Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Steve3007]

I think all substances should be legal...

Including, if it existed, the hypothetical drug that I mentioned in my post?

[Pattern-chaser]

My thought is that if we permit mountain-climbing and horse-riding, both very dangerous and potentially harmful hobbies, we can't single out specific drugs for exclusion (even hypothetical ones). A consistent approach seems warranted...?

P.S. Spice, the synthetic 'substitute' for weed, is insanely dangerous, from what I've heard. I shan't be trying it....

[Sculptor1]

I would be in favour of complete decriminalisation for all substances, with the possible exception for heroin.
People of character and intelligence that I have known, who have sampled it to their determinent described the experience as far too nice, and far too addictive. For this reason, though I have sampled many recreational drugs I have not tried Heroin.
I would only maintain criminalisation of supply.

OK, fair enough. So I guess your answer to my question is that you believe in quite minimal legal restrictions but not no legal restrictions. There is at least one drug (heroin) which you believe should be subject to some restrictions, so my hypothetical ultra-dangerous, ultra-addictive drug would presumably also be something you'd want to be restricted if it existed.

I suspect there are some ultra-Libertarian people who would disagree and who would not want there to be any restrictions of any kind on anything that is used on oneself. Of the people who post (or have recently posted) here I'd guess that GE Morton and Terrapin Station would take that view.

My own experiences are restricted to cannabis, alcohol, tobacco and caffeine. Probably not surprisingly, I found tobacco the most addictive. I think for most of the 20-odd years that I spent as a smoker I was trying to quit! Although maybe alcohol has proved the most addictive in the long run because I haven't quit that yet and don't intend to. I don't remember finding cannabis addictive at all, but I haven't smoked it for a very long time.

I've smoked all types of pot, from straight weed to hash to oil, skunk etc. Never found it addictive in the slightest except when blended with Tobacco. Again with alcohol from my own distilled hooch, wines, beers etc. Never found that addictive. Various forms of speed, coke, crack, opium, LSD, prescription opoids, morphine, magic mushrooms (which are wonderful). None of which was addictive, and none of which I thought was interesting enough to make a habit of.
Tobacco is evil, and provides no benefits whatso ever as far as I can see. I've given up again and again, once for 10 years only to go back to it. Since I got cancer there is no way I am going back to it now.
I applaud the laws which booted smokers from public places.
I'd make tobaco illegal if I thought it was workable, like any other poison.

I wonder how many of those who have the "cold dead hands" attitude to guns would agree with my libertarian view of drugs? I'd take their guns off them and let them have as many, and as much drugs as they could get down them.

[LuckyR]

Online sources note $78 per 1/4 oz legal vs $50 illegal, here.

This supports legalization decreasing the price of illegal weed and that legal is more expensive than illegal.

Then I think someone is getting greedy. The legal stuff is, er, legal, so the consumer has no need to pay the vendor for taking the risk of arrest and punishment. Perhaps your country's devotion to the Church of the Dollar is having too heavy an influence? Marijuana is an easy plant to grow, and should probably be cheaper than, say, salad vegetables...? What does lettuce cost, per gram?

Someone? Everyone charges as much as the market will bear, which is part of the definition of a market, ie that is normal.

As you correctly note everyone can escape the market, yet very few do. Pot smokers are not well known for their industriousness.

[Sculptor1]

Pot smokers are not well known for their industriousness.

That is a unwarrented slur.

[Ecurb]

I live in Oregon, which legalized pot several years ago. It's readily available; the price varies from $15 to $40 for an eighth (3.5 g), which is the largest quantity I've bought. An eigth of modern pot probably gets one as high as an ounce of lousy pot from the 70s.

The main ill effects of legalization have probably been the loss of money for former pot growers and pot dealers. They all had dreams of making it big in a legalized environment, very few of which were realized. I'm guessing most growers still make the majority of their money selling out of state (i.e. illegally).

[Pattern-chaser]

I think someone is getting greedy. The legal stuff is, er, legal, so the consumer has no need to pay the vendor for taking the risk of arrest and punishment. Perhaps your country's devotion to the Church of the Dollar is having too heavy an influence? Marijuana is an easy plant to grow, and should probably be cheaper than, say, salad vegetables...? What does lettuce cost, per gram?

Someone? Everyone charges as much as the market will bear...

...what I'm saying is that someone is charging more than the market will/can bear, and therefore customers are seeking a better price elsewhere, according to strict capitalist market principles. The legal stuff should be cheaper; there is no real excuse for it to be otherwise, that I can see.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think all substances should be legal...

Including, if it existed, the hypothetical drug that I mentioned in my post?

Aside: alcohol resembles your "hypothetical" drug quite closely....

[Sculptor1]

I think all substances should be legal...

Including, if it existed, the hypothetical drug that I mentioned in my post?

Aside: alcohol resembles your "hypothetical" drug quite closely....

For a small minority it can be very dangerous, but for most not. I can take it or leave it, and never like to have too much. Others cannot stop.

I wonder if there is a genetic basis for addictiveness?
I have only ever been addicted to nicotine, though I have tried many other classes and types of drug. People I have know that have an addiction tend to collect them like stamps. Even a man I know who has been addicted to gambling also had an alcohol problem and feared to take any other drug for fear of further addictions.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think all substances should be legal...

Including, if it existed, the hypothetical drug that I mentioned in my post?

Aside: alcohol resembles your "hypothetical" drug quite closely....

For a small minority it can be very dangerous, but for most not. I can take it or leave it, and never like to have too much. Others cannot stop.

