How Chemistry Stymies Attempts To Regulate Synthetic Drugs

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Chemistry Stymies Attempts To Regulate Synthetic Drugs

Posted by timothy on Sunday June 3, 2012 @01:34AM from the welcome-to-the-drug-war-here's-your-scorecard dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "Brandon Keim reports that the war on drugs has a new front, with chemists fabricating synthetic mimics of marijuana, dissociative drugs and stimulants. So far lawmakers appear to be a losing the war, as every time a new compound is banned, overseas chemists synthesize a new version tweaked just enough to evade the letter of the law in a giant game of chemical Whack-a-Mole. 'Manufacturers turn these things around so quickly. One week you'll have a product with compound X, the next week it's compound Y,' says forensic toxicologist Kevin Shanks. 'It's fascinating how fast it can occur, and it's fascinating to see the minute changes in chemical structure they'll come up with. It's similar, but it's different.' During the last several years, the market for legal highs has exploded in North America and Europe. While people raised on Reefer Madness-style exaggerations may be wary of claims that 'legal high' drugs are dangerous, researchers say they're far more potent than the originals. Reports of psychotic episodes following synthetic drug use are common and have led to a variety of laws, but so far the bans aren't working, as the drugs can be subtly tweaked so as to possess a different, legal molecular form. One obvious alternative approach is to ban entire classes of similar compounds; however this is easier said than done. 'The problem with that is, what does "chemically similar" really mean? Change the structure in a small way — move a molecule here, move something to the other side of the molecule — and while I might think it's an analogue, another chemist might disagree,' says Shanks. 'That's the crux of the entire problem. The scientific community does not agree on what "analogue" essentially means.""

93 of 364 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I don't understand by Hentes · 2012-06-03 01:40 · Score: 2

Doesn't every chemical have to go through thorough tests before deemed safe for human consumption?
1. Re:I don't understand by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 01:48 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Of course not. We've injested billions of different molecules from nature since the dawn of time, and until very recently we haven't had the scientific know-how to test them.
2. Re:I don't understand by AngryDeuce · 2012-06-03 01:49 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Not if the chemical isn't marketed as being meant for human consumption, obviously...
  The synthetic weed that they're selling at headshops and shit nowadays is sold as incense, some of them are sold as bath salts. They say right on the side "not safe for human consumption", but then again, so do cans of spray paint and duster and there are thousands of people out there huffing that shit.
  Just more stupidity all because the government refuses to legalize a plant that grows wild all over the damn world.
3. Re:I don't understand by dietdew7 · 2012-06-03 01:50 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I don't think these drugs are purchased from a pharmacy.
4. Re:I don't understand by khipu · 2012-06-03 02:10 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  but then again, so do cans of spray paint and duster and there are thousands of people out there huffing that shit.
  Kittens don't come with warnings. Does that mean they are safe to huff?
  http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Kitten_huffing
5. Re:I don't understand by Gr8Apes · 2012-06-03 02:17 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Just more stupidity all because the government refuses to legalize a plant that grows wild all over the damn world.
  If the government legalized it and even limited to purchase in gov only stores, they could at least kill off most of the issues related to the drug trade, in one fell swoop removing pushers, drug runners, mules, and cartels. Granted, at this point they'd also have to sell cocaine, LSD, ecstasy and heroin for less than street value, but that's purely attributable to the stubbornness of the "war on drug" folks who've now created this entire underworld subculture. Apparently those "war on drugs" people were incapable of learning from history and what occurred the last time they declared "war" on a common and highly desired item (prohibition). At least they seem to have learned their lesson with tobacco.
  
  --
  The cesspool just got a check and balance.
6. Re:I don't understand by Savantissimo · 2012-06-03 02:30 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "Doesn't every chemical have to go through thorough tests before deemed safe for human consumption?"
  No, because we used to be a free country where everything was considered legal until proven otherwise. Back in the early 20th century, it took a constitutional amendment to ban a substance. It was understood that that was not within Congress' powers to do so otherwise, which gave rise to all sorts of dodges such as calling the ban an "excise tax", with outrageously high duties.
  We have slid down the slippery slope to the point that agencies such as the BATF, DEA and FDA can ban substances by totally discretionary administrative action - and anyone with molecules vaguely similar can have all property seized, be prevented from making any effective legal defense and sentenced under draconian mandatory minimums to decades in prison. But they still like to pretend that they are still exercising their authority with some authentic legal basis, so they'll do a bit of hand-wringing while actually prosecuting anyone with any potentially mind-altering material, or "precursors" or even just for possessing glassware without license from our masters.
  I say they never had the authority to ban anything, nor to even tax anything to a level that would remove it from regular commerce.
  When they try to use their power to do so, they are acting outside their delegated auhtority ultra vires, they have lost their immunity, and so are entitled to even less deference than any other band of armed thugs that invades homes, steals property and kidnaps, terrorizes and kills citizens.
  
