on recreational drug usage and hide behind the clergy egging them on to limit the ways and means a citizen can enjoy their lives through their own chosen medium.
I myself, like a large percentage of world citizens
really don’t care for alcohol, alcoholic beverages are distasteful to me as a drug of choice legal or not. Yet
I would never stop anyone else from enjoying alcohol.
Decriminalizing a recreational drug removes the criminal element, ergo, the profitability facor. All research indicates decriminalization of recreational drugs does not increase drug usage.
In their wisdom, the Dutch decriminalized prostitution. Rape and other sexual crime is virtually non-existent in Holland.
In their wisdom, the Dutch decriminalized marijuana cultivation and usage. Drug-related crime is virtually non-existent in Holland.
The government and police funding to combat prostitution and drug offences in Holland are put to better use in improving the standard of living for all her citizens.
I agree with the majority of people here. Yes, cannabis is theoretically a gateway drug, but as discussed, only because of its legality. Let’s get rid of these age-old misconceptions and mindless hatred for drugs, in particular cannabis and indeed Spice, look at the modern scientific and demographic facts, and research them to find out useful information instead of basing opinions and laws on outdated or inaccurate knowledge.
MAL CONTENT says:
“Dutch decriminalised marijuana cultivation and usage. Drug-related crime is virtually non-existent in Holland”.
*********
Not true. The Dutch policy is one of “toleration” for small scale use in only some locations. Cultivation and linked wholesale supply remain illegal. Historically they have had the highest rate of serious drug related criminality in Western Europe. In fact they have had a third world drug crime problem in a 1st world economy.
Upon consuming cannabis for the first time, and particularly after repeated use, most users will find the side-effects to be much more tolerable than those of alcohol. This is a less than ideal situation, as knowing that alcohol is legal whereas cannabis is not will hardly foster trust. Perhaps if the government’s advice was poor with respect to cannabis, then the user may start to re-consider the danger of other drugs such as ecstasy, ketamine etc. I believe it to be dangerous that cannabis is illegal.
I have a prescription for Marijuana, actually, anyone in Canada with simply a diagnosis of Crohn’s Disease like myself can head on down to the Compassion Centre in downtown Toronto and buy Marijuana. It is not 100% legal, but the government knows of the Centre and lets them continue with their business. Marijuana improves my quality of life CONSIDERABLY. If Marijuana and other drugs were legal, we would probably have MANY more improvements in the medical world as well. I also wouldn’t have to quit and reduce the quality of my life in order to get custody of my children (but that’s another story).
Legalizing drugs will improve EVERYONE’S quality of life, by way of improved healthcare. There are so many things unknown and undiscovered because of the legal status of substances. I truly agree that we should have the right to govern what we put in our body. I thought the USA was the land of the free?
Andrew, this is a British site, but I certainly see your point.
I personally am SO fed up of hearing outdated and practically uninformed assertions about the “dangers of drug use” – when alcohol and tobacco are still legal. I have a number of friends and know a number of people that partake in smoking marijuana, and whilst there are some who take it to the extremes, the VAST majority are normal, happy, well adjusted individuals that choose to spend their time doing as they wish. Does binge drinking and alcoholism make alcohol any less legal? NO! With the damage that can do to your body I find it utterly ludicrous that anyone can genuinely get on their soap box and be oh so concerned about what it could be doing to the “youth of today”. You only have to go to your local town centre on a Friday night and see the dangers that alcohol poses to everyone; innocent people drawn into a bar brawls, girls taken advantage of, vandalism… the list is endless. What concern is it to anyone about somebody in the privacy of their own home smoking a spliff? I think there are bigger things to worry about in this day and age and I think it’s very clever of today’s government to be focusing on legal herbs and plant extracts and their POTENTIAL harm where alcohol is STILL causing major issues in the world.
I am totally in favour of what Sal has suggested. The black market is going nowhere and whilst the government might think that wasting tax payers money on locking up the big bad “dope heads” is going to suddenly bring about the downfall of the drug world, its 2009 and it’s still prevalent. Why not try a different method and see how it works? The Government’s own scientific advisers told them not to reclassify marijuana as the long term risks of psychosis were negligble… in that regard I’m pretty certain that if they legalised it and for some reason the world suddenly came to an end, there would be no problem in again, re-classifying it. Whatever they’re doing at the moment clearly is not working. By deciding to criminalise spice, the reaction will be law abiding citizens, who were trying to attain their “high” legitimately, being forced into the arms of the blackmarket; where nothing is regulated; no guarantees about what is being consumed and more importantly, putting themselves at greater risk. How people don’t see that, I have no idea.
By the way, I in no way endorse cocaine, heroine or any other stonger substances. However personal experience has shown me that I have nothing to fear from people who smoke marijuana. In fact, I have far less to fear than people who get drunk.
There is one “cosmic insight” ‘from skag or cocaine’, and that is that they are better than the “mind altering” drugs. ;-p
Raynes: “The argument about cannabis users getting something else from the same dealer is largely illusory”
That is utter rubbish. As a long term cannabis smoker (without any mental illness, yet) I have been to untold dealers to get weed who offered me something else.
