Which is more dangerous?

@Poseidon,

I think we'd have better means of controlling the problems if they were legalized. If people dose on drugs and go out and do something stupid then you can arrest them for that.

Maybe you could have 'drug licenses'. You could lose it if you do something stupid, and this would increase the taxes you pay on drug purchases in the future.

@tyciol,

tyciol;54492 wrote:

Maybe you could have 'drug licenses'. You could lose it if you do something stupid, and this would increase the taxes you pay on drug purchases in the future.

That's what they're doing with state medical marijuana laws, which the US Justice Department has just tacitly given the a-OK. Well, not quite, but they said that the Justice Dept isn't going to be raiding people who have a license to sell medical marijuana and are in compliance with their states' regulations about it.

But the thing is that this type of restricted legalization does NOT prevent street crime, as is plainly obvious with the street market for prescription narcotics (especially Oxycontin), benzodiazepines, amphetamines, and barbiturates. Cocaine is used medically in ophthalmology to diagnose Horner's syndrome. Restricting a drug for medical use does not solve the demand problem for people who want (or need) to use it recreationally. As with alcohol, people who are prone to abuse often see their lives fall apart and then they can't procure it legally anymore. That is not going to happen with pot, but it well might happen with cocaine or heroin, and that would create a street market for them.

@Poseidon,

Hi Aedes,
Im sorry but would you mind explaining a bit more about the last sentence of your above post please? (im not sure what you mean).
I thought there was a street market for prescribed drugs such as benzo's etc because some of these people could not get these drugs from their own doctor?

@Caroline,

Caroline;54519 wrote:

Im sorry but would you mind explaining a bit more about the last sentencce of your above post please? (im not sure whaat you mean).

People become addicted to heroin and cocaine in ways that turn their lives completely upside down. The costs of legally selling these drugs (eg getting licensure, maintaining compliance with regulatory bodies), and the added taxes on them, would make these prohibitively expensive to people whose lives have fallen apart. This would almost certainly create a black market for these drugs in order to undersell the legal distributors.

Caroline wrote:

I thought there was street crime on prescribed drugs such as benzo's etc because some of these people could not get these drugs from their own doctor?

Well, you can get them from your doctor if they are indicated. But I've taken care of more than my fair share of patients who don't have any medical indication for a benzodiazepine or a narcotic, but will doctor shop and malinger in order to get a new prescription.

It's not the fact that doctors control the prescriptions that make these viable street drugs. It's the fact that they're addictive that does. Think about it -- there is no street market for Lipitor or for Prednisone or for Celebrex. Even for Viagra there is a shady market with questionable ethical practices, but not a street market.

@Poseidon,

Yes I agree with that, there would be a black market due to expensive costs of legal drugs.
Yes doctors would not prescribe you a drug unless you genuinely need it and people seeking to get high will turn to the streets to score. The issue is in the person seeking to get high and why do they want to get high and maybe focusing on these issues would help prevent the need for these drugs and thus reduce the black market?

@Caroline,

Aedes wrote:

It's not the fact that doctors control the prescriptions that make these viable street drugs. It's the fact that they're addictive that does. Think about it -- there is no street market for Lipitor or for Prednisone or for Celebrex. Even for Viagra there is a shady market with questionable ethical practices, but not a street market.

Depends on your distinction between "shady market with questionable ethical practices" and "street market". Man, I've seen Viagra flipped by the same people who handle Valium and OCs and whatever other scrips they can find a market for.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;54573 wrote:

Depends on your distinction between "shady market with questionable ethical practices" and "street market". Man, I've seen Viagra flipped by the same people who handle Valium and OCs and whatever other scrips they can find a market for.

Well, the shady market for Viagra are these telephone and internet ordering services in which they get some perfunctory medical history, and then the drug is prescribed by a licensed physician with a DEA number. You pay cash, so there's no monthly limit (most insurance companies will only authorize 4 or 6 tablets per month).

It's legal because a doctor is prescribing it after "technically" evaluating you.

It's ethically shady because the doctor has a vested financial interest in making a sale. And the medical evaluation involves no face-to-face contact, and probably a completely cursory history to avoid liability.

If there are street markets for Viagra, then that is truly illegal. So would be selling atenolol on the street, but on the other hand people don't go to back alleys to get their blood pressure under control...

@Poseidon,

I think it is rather difficult and illogical to pick one over the other. Obviously drugs are dangerous, and legalizing them might seem like a solution at first hand but there would be many consequences it would bring along that we can't see forsee. On the other hand I would never promote war and I don't really see it as a solution in this case anyway.
But I do believe that what we should aim is to educate people on drugs for no demands=no supplies and eventually less violance..

@Jacob phil,

But people do go to those figurative back alleys for Viagra. That's not a serious facet of the conversation, just something to bear in mind. It sounds like these people going to those proverbial back alleys for Viagra should just check up on those phone schemes.

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

But don't give me this crap about how drugs should be legalized for the good of mankind. It's illegal to make children's toys out of lead and to make flammable pajamas and to sell used tires, all for the sake of public safety, and that hasn't caused a war. It's not the war on drugs that makes the drug suppliers dangerous. The fact is that their clientelle is addicted to a highly lucrative product, and they'll wield influence, power, and violence to maintain their wealth and influence.

Let some guy distributing 1000 pounds of pot with a pistol in his belt take on R.J. Reynolds, Phillip Morris, or any of the pharmaceutical companies that may start selling pot if it were legalized and you watch how fast violence drops off.

It is the black market and the inherent lawlessness that makes the drug industry so dangerous. The government creates a black market by outlawing certain products, and the black market exists where any and all protection is must be made as close to invisible as possible.

Now generally (this is a general trend, imputing rationality onto market actors doesn't work very well in specifics) the frequency of violence is directly relational to the cost of violence. The ultimate cost of violence is self-defense and retribution.

Since government actively works against self-defense and retribution concerning the agents within these markets, violence is far less costly and its use is amplified.

The key to easing violence in drug markets is to increase the cost of engaging in it, and this is done by legalizing and getting rid of its "underground" status.

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Don't overstate this... First of all, individual drug use destroys whole families and neighborhoods, not just the few individuals screwing up their bodies.

Would you disagree that proper handling of the situation should come from the affected families and neighborhoods?

Don't tell the police, but I am a regular pot smoker, enjoy cocaine, ecstasy, and other drugs on other occasions for recreational purposes. I have been told by friends and family that they do not like the use and I abstain around them.

I find that police are far less courteous than me or my friends and family, and I would personally like them to leave me to my own business.

Quote:

Education has never worked all that well with curbing teen smoking. Limiting access and increasing price HAVE worked.

We have to look at the valuation process of heavily addled drug users. Its reversed from someone without the addiction. I think raising prices will simply cause the truly troubled to cut more out of their lives that isn't drug related. I think raising prices would lower overall traffic, as avid, responsible users like myself would abstain more, but those you are actually trying to help may just hurt themselves more.

Philosophy Forum

Which is more dangerous?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know