  --
  "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
7. Re:I don't understand by Bert64 · 2012-06-03 02:51 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Not necessarily...
  The black market drugs would need to be significantly cheaper than the over the counter stuff, or it simply wouldn't be worth the risk (of police, of poor quality product, of being ripped off by an unregulated seller etc) for the purchaser... And if the profit margins are slim enough it wouldn't be worth it for the seller.
  With legal production, you have efficiencies through economies of scale as well as savings through being able to ship via official channels and not needing to smuggle etc, so you could easily undercut the black market on price and still turn a tidy profit.
  Legalizing drugs would destroy the business of those in the illegal drug trade over night, save the police millions and allow the government keep track of who is buying what drugs.
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
8. Re:I don't understand by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2012-06-03 02:58 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Yep, it would put cartels and the mafia out of business overnight, leading to less crime and a marked improvement in living conditions and health for everyone, which is why its unlikely to ever happen. Politicians know its good to have a boogeyman in your back pocket to scare the electorate, like wartime presidents never losing office. Law enforcement knows their budgets would be slashed without much crime, and the increasingly paramilitary tactics they are adopting would become unneccessary. In short, those in power would lose control.
9. Re:I don't understand by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 03:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Don't forget the for-profit prisons. They have a vested interest in high crime and recidivism rates. Also I recently found out that they make prison population projections from third grade reading skills, so the for-profit prison industry also has a vested interest in harming education. That there is such a thing as a for-profit industry is a clear sign of a sick society.
10. Re:I don't understand by JimCanuck · 2012-06-03 04:03 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  If the government legalized it and even limited to purchase in gov only stores, they could at least kill off most of the issues related to the drug trade
  In Ontario, they have put so much sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco products, that our prices for them reach 2-3 times more then the US and other Provinces near us who do not tax the hell out of them.
  
  While there are no criminal gangs actively distributing black market alcohol and tobacco, there is however a rather large black market for Native tobacco products that do not get taxed this way, and home distilled alcoholic beverages. As well as the importing of tobacco and alcohol products from places where these sin taxes do not exist.
  
  Making something legal and then regulating it to death just invites more illegal distribution of the products in question.
11. Re:I don't understand by TubeSteak · 2012-06-03 04:33 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I believe kittens are known to cause cancer in the State of California.
  Thank God I'm not in California! /I manufacture and distribute kittens for the purpose of huffing
  
  --
  [Fuck Beta]
  o0t!
12. Re:I don't understand by ks*nut · 2012-06-03 04:40 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  There are lots of people getting rich because of ludicrous drug laws in this country. How do you think the CIA finances its nefarious adventures? They'll keep the war going in Afghanistan going just long enough to tidy up the fortunes they're making on the opium trade and then shift their attentions elsewhere. Thousands of lives are shattered each year through the use of a legalized drug - alcohol, yes, damnit, it's a drug and we're still throwing people into jail because they're smoking a weed that turns into a flower in their minds. Stupid country.
13. Re:I don't understand by wiggles · 2012-06-03 04:50 · Score: 2
  
  I'm allergic, so if I tried to huff a kitten, I'd likely wind up with my face swollen shut. I suppose that makes it unsafe...
14. Re:I don't understand by LocalH · 2012-06-03 05:06 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The fact that you say that people think of it as some sort of "sacred text" is part of the problem. Intelligent people such as my self just wish to see the government follow the procedures that the Constitution requires it to follow, in order to gain power that they are not explicitly already granted in the Consitution itself, nor in any amendment to the same. The Constitution is meant to limit the government and empower the people, and nowadays it does neither from a practical standpoint.
  We don't need a Constitutional reform, we need a legislative reform to prevent laws from being passed that violate the Constitution, without going through the proper process to amend the same. I would say we need a judicial reform as well, to prevent judges from acting in a manner contrary to the Constitution.
  A good start would be to make violating the Constitution a treasonous act on the part of every government employee with power (all the way up to the POTUS). Also, if one knowingly signs a bill that goes contrary to the Constitution, then one should be barred for life from serving in any public office, even on a city council or county board, much less on a national level.
  
