Not everyone who consumes drugs, "hard" or otherwise has an addiction issue or needs to seek help, though of course imprisonment is especially cruel when it targets those who do.
You're right, some people simply enjoy occasionally consuming drugs. It's not much different to people consuming alcohol really, the only real differences are alcohol is generally more socially accepted, and that alcohol is generally considered to be more harmful to society.
If there was a guaranteed safe supply chain for recreational drugs that are currently illegal, things would be a lot safer too.
> It's not much different to people consuming alcohol really, the only real differences are alcohol is generally more socially accepted, and that alcohol is generally considered to be more harmful to society
I would amend your analogy: "people comsuming alcohol to get drunk". Lots of people enjoy a glass of wine or a beer or sipping whiskey or whatever, not because it makes them drunk, but because they enjoy the flavor (e.g., wine pairings, etc). I'm pretty sure almost everyone who does drugs does so to get high. Note that I'm not arguing that alcohol is better than drugs, only that I think this distinction is important.
But everyone who's drinking alcohol is doing it at least in part for the effect. Non-alcoholic beer is a thing and there are plenty of wine replacements and mocktails, but they're nowhere near as popular as the real thing. Obviously there's a difference in a glass of wine with dinner and being roaring drunk, but that's true of any drug. You can micro-dose LSD, or you can take it until you're seeing pink elephants on the ceiling.
So if I don’t bring my own non-alcoholic beverage to the party (or restaurant), does that mean I must secretly be drinking for the effect? Of course not! It just means that I can avoid the effect without going out of my way to buy alcohol-free. Also, “not drinking for the effect” also encompasses people who are okay with getting buzzed or drunk, but that’s not what they’re setting out to do. For example, I don’t drink to get drunk or buzzed (I don’t have anything against it; I just don’t enjoy the sensation), but I’ve had a strong drink on an empty stomach. That doesn’t mean I was setting out to get buzzed (again, I wasn’t), only that I’m not going out of my way to avoid it.
As a sample size of 1, I do not drink alcohol for the effect. I don't like the disoriented feeling. But I do like the flavor of a good beer, wine, or single-malt Scotch.
You can spin it also that ie weed makes tastes go to overdrive, so you can do quality sweet/salty 'food pairing' with same intentions and results as wine pairing - things taste better. In fact, ridiculously way better.
Munchies ritual became part of my trips when I used to smoke, since such an experience in regard of taste can't be provided by any michelin star restaurant, no matter how hard they try (although they do provide great experience in other forms). Its unhealthy, its practically impossible to just nibble, rather devour a metric ton and some more.
Let's stop pretending people do drugs for anything but drug's effect on them. Wine is no different, plenty of folks who are alcoholics run purely on wine, albeit on different quantities than small glass of red. Try drinking half a liter of red wine every days for few years though, where it will lead you.
You’re missing the point about the “taste” bit—the point isn’t that they’re doing it for the taste, but that they’re not doing it for the psychological effect. In your example, changes to taste are the psychological effect of weed. Again, this isn’t a moral argument, just observing a distinction.
> I'm pretty sure almost everyone who does drugs does so to get high.
This is not the case. I know people who use them to manage chronic pain. It's not all that different from getting a Vicodin prescription, but without shifting most of the cost to society.
> and that alcohol is generally considered to be more harmful to society.
Alcohol is definitely not more harmful to society than most prescription opioids, tobacco, meth, heroin, PCP, etc. The harm of each drug needs to be assessed on a per capita by user basis.
There have been studies showing that it is the most harmful drug to society, including Professor Nutt's rather famous 2010 Lancet paper.
The fact that alcohol is legal and generally socially acceptable of course means that it's also the most consumed recreational drug by far, which no doubt contributes - but it can't be denied that alcohol is addictive, and alcoholism is a huge problem.
Its incredibly dangerous because of its social acceptance. I don't see a difference between heroin and alcohol addicts, they are both desperate souls and mere shadows of their potential. Countless families are destroyed because of alcohol. Family violence. Drunk driving.
Per capita, back home, and in many many places like russia, it is by far the deadliest substance. Because its legal and +-accepted.
There are certain drugs that simply should not be encouraged by legality. Heroin and meth, for example. Incredibly toxic, highly and immediately addictive, and easy to overdose.
There are drugs that, if you use them, you should be encouraged not to.
Incredibly toxic? Hardly--it actually has a quite good safety profile when used as intended.
Highly and immediately addictive? About 5 weeks ago I had a close chemical cousin of heroin. 3 times in fact. Addicted? I never felt the slightest desire for it once the cause of the pain was gone and I certainly didn't like what it did to my digestive system. (Morphine, given by a doctor for a kidney stone. Heroin is basically two morphine molecules stuck together.)
Easy to overdose? The extremely limited medical use of heroin means we don't have good data, so lets look at morphine instead as it should be similar. The therapeutic index is 70. (This is the ratio between the proper dose and the dose that might kill, the higher the number the better.) For comparison, the therapeutic index for acetaminophen is 3--and yet it's over the counter!
Heroin overdoses are common because of two issues:
1) Unknown purity. Users deliberately go close to the limits to get the biggest high, if they get heroin with a higher purity than they expect they can go over the edge. In a world where you bought your heroin from a pharmacy rather than the street such deaths would pretty much not happen.
2) Jail. Someone has been in jail for a while and not using, they get out, they take what they're used to taking--but now they aren't habituated. Now the dose is lethal. This one could certainly be reduced by having a required class for all druggies about to be released from jail--explain the problem and warn them that their usual dose is probably now a lethal dose.
Another common way to die is to take heroin and benzos at the same time (both are respiratory depressants). This happens with the similar prescription painkillers as well.
There are some other combinations that can cause similar trouble too (alcohol plus benzos, alcohol plus opiods).
Accidental overdose can also happen after relapse, most easily if avoiding the substance rather than receiving medical addiction treatment. Or if taking combinations of drugs that combine to impair judgement.
Don't forget about the huge ramp up in overdoses over the last few years due to street heroin being cut with fentanyl. I lost my best friend two years ago from this. If he could have been getting a known pharmaceutical quantity from a medically supplied source this wouldn't have been an issue.
There are drugs (crack cocaine, bath salts, maybe meth) where I think dealing should have severe penalties, but most of the people who are using these drugs are doing so because they are already struggling with life issues. Putting them in prison is almost certain to cost taxpayers a ton of money and utterly destroy that person's life.
I think you can legalize things and still discourage the use of. Look at tobacco as an example. Or even alcohol. I'd argue that it's actually easier to discourage with legalization that without, but this is debatable. My position is that if it's legal that makes it easier to seek treatment. Seeking out treatment isn't going to get you fired or put in jail while you're trying to turn your life around.
Depends on the person. Crack wasn't interesting for me. Never used H but a proportion of people who can use it safely, like I would have a drink and know when to stop is ~50% (figure from memory from a letter in newscientist which I've been unable to find).
> and easy to overdose
What's the safe range? I think you are saying something I and many ohters could agree with but they need backing up.
Well, that's your opinion - but reality would like to have a word with you. Doctors in the US are giving out Adderall (similar to meth) and Fentanyl (even more addictive and dangerous than Heroin) like candy.
Baseless Anecdote: I once met a man that claimed he took acid more often than that in the 70s. He said he would get intravenous B vitamin supplements to trip more often. not really arguing anything, I just found his story fascinating.
If there was a guaranteed safe supply chain for recreational drugs that are currently illegal, things would be a lot safer too.