[alamgir_mand]

I find it interesting that the recent conversations surrounding the legalization of cannabis in WA and CO have sparked discussions of legalization of synthesized drugs like amphetamines and cocaine. Cannabis is one of the few drugs sourced from nature without any purification or isolating processes. Not only is it naturally occurring, but it also is the safest among today's federally illegal "drugs".

That being said, I have to agree that the best way to get rid of illegal activity is to tax and regulate a product so as to provide a trustworthy, straightforward source. But there's a question as to whether it's advisable to allow citizens to consume drugs that have normally been known to drastically reduce peoples' health and well-being. These drugs actively cause addiction while suppressing other bodily functions, but so do cigarettes. Did you know that nicotine is as addictive as heroine, cocaine, and other alkaloids[1]? The question as to where to draw the line is very sensitive and I often wonder why did Prohibition stop at alcohol? Why didn't it naturally extend itself towards cannabis and then hard drugs? Does anybody know the history/politics behind this?

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/29/magazine/nicotine-harder-t...

[netcan]

There are several arguments that independently could justify legalization: (1) criminalization creates an enormous ($350b) criminal economy with associated increase in criminal activity. (2) Legal drugs contribute the formal economy, taxes, etc. (3) People should have the right to decide for themselves what drugs they take. (4)The war on drugs has failed to substantially reduce supply. (5) Drugs are safer when legal (6) Cannabis isn't really harmful, it's sometimes beneficial

Of these, only 6 is cannabis specific. The rest are true regardless of the drug. Many pro-legalization people argue that demand/consumption will not increase because of legalization (I disagree). Even if you think consumption will go up (most economists do because of higher quality, lower prices and reduced stigma) you might think that one or more of those 5 reasons to legalize still outweigh the alternative.

Once this stuff is on the agenda it's only natural that it gets looked at more broadly. It's like free trade agreements leading to free trade zones or unilateral reductions of trade barriers.

[DanBC2]

> But there's a question as to whether it's advisable to allow citizens to consume drugs that [...]

The current approach is very expensive, and very harmful to individuals and to society.

Someone injecting heroin will do so whether it's legal or not. But, if it's legal, they'll be getting clean heroin, and clean needles, and advice about how to safely inject, and be in contact with people helping them move down to other forms of heroin use.

While heroin is illegal people prostitute or burgle to get money; they re-use needles in unclean conditions; they inject dirty drugs in sub-optimal places; they have little or no contact with harm-reduction workers.

The costs to society are obvious: people spend many years involved in criminal activity to feed a drug habit. Police spend a lot of time tackling that criminal behaviour. People end up with life-threatening illnesses, or permanent maiming or losing limbs from dirty needles and poor injection practices.

Treating this as a public health measure is probably sensible. Having said that, alcohol use in the UK can't really be defined as ok.

> That being said, I have to agree that the best way to get rid of illegal activity is to tax and regulate a product so as to provide a trustworthy, straightforward source.

Probably, but look at the huge quantities of smuggled tobacco in the UK caused by the high tax rate.

See, also, garlic smuggled from Norway (not an EU state) through Sweden (part of the EU, which adds a 9% tax for garlic grown outside the EU.)

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20976887)

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20667816)

[scott_w]

"While heroin is illegal people prostitute or burgle to get money"

The legality of an addictive substance doesn't make much difference to whether someone will commit a crime to get their fix.

Consider: people commit crimes to get money to buy alcohol. People also steal other legal goods they want e.g. TVs, laptops.

[neumann_alfred]

Consider: people commit crimes to get money to buy alcohol.

How can you consider that, without also considering that most people don't? Price does make a difference.

[scott_w]

I don't really see how that's relevant.

I was responding to the point "people commit crimes to fund their drug habit because drugs are illegal".

One way of verifying this (without de-criminalisation) is to compare drug usage to alcohol usage, and the crime rates of people funding either habit.

It's a hard study to do because there are other factors in play e.g. a pimp keeping his prostitutes dependent on drugs is a different situation to people prostituting to buy drugs.

[neumann_alfred]

One way of verifying this (without de-criminalisation) is to compare drug usage to alcohol usage

That's why the fact that most alcoholics don't commit crimes to get their fix is relevant. Sure, some do, sometimes, but on the whole, it's a vastly different picture; and the price, and not being pushed into shady alleys with shady people has to do with it.

Just consider the Prohibition, and also the experiences of all the countries who partially or completely decrimalized hard drugs, which is generally a success story.

[jrogers65]

Cocaine is not a synthesised drug - it's a plant extract. Amphetamine also occurs naturally in plants like Acacia Berlandieri, though it is synthesised when used for medical/recreational purposes.

[davidtanner]

HN can be surprisingly fact free when the topic of drugs and drug policy reform comes up. Thanks for being part of the solution. I believe that workers have detected methamphetamine in Acacia as well.

[jrogers65]

I read a little through your comment history and it's good to see some fellow psychonauts/drug geeks in here.

I can't edit my post above and have a slight correction -

> Cocaine is not usually a synthesised drug - it's a plant extract.

There are ways to synthesise it but they are expensive compared to an extraction, which is relatively simple and only requires common materials.

[LatvjuAvs]

Always in these debates where 3 people decide what others should do. It is fascinating. Don't you hate when you enjoy something and someone else comes up and puts you down because of it? Especially if one loves skinning people >:)

I dunno, I would never want to be person to draw a line. I think line drawing is the one that must be outlawed.