  --
  FC Closer
15. Re:I don't understand by Strydrdenis · 2012-06-03 06:21 · Score: 2
  
  The main problem with the people involved with the "War on Drugs" don't want it to become legal as they would probably lose their jobs.
16. Re:I don't understand by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 06:25 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The drug problem is two fold.
  On the one hand prohibition creates drug cartels and costs a ton of tax dollars to enforce. These drug cartels fight each other for turf and this creates a lot of violence among drug dealers.
  On the other side of the equation are drug users. Drug users often
  A: Don't work, they can't keep a job
  B: Don't have money
  C: Need money to get high
  So they rob banks, they rob liquor stores, they rob cars, and the crime rate sky rockets. This is why people are afraid to work at a liquor store, they may get shot by someone seeking a high. A huge percentage of theft occurs by drug addicts who want their next high and need money.
  While legalizing drugs may eliminate the violent drug cartels (or substantially reduce their numbers), it won't eliminate the problems associated with drug addicts.
  One problem with America is that we take a very one sided, militant, approach to the drug problem. We spend the overwhelming majority of our efforts only going after the supply side of the equation, the drug dealers and drug cartels, while we ignore the demand side. We think that if we can simply overpower the drug cartels with more police forces and wasted tax dollars, we will fix the problem. It doesn't work. We need a smarter drug policy, one that also focuses on the demand side as well, for example through rehabilitation programs. Reduce the demand for drugs, get drug addicts off of drugs, and there will be less money to be made in drug dealing and that will also diminish the drug cartels. We need a more balanced approach that targets both the demand and the supply, not just one that simply goes after the supply side of the equation with brute force.
17. Re:I don't understand by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 07:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  First, I'm going to call bullshit on your rant about drug users. I can pass the drug test - I've done them all. :)
  I have used marijuana almost every day since I was about 15 - now I'm 50, successfully had a career as an Electronic Design engineer, both hardware and software. I own my own house and car, both paid off. I had to retire early due to side-effects from cancer, but in my lifetime, I have never stolen anything from anyone to finance my drug-use. Neither has anyone else I know that does drugs.. If I didn't have the money, I went without.
  If someone is so out of control they have to resort to crime to support their habits, then yes, they have a problem. THEIR problem, not a problem with drugs, or society, they have a mental or chemical issue that makes them susceptible to addiction. Separate from that they have a MORAL problem that allows them to steal or commit major crimes to further their habits. If not drugs, they would seek other self-destructive addictions, sex, gambling, whatever. The moral issue means they would commit crimes to finance their eating habits or their habit of living in someplace with a roof. This is not a drug related problem at its core.
  That said, I would keep some drugs controlled - Opiates and Cocaine, while fun, are ripe for abuse due to their addictive potential. So does alcohol. Pot, Hash, LSD, Mushrooms - these are fine - they are not physically addictive and are more or less self-limiting in that the end of the high doesn't result in a massive desire to do MORE of it. If someone has the chemical imbalance to make them prone to addiction, coke, alcohol and opiates aggravate that tendency greatly.
  Legalizing drugs would eliminate the "forbidden fruit" aspect of doing drugs - it wouldn't be so attractive for rebellious teens to do just to piss off society and make them nothing special. This also would eliminate the curiosity aspect (they say it's bad, but the arguments don't make any sense, WHY? Let me find out...).
  I will agree education will help things. That, and making drugs safe and legally available to make them commonplace and mainstream will go a long way to eliminating the attractiveness of them for abuse, as well as profitability for illicit sales.
18. Re:I don't understand by dave420 · 2012-06-03 07:18 · Score: 2
  
