7-Up had lithium. A lot of things had stuff in them back when that seems crazy today. Up into WW2 it was common for militaries to give out methamphetamines (and certain militaries and roles continued the practice even to this day in restricted capacity..) but even civilians could get products with Meth. Nazi tank crews were given “tankers chocolate,” chocolate bars with meth in them, but up to a point the average citizen could buy chocolate with meth- popular among many such as factory workers until public health policy mandates bans. Opium, Codeine, and various other substances were common additives in many medicines and commercial products.
And it may seem odd to us that you could buy soda with cocaine in it- but we sell cigarettes and vapes so…
2
·
Edited 1 year ago
deleted
· 1 year ago
How does it sound crazy to have cocaine in my soda or meth in my chocolate? Prohibition doesn't keep anyone from doing whatever drug they want to do, it just makes it way more expensive and dangerous.
Lol. Please note I said SEEMS crazy, not that it is crazy. I have mixed feelings on the point. I agree that the “war on drugs” mentality has generally just led to more dangerous situations for people (even those not involved in drug trade or use,) and simply raises prices. I also personally believe that people should be able to do as they like with their bodies, if a person wants to smoke meth or eat a fudge cake with every meal or have a spike shoved through their genitals for the bling- it isn’t my life. We make choices, we live those choices. “Decriminalization” and legalization of various substances, even “hard drugs” have shown promising results and is possibly one way to shift a societal perception of users back towards “human beings” and mitigate certain systemic inequalities. I mean coke was an open “secret” anywhere there was wealth and power while people
Without money went to jail for a joint.
It becomes a sticky wicket though when we consider other factors. Some addicts don’t want to quit and other so but can’t and there is always a question among those who don’t want to quit wether that is truly their will or their addiction telling them they don’t want to? Any substance that can change the brains ability to decide you don’t want to use has that ethical dilemma. Socioeconomically, it is a double standard and unfair that those with money can procure substances if they want and that they often can avoid social or legal consequences in systems that prohibit those substances. That said- there is also a high factor of socioeconomic related risks to easing controls and prohibitions.
Not only have drugs been used by literal governments as tools for targeted suppression of specific socioeconomic groups, but various factors including education and lifestyle tend to put those of lower socioeconomic status more at risk to lifestyle related harm. We know quite simply that the education, support, and overall social trends tend to increase risks for things like obesity or other nutrition related health issues, financial and wealth disparity and mismanagement, substance abuse etc. many “unhealthy” products specifically or disproportionately target certain demographics because they know that in a world where many vices are becoming out of fashion, there are still those who need or who will put short term validation above long term wellness.
Drugs pose a special consideration for other reasons as well. What does the legalization of meth or ecstasy look like? One has to imagine the FDA or similar be involved. For the public safety it tends to make sense that were meth legal, we wouldn’t allow whatever anyone cooked up with whatever means they used to go to market. Standards and such would likely be needed to ensure things like cocaine or heroine weren’t being cut or laced with substances commonly used to increase profit at the expense of safety or human suitability. Dosages and concentrations would need regulated as well. That’s medicine 101. We can’t have unmarked aspirin where one brand is 100mg and another is 10,000mg and another is 50mg aspirin and 20mg Vicodin and all are merely sold as “aspirin.”
That brings issues as you’re moving the trade off the street and as we have seen with weed- that tends to raise prices. That means there is often still a demand for cheaper alternatives. So the street level trade isn’t necessarily dead- which then creates a system where there is still prohibition against certain merchants, but this is now more akin to things like IP violations or permit violations etc. there is still an element of criminality though.
Tl:dr-So it’s complicated- but in principle I agree that the concept of people making their own choices not being crazy- it’s more “crazy” in perception and contemplation of the logistical or regulatory sense as far as being doable but not necessarily something that could happen overnight and be smooth and widely accepted without certain considerations.
Part of the anti drug philosophy, outside of politics is safety for other people. One of the biggest reasons I've heard people talk down on weed is driving high. Hurting other people is the only reason for not encouraging heavier drugs. Hell.. I can hold my own.. but I am wise enough to plan my adventures, not on a daily need that fix life. That's when it gets scary for you and everyone else. You cannot just get whatever you want just like it's on tap. Some heavy stuff you work your way into and people start to feed off of you needing it. I agree to let people do as they please, it's their body, the very first mind trip leaves you a different person and you see things in a new and different way.. but let it be known how to crawl or be helped back out of that hole if you fall down and cannot get back up.
I like your stance here overall. I do thing safety is a big concern, and a valid one. It may be a contentious parallel but guns are a good allegory in my mind. I’ve been around them my entire life. My father slept with a gun and carried one every day for almost 70 years. He never shot anyone he didn’t intend to and never went to jail for a gun crime. This is a common story- a gun is a machine, a dangerous machine, but one with purpose or just “recreational.” Letting anyone over 18 buy a gun on the principle of self responsibility is not a wise choice for safety though, and no penalty is going to bring back someone who was killed because of their own, or worse, another’s stupidity or carelessness. The obvious answer in that allegory is that it isn’t the person that is necessarily so dangerous- it’s harder to kill 5 people naked than with a gun or high behind the wheel. So the machine gets regulated.
Enter the problem- simply put the overwhelming majority of traffic deaths or even accidents are preventable and most of them start when someone is allowed to use a machine they lack the skill/ability, training, or mindset to be trusted with. The problem is easy to solve- make it much harder to qualify and keep the ability to access dangerous machines like cars, guns, power equipment. Simple idea but… can you imagine how america would react if over 3 million people lost their licenses overnight for lack of ability to qualify and another likely several million or tens of millions lost their licenses due to violations in short order?