I wonder if there is a genetic basis for addictiveness?
I have only ever been addicted to nicotine, though I have tried many other classes and types of drug. People I have know that have an addiction tend to collect them like stamps. Even a man I know who has been addicted to gambling also had an alcohol problem and feared to take any other drug for fear of further addictions.

Yes, I think there is a general tendency ... if you are addicted to one thing, I think perhaps your likelihood of becoming addicted to something else is higher than for the general population. And yes, I would agree that there is definitely a genetic component. But I don't think it's all genetic, and I don't think someone with the tendency will necessarily become addicted to something.

Having said that, I also believe that there are some substances - and maybe other things too - that are addictive for all, regardless of genetics. Alcohol, for example, taken in sufficient quantity for a long enough time, will surely result in an addict? And nicotine, the most addictive drug I think we know of: are there people who can smoke without becoming addicted? I don't know. Alternatively, since addiction is not irresistible, only very difficult to resist, maybe these people do become addicted, but are then able to break the addiction more easily than some others?

[Sculptor1]

Including, if it existed, the hypothetical drug that I mentioned in my post?

Aside: alcohol resembles your "hypothetical" drug quite closely....

For a small minority it can be very dangerous, but for most not. I can take it or leave it, and never like to have too much. Others cannot stop.

I wonder if there is a genetic basis for addictiveness?
I have only ever been addicted to nicotine, though I have tried many other classes and types of drug. People I have know that have an addiction tend to collect them like stamps. Even a man I know who has been addicted to gambling also had an alcohol problem and feared to take any other drug for fear of further addictions.

Yes, I think there is a general tendency ... if you are addicted to one thing, I think perhaps your likelihood of becoming addicted to something else is higher than for the general population. And yes, I would agree that there is definitely a genetic component. But I don't think it's all genetic, and I don't think someone with the tendency will necessarily become addicted to something.

Having said that, I also believe that there are some substances - and maybe other things too - that are addictive for all, regardless of genetics. Alcohol, for example, taken in sufficient quantity for a long enough time, will surely result in an addict? And nicotine, the most addictive drug I think we know of: are there people who can smoke without becoming addicted? I don't know. Alternatively, since addiction is not irresistible, only very difficult to resist, maybe these people do become addicted, but are then able to break the addiction more easily than some others?

I have known people who would only smoke "socially"; meaning whilst others were doing so whilst drinking. (now a dead breed since smoking in pubs is a thing of the past). This is evidence that addiction is all so often about context. But I still think, against their view that they were indeed addicted, since smoking provides no benefit and is in an objective sense a thouroughly horrible thing to do.
Context provides "triggers" to addiction.
When I gave up smoking I would be fine, until I would get in the car after work. Whilst I was smoking I'd have to go all day without a fag, until driving home was my first opportunity of the day to ge my fix. After quitting the simple act of turning the key in the car door was enough to trigger my desire.
So for "social smokers", the pub was the trigger.
When trying to loose weight running the gauntlet of walking through the kitchen has the same sort of temptation. And unless I ma actively thinking about NOT eating, my inner chimp can make my hands move to open the fridge and grasp a tidbit.

[LuckyR]

Including, if it existed, the hypothetical drug that I mentioned in my post?

Aside: alcohol resembles your "hypothetical" drug quite closely....

For a small minority it can be very dangerous, but for most not. I can take it or leave it, and never like to have too much. Others cannot stop.

I wonder if there is a genetic basis for addictiveness?
I have only ever been addicted to nicotine, though I have tried many other classes and types of drug. People I have know that have an addiction tend to collect them like stamps. Even a man I know who has been addicted to gambling also had an alcohol problem and feared to take any other drug for fear of further addictions.

Yes, I think there is a general tendency ... if you are addicted to one thing, I think perhaps your likelihood of becoming addicted to something else is higher than for the general population. And yes, I would agree that there is definitely a genetic component. But I don't think it's all genetic, and I don't think someone with the tendency will necessarily become addicted to something.

Having said that, I also believe that there are some substances - and maybe other things too - that are addictive for all, regardless of genetics. Alcohol, for example, taken in sufficient quantity for a long enough time, will surely result in an addict? And nicotine, the most addictive drug I think we know of: are there people who can smoke without becoming addicted? I don't know. Alternatively, since addiction is not irresistible, only very difficult to resist, maybe these people do become addicted, but are then able to break the addiction more easily than some others?

You bring up a good point. That is addiction as a concept has most of it's meaning when trying to quit (as opposed to continuing to use). Tolerance is actually a separate (and often more important) thing.

I like the old, less well appreciated physiologic vs psychologic addiction model.

[Pattern-chaser]

I like the old, less well appreciated physiologic vs psychologic addiction model.

Is that where we consider something like weed to be psychologically addictive, while we consider heroin or alcohol to be physically addictive?

[LuckyR]

I like the old, less well appreciated physiologic vs psychologic addiction model.

Is that where we consider something like weed to be psychologically addictive, while we consider heroin or alcohol to be physically addictive?

Yes, back in the Nixon administration drugs were categorized thusly. I believe it fell out of favor awhile back.

[Pattern-chaser]

I like the old, less well appreciated physiologic vs psychologic addiction model.

Is that where we consider something like weed to be psychologically addictive, while we consider heroin or alcohol to be physically addictive?

Yes, back in the Nixon administration drugs were categorized thusly.

Oh? I thought they categorised drugs into those useful for criminalising pinko-subversive political activists, and those not so useful for this purpose?