  A legal operation would have as close to 0% shrinkage as possible, compared to an illegal operation which would have to factor in seizures of product and equipment, the loss of employees, and raids on premises in the price of their product.
19. Re:I don't understand by bitt3n · 2012-06-03 07:22 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Yep, it would put cartels and the mafia out of business overnight, leading to less crime and a marked improvement in living conditions and health for everyone, which is why its unlikely to ever happen. Politicians know its good to have a boogeyman in your back pocket to scare the electorate, like wartime presidents never losing office. Law enforcement knows their budgets would be slashed without much crime, and the increasingly paramilitary tactics they are adopting would become unneccessary. In short, those in power would lose control.
  well what we could do is legalize drugs, but then illegalize something else, so that the cartels still have a business. For example, what if we made truck nuts illegal? We could have truck nuts being peddled on street corners, colombian truck-nut smugglers smuggling truck nuts from illegal jungle truck-nut laboratories, and truck-nut kingpins bribing truck-nut police to take out rival truck-nut gangs. To get around the problem of people wanting to put truck nuts on their trucks (capital offense), you could have brown bag laws, where the cops couldn't pull you over unless they could actually see the truck nuts.
  
  --
  how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
20. Re:I don't understand by TheRealGrogan · 2012-06-03 08:11 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  As opposed to what... keeping things the way they are now, introducing mandatory minimum sentences for growing a fucking plant, raising the stakes and increasing the profits for illegal growers and distributors, while doing even more harm to society? Quality and product safety will also regress and cause more harm.
  There is a breaking point with taxation and control of substances. Don't cross it. Yes, they made that mistake with tobacco in the early 90's in Ontario. Everyone and their dog was selling contraband cigarettes, including people's brands of choice too. There was at least one person, if not more, in every work place. They gave in, reduced the taxes so that smokes were back down to less than $3 a pack and the contraband stopped immediately. (People were stuck with cartons of these cigarettes) Then, of course, the anti tobacco lobbyists keep running their mouths and the price crept up again and now they have this new problem that they can't combat. It's very difficult to enforce because of the loopholes that the native people have.
  There is still some control though, you still don't have random assholes and criminal gangs growing tobacco and selling bags of it and getting violent over it. If they made tobacco illegal like cannabis there certainly would be more trouble.
21. Re:I don't understand by Hentes · 2012-06-03 09:18 · Score: 2
  
  With dozens of chemicals put into every piece of food I eat I'm quite happy to live in Europe where this kind of stuff is closely regulated.
22. Re:I don't understand by TheGratefulNet · 2012-06-03 09:38 · Score: 2
  
  correction, stupid WORLD.
  you think its a US problem that governments have 'agreed' to ban pot? last I checked, almost every single country is onboard this stupid WoD.
  *not* just the US. its a false morality problem; but mostly there is MONEY to be made by governments, in various ways, by keeping things illegal.
  counter-intuitive but its actually true.
  then again, the US has a very high population of religious sheep and those are the perfect 'voters' to keep the status quo going. brainwashed believers are a huge part of the problem; the problem being a regressive anti-progress mindset.
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
23. Re:I don't understand by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-06-03 10:12 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yep, it would put cartels and the mafia out of business overnight, leading to less crime and a marked improvement in living conditions and health for everyone,
  No it wouldn't. You kill the drug market but leave the players behind, you end up with a ton of violent criminals looking for new profitable crimes to commit. That's what happened with prohibition - it basically created organized crime in the US and once liquor was relegalized they didn't just get regular 9-5 jobs, they branched out.
  If drugs are legalized in the US, we should be prepapred for the violence to get worse before it gets better.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
24. Re:I don't understand by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-06-03 10:25 · Score: 2
  
  Definitely not. I got one caught in my nostril once. But maybe declawed kittens are safe.
25. Re:I don't understand by paiute · 2012-06-03 11:26 · Score: 2
  
  Thalidomide was a fucking medication. It was said to be safe. We're not talking about deregulation of health products.
  I replied to a post which included:" We have slid down the slippery slope to the point that agencies such as the BATF, DEA and FDA can ban substances by totally discretionary administrative action...."
  
  So yes, it was talking about deregulation of health products.
  
  --
  If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
26. Re:I don't understand by amRadioHed · 2012-06-03 12:15 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If drugs are legalized in the US, we should be prepapred for the violence to get worse before it gets better.
  I'm pretty sure that's not what happen after alcohol prohibition.
  
