PSA - "bath salts"

[printcraft]

Never heard of them before this thread

hemorrhoids?

 

[Rookie]

THOSE should be illegal!

 

[WILSON]

Damn. This is the second time I've heard of the stuff in as many weeks.
What do they do, smoke the stuff?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathinone

 

[Fletch]

These drugs have the ability to take over lives. You could make meth 50 cents and people will still be stealing the 50 cents to pay for it because they can't hold a steady job. Your experiences dealing with drug addicts may be much different than mine, but from my experience I've never met a casual meth user or casual heroin user.

Addiction ruins lives. Drugs don't. Drugs simply produce the most visible forms of addiction, so we punish those who have it.

 

[jsharmon7]

Addiction ruins lives. Drugs don't. Drugs simply produce the most visible forms of addiction, so we punish those who have it.

I won't argue that. I just happen to believe that legalizing drugs won't make drugs less dangerous, improve lives, or lower drug use rates. It'll only lower incarceration rates. I wish I had a viable solution to the drug problem, but I don't have one. The drug war isn't working, and I don't believe complete legalization will work either.

 

[Fletch]

I won't argue that. I just happen to believe that legalizing drugs won't make drugs less dangerous, improve lives, or lower drug use rates.

I agree with the second two. I don't think legalizing drugs will improve lives or lower usage rates. Drugs will still be a problematic self-medication for life's problems.

I do fully believe that drugs would be less dangerous with legalization. Alcohol became less dangerous; how many folks have you encountered who recently lost a loved one to bathtub gin? Why should we presume that it will be different with other drugs? Whenever the government bans or heavily regulates something, cost goes up and quality goes down. The reverse must also be true.

People who could produce and sell drugs legally, without being hassled by the government, would compete on quality and price just like they do now, but their ability to compete in both areas would be greatly enhanced by the removal of the heavy cost of government looming over the industry. Yes, a cocaine or heroin or whatever overdose would still kill a user, but that risk would be reduced by the emergence of reputable shops where a person could go and get good fixes. Legalization would open a whole new industry of consumer protections against bad drugs, which are presently absent due to the government enforcement of a black market.

 

[jsharmon7]

I do fully believe that drugs would be less dangerous with legalization. Alcohol became less dangerous; how many folks have you encountered who recently lost a loved one to bathtub gin? Why should we presume that it will be different with other drugs? Whenever the government bans or heavily regulates something, cost goes up and quality goes down. The reverse must also be true.

People who could produce and sell drugs legally, without being hassled by the government, would compete on quality and price just like they do now, but their ability to compete in both areas would be greatly enhanced by the removal of the heavy cost of government looming over the industry. Yes, a cocaine or heroin or whatever overdose would still kill a user, but that risk would be reduced by the emergence of reputable shops where a person could go and get good fixes. Legalization would open a whole new industry of consumer protections against bad drugs, which are presently absent due to the government enforcement of a black market.

As usual, you make some good points. I do disagree with a few things though. In the end, I think we're back to arguing being shot with a .22 vs a .45. Anytime someone decides to use a drug like meth or heroin, the results are likely to be bad. Alcohol didn't magically become less dangerous without some regulation and oversight. A lot of times the reason for drug overdose is the uncertainty of exactly what you're getting from a purity and potency standpoint. Frank Lucas' "blue magic" was a good example of this. I don't know that a hands-off approach is going to guarantee consistency in potency. Your suggestion may increase the safety as far as consistency goes, but I think you would need some sort of regulation to guarantee that. In that regard, legalizing drugs with government oversight may decrease the number of deaths due to overdose, but the other effects of those drugs will still be just as apparent. That's like saying "we'll let you play Russian roulette so long as we inspect the gun first to make sure it's functioning properly and doesn't go off prematurely." By the way, when I refer to "safety," keep in mind that it's a very relative term. No version of meth or heroin is "safe." The whole situation is bad no matter how you look at it.

I see this whole thing as a lose-lose situation: legalizing is bad, and continuing on our current path is bad.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

The spice/k-2 and bath salts only became illegal here in IN on July 1st and are still legal in MOST states. Internet purchases are still conducted routinely even where it is illegal due to the fact that they are so hard to track and catch. Heck you can even buy pot and cocaine online delivered through the US postal service. The substances are relatively new and due to the patchwork legislation, routine testing for them has yet to take hold in regards to employment screening etc... In fact I believe only within the last 2-3 weeks the first and only lab in IN to conduct testing for them actually began doing so. The bath salts are primarily snorted but many are smoking, eating, and even injecting them. Generally speaking I am a libertarian and believe to each his own. Heck I'm even all for legalization or at least decriminalization of most controlled substances but think that there must be controls in place to regulate content and purity so people know what they are using and how much. I'm just saying that I lost someone very close to me because of one governmental failure after another and want everyone to be aware of the dangers of this stuff. Lefties, go ahead and use the crap, why not even go ahead and give it to your kids, but those with similar conservative beliefs need not diminish our numbers due to ignorance.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Another big problem is that these new drugs are hitting the streets so fast one after another that legislators can't keep up. No sooner are they discovering a new drug and two more hit the streets undetected for weeks or months. I would bet even money that decriminalization of just pot would slow the market for these designer cocktails enough to all but eliminate them.

 

[jsharmon7]

I would bet even money that decriminalization of just pot would slow the market for these designer cocktails enough to all but eliminate them.

I don't think the criminalization of pot has anything to do with these new designer drugs. As it stands, marijuana is relatively common and available. Not to mention that user amounts tend to be a slap on the wrist legally. I don't think that kids are trying these things because they can't find pot or are worried about getting caught with it. I would estimate that most the kids who are trying these new designer drugs are already smoking marijuana as well, but that's just my hunch. My other feeling is that kids are trying these things because it's new and "cool." Peer pressure is an amazing influence on teens.

 

[Fletch]

As usual, you make some good points. I do disagree with a few things though.

...

I see this whole thing as a lose-lose situation: legalizing is bad, and continuing on our current path is bad.

I understand your position, and it's not likely we'll ever reach an accord. But thanks for a well-reasoned and civil discussion on the topic

 

[jsharmon7]

I understand your position, and it's not likely we'll ever reach an accord. But thanks for a well-reasoned and civil discussion on the topic

You as well, that can be a lemonade if you're not a drinker.