Someone is spreading lies.
the only reasonable approach that should be taken toward the drug debate is the chemical one, not the political or cultural one.
psychiatric medication like major tranquillizers and serotoninergic reuptake inhibitors are harmfull. they lead to downregulations of serotoninergic sub-receptors, leaving them in theyr relative hypoactive state for months, sometimes years, even after the medication is stopped. neuroleptycs cause a well know syndrome called tardive dyskynesia, (among a host of other organic problems that would take me a book to point out, like diabetes or cycling mania)wich is often incurable and permanent. alcohol is extremely toxic for the body, cannabinoids instead cant kill you even in a massive overdose. yes, even full blown agonist like synthetic ones. benzodiazepines are legal, and so extensively abused that they kill more people than heroin. (you should be well aware of the statistics, mister Raynes.)
stimulants like methylphenidate (ritalin) work the same exact way as cocain, both being dopamine and noripinephrine reuptake inhibitors. both presenting the same harm potential and the same health risks.
GHB, who is an extremely interesting compund who could had been used with great beneficts in depression and related pathologies, is now illegal thanks to the politicians stances on things they do not understand. GHB is a neuroprotective with an insanely hihg LD50, but since it has the stigma of being a “date rape drug”, its illegal, and researchers cant even work with it. in case you are wondering, neuroprotective is the opposite of neurotoxic. it helps prevent brain toxicity from both stress, depression, and effectively helps prevents dopamine toxicity. (for example, after cocain usage.)
i could go on for ages, but us poor organic chemists never have a say in the matter. the few study published all had the same exact results: alcohol and psychiatric medications usually have a higher toxicity, the same abuse potential, and a worse profile than -most- illegal substance. incredibly, sometimes they are MUCH more toxic than the illegal counterparts.
this is the sad truth of today drugs situation. you can keep closing your eyes and pretend that its irrelevant, but the only thing relevant in a substance is exactly this: its chemical profile. and if drugs would be scheduled ONLY according to this immutable fact, you would see todays classes of restricted substances in a complete different order.
Dear Salman
This a fantastically written article and I wholly agree with the positions you’ve taken on every issue that’s been raised. Someday I hope to attain your writing prowess. David Raynes is a faggot.
Calling David Raynes a faggot does nothing but prove the nay-sayers right while bringing light to our own bigotry as well.
Regardless,this is a debate concerning drug legalization.
I would think one would be hard-pressed to those who support the current laws as is. I think that I wouldn’t be out of line to suspect that the hard-line Republicans who believe in personal liberty being important,would be in favor of legalization as well. If they buy into their libertarian old-school America fairytales of “small government” then I can’t think of one much bigger concerning these laws.Sure,it may be dangerous but so are guns and you ain’t gonna “pry them from their cold dead fingers”,just like you won’t take drugs from the user who wants them.
Then there’s you liberal lefties who want to reform EVERYTHING,save the planet with a passed bill give to the downtrodden and looking at the plights of all. If they believe drug addiction is a disease like the AMA and 99% of the psychiatric community do, then it should not be a criminal matter,then they should support legalisation as well. Treatment,not punishment. Should we lock-up those with cancer,suffering with AIDS or something neurological and obvious like Parkinsons just because they have an illness,should we? To follow the medical tendency for compassion,ultimately ends with the same sobering reaity,the obvious absence of any crime.
One could argue that the crimes commited by users are just that, a crime,but if they had accessability to the substance they wanted,they’d have no interest in what’s yours.
So who does that leave us with?
The drug users themselves. If some deal then they’ll lose their hard-earned loot because of it,drugs will become obtainable but more than likely watched by one or more of the 3 letter organizations of our government. To be frank,this will render everything of shitty ‘Bud-Lite’ quality…leading to more kitchen labs and grow-ops.
More than likely we’ll just keep doing what we do,sitting on our asses and getting fucked up.
Its up to us what we do with our bodies,up to us how we trample our souls but it’s also up to us to put an end to the bullshit. You can’t find many issues that are more bipartisan than this. The DEA,FBI,ATF and thousands of narcotics units across the US have turned the inner-city,the suburbs,the rural mid-west and sunny left coast into a police state. Our rights are violated and disregarded more to “fight drugs” than for homeland security.
The human instinct for altered states of conciousness will always continue,you can educate others who don’t know the consequences of what can come to be but to try and stop what comes instinctively to concious beings is about as futile as trying to cure hunger.
The only side to this debate you’re rehashing and beaten that much “deader” than it already was,is US against THEM. THEM being the pharmaceutical corporations,recovery/intervention industry,law-enforcement,narco-terrorists and corrupt officials on our borders within and beyond. They profit from the suffering of others,and try hard to continue to profit more. They leech off the poor,the neighborhoods affected and the child who’s parent has gone lost.
If you do not consider yourself one of those who do gain monetarily then you to are US. It’s really quite that simple…if you don’t want Uncle Sam doling out your sugar and calorie uptake hen don’t stand for him to forcibly use his will and all-mighty legislative powers by playing God(or doctor)by telling us what we do with our bodies as long as it bears no harm to another.
I am 51 years old. Have smoked pot since I was 15 years old…except for my 22 year stint in the USAF. Since I have retired, I have enjoyed the occasional use of it. I do not or have not had any desire to use anything else. Frankly put, I like the buzz from weed. I do not require anything else, nor want anything else. You would think that by now I would have! Thus, the excuse that it could or will be a gateway drug is a moot point for me. For others, well, that is a matter of choice. Just like anything else. Why don’t we just leave it at that and let us that prefer weed to anything else enjoy it?