  --
  We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
27. Re:I don't understand by amRadioHed · 2012-06-03 12:21 · Score: 2
  
  you think its a US problem that governments have 'agreed' to ban pot? last I checked, almost every single country is onboard this stupid WoD.
  The US is the main culprit. We have a lot of influence in world politics, and we use it to force other countries into alignment with our drug policy.
  
  --
  We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
28. Re:I don't understand by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-06-03 12:51 · Score: 2
  
  Only because the murder rate reached an extreme peak the year that prohibition was repealed. The year after the repeal, the murder rate was still significantly higher than any other year during prohibition.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
29. Re:I don't understand by roman_mir · 2012-06-03 18:08 · Score: 2
  
  No, it's your post that is stupid if you don't understand that people are free to take whatever drugs they want.
  Some women drink alcohol and smoke during pregnancy, the government cannot force them not to do so, it is between those women and their children.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
Legalize it all. by Karmashock · 2012-06-03 01:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

All of it.
Some junkies will kill themselves... but that will taper off quickly. Some kill themselves. Some don't. Some never touch the stuff. If people want to destroy themselves... let them.

--
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
1. Re:Legalize it all. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 01:49 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  You've prompted my first ever Slashdot comment.
  The problem is that people using this stuff are killing innocents. Look at the Florida cannibal (repotedly on bath salts) and the guy a mile from my house in Farmington Hills, MI who killed his adoptive father and beat his adoptive mother & brother to within an inch of their lives on K2/Spice.
  By the way, it hurts a lot of people a lot when a user ODs. A lot more than I thought it would.
2. Re:Legalize it all. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 01:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Same reason should be used to ban alcohol,cigarettes and fossil fuels then
3. Re:Legalize it all. by AngryDeuce · 2012-06-03 02:05 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If only there existed relatively safe plant that people could smoke instead and not turn into fucking flesh-eating zombies after use...
  Oh well, I'm sure Big Pharma will come up with something to combat these cravings at a very reasonable price per dose, because Big Pharma cares...
4. Re:Legalize it all. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 02:09 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I've no experience of "bath salts" (besides actual bath salts) but I'd take reports that it contributed significantly the the cannibal's antics with a pinch of salt.
  I'm probably being too cynical, but it sounds more like a newspaper going for moral outrage. It's also interesting that you mention Spice, which I have tried myself; it's meant to be a legal version of pot, and that tends to dampen violent tendencies rather than amplify them. The guy you mention may well have been smoking the stuff before the assault on his adoptive family but I'm very skeptical that one led to the other, but of course the papers will take this as a cue to stir up a campaign to ban it.
5. Re:Legalize it all. by Higgins_Boson · 2012-06-03 02:14 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  You've prompted my first ever Slashdot comment.
  The problem is that people using this stuff are killing innocents. Look at the Florida cannibal (repotedly on bath salts) and the guy a mile from my house in Farmington Hills, MI who killed his adoptive father and beat his adoptive mother & brother to within an inch of their lives on K2/Spice.
  By the way, it hurts a lot of people a lot when a user ODs. A lot more than I thought it would.
  Except you forgot things like this, which totally refute your small area claims of increased crime.
  
  Just because 10 crimes out of 1,000 people happens does not mean you have an increase in problems. It just means you are falling into the media's fascination with only reporting bad things.
  
  Decriminalize/Legalize all but the most harmful and that may be a step in the right direction. Or simply take the exact approach Portugal took.
  
  However, this being /. and all, I do not fully expect you to actually read what I've linked for you.
6. Re:Legalize it all. by gstrickler · 2012-06-03 02:18 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Precisely. Prohibition didn't work in the 1920's, it just made drinking more dangerous and added to the crime rate and violence. The "war on drugs" is simply prohibition revisited. Stop trying to make prohibition work, it will never work. Legalize it, tax it, and regulate it, just like we do with alcohol and tobacco.
  There may be a few drugs that are too dangerous and need to be restricted, but if the majority of them are available, the demand for the most dangerous ones will drop dramatically, whether they're legal or not.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
7. Re:Legalize it all. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 02:19 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  It's a good thing they're under prohibition then so things like that don't happen anymore.
8. Re:Legalize it all. by khallow · 2012-06-03 02:34 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The problem is that people using this stuff are killing innocents.
  
