Drugs and society

bullpost

The Australian government have unveiled legislation which will compel tobacco manufacturers to remove all branding from their packaging and replace it will a simple name in plain font and graphic images of tobacco-related diseases.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/0408/1224294224003.html

This treatment of tobacco is in stark contrast to the marketing of alcohol. These two are now being treated as hostile and friendly drugs respectively, in the West at least.

Was just wondering if this would be a better solution to the current unwinnable war on drugs. Legalise all drugs but place restrictions on those which are deemed hostile to society?

Standman

bullpost wrote: »

The Australian government have unveiled legislation which will compel tobacco manufacturers to remove all branding from their packaging and replace it will a simple name in plain font and graphic images of tobacco-related diseases.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/0408/1224294224003.html

This treatment of tobacco is in stark contrast to the marketing of alcohol. These two are now being treated as hostile and friendly drugs respectively, in the West at least.

Was just wondering if this would be a better solution to the current unwinnable war on drugs. Legalise all drugs but place restrictions on those which are deemed hostile to society?

I definitely wouldn't say alcohol is being treated as a "friendly" drug. There are huge differences to how their respective advertising and sale is regulated, largely because of the high risk of cancer amongst smokers. I reckon legalising and regulating all drugs is the best way forward, with having heavier restrictions and regulations applied to the more addictive and harmful drugs. Legally speaking, you'd need to look at each specific drug seperately as it is quite obvious that neither full unrestriced legalisation or a complete ban is a helpful solution.

Heroin for example could be made available through pharmacies with prescription only, similar to how methadone is distributed. "Softer" drugs such as cannabis could be made available in coffee shop like outlets. The main focus of any legislation should be harm reduction, which the current system flies in the face of in favour of being on the moral high ground.

I do think it would be a good idea to legalise cannabis, maybe ecstasy and other low class drugs because:

-It would get rid of a lot of the criminal behaviour involved in smuggling it in and distributing it. This basically means a reduction in illegal actions and violence.
-It would reduce the amount of money that criminals make off it.
-It would hugely reduce it's chance of being a "gateway drug" because you wouldn't have connections to dealers.
-There's also the added bonus as you say, of being to regulate both the distribution and quality of the product, and being able to ensure there are no toxic or harmful additives.

But,

You can't legalise all drugs. Take heroin for example. No pharmacist is going to dispense heroin. The things that that drug does to people is horrific. Pharmacists have a duty of care, similar to a doctor. No one is going to hand that out, and rightly so. Regulations do not apply to heroin addicts. They can't see anything except the drug. It's a rocky road just trying to regulate the use of methadone. If there was heroin in pharmacies the place would probably be getting robbed left right and centre. Heroin is dangerous in any amount, in any form. Regulating it wouldn't solve anything. Think about the methadone situation multiplied by 10.

silverharp

true-or-false wrote: »

You can't legalise all drugs. Take heroin for example. No pharmacist is going to dispense heroin. The things that that drug does to people is horrific. Pharmacists have a duty of care, similar to a doctor. No one is going to hand that out, and rightly so. Regulations do not apply to heroin addicts. They can't see anything except the drug. It's a rocky road just trying to regulate the use of methadone. If there was heroin in pharmacies the place would probably be getting robbed left right and centre. Heroin is dangerous in any amount, in any form. Regulating it wouldn't solve anything. Think about the methadone situation multiplied by 10.

Think prohibition , make something illegal and you outsouce the market to crinimals who have an incentive to grow the market. To the best of my knowledge one was able to buy opiates/cocaine from Dublin pharmacies back in the 1950's. Much heathier situation as the pharmacist was not likely to give out free samples to kids.


Also it you widen it out if you want to talk about destructive chemicles that we are exposed to then HFCS has to be at the top of the list as being the basis for a lot of convenience food and its role in the deteriation of health of the most amount of people. But hey give enough money to regulators and you get to make it part of the food pyramid

bullpost

Despite the huge problems associated with alcohol , it is embedded in Western culture in a more pervasive way than tobacco.
Buy any quality newspaper at the weekend for example and look at the food section, where wine will be talked about at length with no negative connotations.
Drinks companies sponsor a lot of the prestigious events we attend and our socialising is largely based on activities involving alcohol.

Contrast this with the hostile way in which tobacco consumers are now treated. Progressive banning of tobacco in public places etc.
So, even though calling it a "friendly drug" is a bit of a stretch, its still gets a much easier ride that tobacco. The Australian proposal probably points to the future attitude to tobacco.

Standman wrote: »

I definitely wouldn't say alcohol is being treated as a "friendly" drug. There are huge differences to how their respective advertising and sale is regulated, largely because of the high risk of cancer amongst smokers.