That doesn’t even begin to touch on the increased education requirements or financial costs and liabilities to become licensed. When getting a license may take a year or more and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Increased enforcement costs, and the eventual and likely implementation of technological means to mitigate driving while impaired such as mandatory interlocks and such. That’s major social change on top of major social change and doesn’t even address all the other potentially dangerous situations we’d need to add enforcement and restriction to if we try to mitigate the possible ways that drug users (and others) could safely do every day things. Weed is a drug that can cause psychological dependence- physical dependence is debated and hardly any person can debate that marijuana and related drugs have the intensity or prevalence of addiction to “harder” drugs.
When we start looking at that aspect- what happens when a school teacher or heart surgeon is working high or perhaps even worse- working on the come down? So there is a halo, a Pandora’s box of social and economic issues that harder drugs open up. In all likelyhood- there is some undue fear there. It is unlikely that the world will be destroyed because the moment heroine became legal a substantial portion of the population would ride the tiger. The social and health implications of smoking have seem a precipitous decline and similar programs and attitudes to legalized hard drugs would likely serve as a deterrent to both the majority of the population and those persons most likely to be productive. So the negative economics and social implications are perhaps not really so bad. It’s all a bit of theory of course.
I would have concerns about certain performance enhancing or “cosmetic” drugs. “Diet pills” for a long time contained or were essentially amphetamines and the health impacts there and social impacts weren’t super great. Steroids are another drug that could see dangerous upticks, though perhaps in time as the population became more used to such drugs and some of the myth surrounding their usage and the realities became more c ommonly understood things might not be so bad. Meth as a means of productivity would worry me. There are plenty “functional” meth users as is, workers and parents and such who feel a need for the extra energy. If it were only the health effects one might say it’s like a concentrated energy drink with concentrated side effects and let people choose- but you’re not near as likely to become addicted to or lose control over a Monster drink habit as a meth habit.
Addiction and withdrawal are concerns as are the ability of many drugs to take away one’s ability to choose. A majority of smokers surveyed say they want to quit but by most figures, only about 10% of those attempting to quit succeed. We could argue that as a whole perhaps only 10% of humans actually have resolve or will power, but most data indicates that it is more the case that addiction is such a strong motivator that 10% quit rates reflect the hood these substances can have on someone who is unwilling to continue to but unable to stop. You don’t know what it is like to be an addict until you are one, and at that point it is too late to not become one. So there is a weight there- a weight of people who are denied a willing choice to use drugs against not just the safety of others, but against the freedom of choice drugs may rob from any number of people. The issues of freedom become complex and philosophical
Because 90% of users may want to stop but be unable, so we deny the 10% who genuinely would want to continue to use regardless of consequence? It’s a big if against a small certainty. We can ask a question on how society tends to handle these issues. Attempted murder is a crime where no crime is done. Because you attempted to kill someone we lock you up because you MIGHT commit a crime as you’ve shown the will to murder- but you failed. So you might also fail again. You might also now realize that was dumb and never try again. Many what ifs and no harm done- but you go to jail just the same. We lock up repeat offenders because it is likely they will offend again- but will they? Perhaps a very good example because it deals with the mind and human desire vs. morality etc…
I do challenge the freedom argument with drugs with this statement: if one will argue that the possibility of likely danger is not sufficient to restrict individual freedom of choice- send your child to a school where their teacher or coach is a convicted pedophile and prove your beliefs. We do not allow child sex offenders to work with children. It doesn’t matter what the offense was, if they ever touched a child even, once they’ve shown that risk society will bar their personal choices going forward based upon that fact. We have determined there is a potential danger and there is often a psychological compulsion and that their will power or ethics or any such self assurances of safety are insufficient. Because the compulsion cannot be trusted. So then, we do know that personal choice is limited where there is possible danger or perception of danger.
What has happened may indicate what will happen again, or it may not. If it rains in September one year it may not rain in September the next. If it rains 20 days in May one year it may rain 21 the next.
We have statistics and observation to help guide us. So there are certainly dangers or potential dangers to not just the safety of others but to individuals making choices, especially those who may lack information or understanding of their choices, exacerbated when performing an action may remove your ability to make a choice in the future. If a person commits suicide, it’s their life. Why stop them? Why try to stop them? Their choice no? But death is fairly binding once you choose, it can be difficult or impossible to return to life as it was if you try. And the fact a person is considering suicide often indicates they are not in a state of mind to make choices doesn’t it?
Likewise- a person tripping balls can’t generally enter even a legally binding contract. So drugs alter one’s ability to make choices- but we can argue that often times the initial decision or subsequent decisions to use might not be made in a state of mind conducive to the gravity and scope of understanding to what one is getting into for many types of drug. It’s complicated. That doesn’t mean we can tor shouldn’t legalize or decriminalize drugs or certain drugs at least- it does mean that we need to think hard and make sure that our laws and society and world can accommodate that and do so safety and ethically to some degree.
And it may seem odd to us that you could buy soda with cocaine in it- but we sell cigarettes and vapes so…
Without money went to jail for a joint.
We have statistics and observation to help guide us. So there are certainly dangers or potential dangers to not just the safety of others but to individuals making choices, especially those who may lack information or understanding of their choices, exacerbated when performing an action may remove your ability to make a choice in the future. If a person commits suicide, it’s their life. Why stop them? Why try to stop them? Their choice no? But death is fairly binding once you choose, it can be difficult or impossible to return to life as it was if you try. And the fact a person is considering suicide often indicates they are not in a state of mind to make choices doesn’t it?