  So is the war on drugs. It's killing roughly 10,000 people a year across the border in Mexico (which in itself is almost as numerous as are killed by drunk drivers, the most common case of innocents killed by drug users. It's killing people who are imprisoned for using drugs (there are hundreds of thousands if people jailed each year in an unhealthy environment, do the math). It's killing people due to increased government power and reduced freedom. It's killing people due to a massive misallocation of society's resources.
  
  By the way, it hurts a lot of people a lot when a user ODs. A lot more than I thought it would.
  How about when that user spends a few years in jail? I bet that hurts a lot of people too.
9. Re:Legalize it all. by 0100010001010011 · 2012-06-03 02:47 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  And spend the money on rehab and not punishment. Look at Portugal as an example. And keeping drugs illegal is costing tax payers a TON of money. My GF works in the ER. She's had a patient in and out with sepsis and other serious infections that he got from a needle. Give or take they estimate that the it's cost the hospital "$1M" (in hospital money). Between sedation, partial amputation of a limb, etc. It would have cost the government pennies for a clean needle and some clean, medical grade heroin. And then force him into a treatment program instead of locking him up and making me pay for it.
10. Re:Legalize it all. by GrumpySteen · 2012-06-03 02:48 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I don't think anyone has ever eaten some guy's face after smoking a cigarette or filling up their car with gas, so no... the same reason shouldn't be used to ban cigarettes and fossil fuels.
  There are rational arguments for why you might want to ban either (and arguments for why you shouldn't), but the one you're presenting here makes no sense whatsoever.
11. Re:Legalize it all. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 02:53 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  So I tried THC for the first time in my life last week a few weeks leading up to my 30th. (To go along with my "Try everything once" mantra since I was raised a very picky eater having never tried some vegetables before 25).
  I have asthma so can't smoke, but I found some interesting recipes online. Ended up making gee and then using that in a ton of stuff. Toast, brownies, cookies, spaghetti, etc.
  --
  Holy fark have I (we) been lied to. Jesus Christ, that's illegal? I want to go back and cock punch every single cop and DARE presenter I ever had. Alcohol has much more serious side effects than that. I had way too much my first time not knowing the limits and I didn't black out or go try to pick fights (as too much Jim and Jack tend to do). I just felt like I was getting heavier and sinking into the couch. It was the worst parts of being drunk (uncoordinated, couldn't talk right, blurry vision) without the blackout to forget it. Subsequent dosages were much better. (And I re-watched the Avengers a 2nd time and that was interesting to say the least).
  I already believed that everything should be decriminalized/legalized (Like how Portugal does it) and that was just because of my observations on society. There is absofarkinglutely no reason pot should be illegal let alone a schedule 1.
  The WORST possible side effect is that we all turn into the British and queue for everything. If you've seen the episode of How I Met Your Mother where they get in line and time feels like it's gone by for ever, that's pretty much it.
  Oh, and it took away (or at least made me ignore) my chronic knee pain. I mean. If you have the means to try it and haven't and you already don't see a problem with alcohol, my suggestion is try it. You will be equally as "WTF".
  Anonymous because.
12. Re:Legalize it all. by Zero__Kelvin · 2012-06-03 02:56 · Score: 2
  
  While I certainly agree that weed should be legal, let's not forget that hundreds of thousands of people ingest these other chemicals every day, yet only one guy went around eating a guys face. I think we can reasonably conclude that there is no causal relationship between the two.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
13. Re:Legalize it all. by Bert64 · 2012-06-03 03:02 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Bath salts are a legal substance being abused...
  Do you think people would resort to taking bath salts if marijuana and other such drugs were available legally? As the article points out, as more substances are made illegal they are creating ever more dangerous substances in order to achieve similar highs. This wouldn't have happened if drugs were legal, if anything research would have been performed to create safer versions.
  Also if drugs are sold legally, you can better keep track of who is taking them...
  And people kill innocents all the time, wether on illegal drugs, legal drugs like alcohol or prescribed medicine from a doctor, or on no drugs whatsoever... Just because someone had taken bath salts at the time he tried to kill and eat someone, doesn't mean the bath salts had any influence over his decision to commit such an act.
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
14. Re:Legalize it all. by betterunixthanunix · 2012-06-03 03:03 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I don't think anyone has ever eaten some guy's face after smoking a cigarette
  Has someone eaten some guy's face after using marijuana? What kind of non sequitur are you pushing here?
  
  The truth is that plenty of people die because of tobacco. Children get asthma because of tobacco. Second hand tobacco smoke can cause cancer. Tobacco smoke is far more dangerous than marijuana smoke (yes, really -- marijuana smoke does contain carcinogens, but even heavy marijuana smokers do not show an increased risk of cancer).
  
  or filling up their car with gas
  Cars kill tens of thousands of people per year, and I can assure you that people's faces have been torn off by cars.
  
  The fact of the matter is that the war on drugs has nothing to do with public safety. Making methamphetamine illegal for recreational use (it is certainly legal by prescription) has actually created a much greater risk to the general public: illegal methamphetamine production. I have never seen a crazed methamphetamine user (I am sure they exist, I have just never seen one), but I have seen a house burn to the ground after the byproducts of methamphetamine production caught fire. Mobile production facilities create major chemical hazards on the sides of highways. I would rather have a legal, regulated chemical plant producing methamphetamine for people to buy over the counter than the system we have today.
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
15. Re:Legalize it all. by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2012-06-03 03:09 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You can add up every single murder and suicide committed under the influence of illegal drugs, every death by overdose, every death due to organ failure caused by years of addiction ... and you still won't come close to the number of deaths and the amount of damage caused by the "War on Drugs" rather than the drugs themselves. If you don't think the argument makes sense, that's your problem for not paying attention.
  
  --
  The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
16. Re:Legalize it all. by kestasjk · 2012-06-03 03:13 · Score: 2
  
  Cops, drug dealers, "assholes", and "plastic companies" are conspiring to keep marijuana illegal?
  
  --
  // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
17. Re:Legalize it all. by TheRealMindChild · 2012-06-03 03:14 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  The "blizzard" bath salts are not like anything that can be described. I have never taken the stuff myself, however, being in the psych ward over many occasions, these bath salts are the purpose of MORE THAN HALF of the people there.
  
  The situation comes from people using this stuff like cocaine. The first initial buzz is very much like cocaine. But unlike cocaine, you don't do a line every 5 or 10 minutes, because the bath salts have a half-life of possibly from 8 hours to DAYS. After enough consumption, you WILL have a psychotic episode ranging anywhere from schizo tendencies to what you can classically attribute to PCP.
  
  The doctor, Amy Metzger, who is usually the doctor on said psych ward has written a paper about its effects http://altoonaregional.org/news_archived2011.htm#06-03-11d
  
  --
  
  "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
18. Re:Legalize it all. by jittles · 2012-06-03 03:14 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I have never seen a crazed methamphetamine user (I am sure they exist, I have just never seen one), but I have seen a house burn to the ground after the byproducts of methamphetamine production caught fire.
  
  I had a roommate in college who used to be a very heavy meth user. He quit because he started becoming very paranoid and was beginning to hallucinate. It got to the point where he literally thought everyone was out to kill him, and he was afraid that he was going to have to start killing people to save his life. I'm not sure how he realized it was the drugs, or how he managed to stop, but I would be very willing to bet that he was quite dangerous during that time.
19. Re:Legalize it all. by betterunixthanunix · 2012-06-03 03:29 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  So your point is what...that someone who noticed that his life was becoming terrifying as a result of his drug use was able to stop using that drug? Your roommate did not kill anyone, and he certainly did not create a hazard waste site on the side of a busy highway.
  
  Sure, methamphetamine can create paranoid delusions in its users. Do the people who sell it for recreational use take the time to explain that to their customers? If you could buy methamphetamine legally, you could be given a warning about the danger of using it -- just like we warn people about the dangers of using alcohol and tobacco.
  
  Note that the methamphetamine that is sold legally, the kind you need a prescription to buy, comes with warnings. It is also produced in a much safer, and much better controlled, manner. You do not have to worry that pharmaceutical methamphetamine is laced with hazardous residual chemicals, a common and serious problem with illegal methamphetamine. It is unusual for a pharmaceutical production facility to burst into flames; it is common for an illegal production facility to explode.
  
  People are going to use methamphetamine recreationally, and we need to accept that as a fact of life. The issue we need to address is the health and safety of the public, both those who use methamphetamine and those who do not. Banning the drug has increased the risk to public health; we can do better.
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
20. Re:Legalize it all. by betterunixthanunix · 2012-06-03 03:36 · Score: 2
  
  Cars are made with iron, steel, aluminum, fiberglass and dozens of other materials. It would be just as idiotic to ban those materials...
  ...as it would be to ban certain kinds of matches in response to methamphetamine production:
  
  http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/3/prweb9271990.htm
  
  ...or to limit purchases of ephedrine:
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Methamphetamine_Epidemic_Act_of_2005
  
  MDPV and Spice products have only rose in popularity because they produce effects similar to illegal drugs. It is worth noting that both of these drugs were simply declared to be illegal by the DEA, which is the same agency that enforces drug laws. It is also worth noting that if you could buy drugs legally, we could give you legally mandated warnings about those drugs -- like a warning that MDPV may induce psychosis.
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
21. Re:Legalize it all. by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2012-06-03 03:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  the person I responded to said that you might as well use the same argument to ban cigarettes and gasoline. That's a stupid argument because cigarettes and gasoline haven't ever been implicated in violent, cannibalistic assaults.
  Actually, the person you responded to said:
  
  Same reason should be used to ban alcohol,cigarettes and fossil fuels then
  I note you deliberately left off alcohol, which is most certainly a factor in a great many violent assaults. And the point of the entire thread isn't the specific nature of the harm these various substances do, but the fact that they are all demonstrably harmful to people other than those using them; the question at hand is whether or not this harm is sufficient cause for banning them. If you want to engage in obvious cherry-picking, go ahead, but be aware that it's really not helping you make your case.
  
  --
  The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
22. Re:Legalize it all. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 04:06 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I have never seen a crazed methamphetamine user (I am sure they exist, I have just never seen one), but I have seen a house burn to the ground after the byproducts of methamphetamine production caught fire.
  I had a roommate in college who used to be a very heavy meth user. He quit because he started becoming very paranoid and was beginning to hallucinate. It got to the point where he literally thought everyone was out to kill him, and he was afraid that he was going to have to start killing people to save his life. I'm not sure how he realized it was the drugs, or how he managed to stop, but I would be very willing to bet that he was quite dangerous during that time.
  I used to use Meth, it doesn't make you trip. What makes you trip is staying awake for up to two weeks without sleeping, which is what the Meth allows you to do. I saw one chick go for nearly a month with less than an hour of sleep a week. After 3 or 4 days you start hallucinating from the sleep deprivation. Keep that up for long enough and you'll seriously fuck your program upstairs and need an ICU to sober up.
  I quit because it was rotting my teeth and I realized I was turning into a piece of shit. Put it down, walked away. Had jitters for a few days, trouble sleeping for a few months, and that was it. I smoke some weed now and then still, and sometimes have a few beers, but that's the extent of my partying these days.
  Most of the people who get really wacked out on Meth are actually using what we called "Crank". It's basically a bath-tub version of Meth, but what you end up with chemically speaking is a little different. Or a lot different depending on who did the cooking and what they used. It's just another example of people turning to the strange and exotic when you take away the common and familiar.
  As for dangerous, well I'll have to throw this at you:
  ""Dangerous!" cried Gandalf. "And so am I, very dangerous: more dangerous than anything you will ever meet, unless you are brought alive before the seat of the Dark Lord. And Aragorn is dangerous, and Legolas is dangerous. You are beset with dangers, Gimli son of Gloin; for you are dangerous yourself, in your own fashion. Certainly the forest of Fangorn is perilous - not least to those that are too ready with their axes; and Fangorn himself, he is perilous too; yet he is wise and kindly nonetheless."
23. Re:Legalize it all. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 05:03 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  tit-for-tat anecdote time:
  of course, it is up to the user to use in moderation. i have done meth plenty of times, in small amounts, and never went past the 2 day mark, while friends have. it's the same with anything. i've done cocaine plenty of times, but i haven't stolen, sold all my worldly possessions, or hurt anyone to get a fix. if i can moderate, anyone can.
24. Re:Legalize it all. by sjames · 2012-06-03 05:15 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  And the only reason the 'bath salts' even exist is that the far more desirable cannabis is illegal.The longer cannabis is illegal, the more crazy dangerous legal substitutes will be made. Had cannabis been legal, the guy would have been way too busy trying to carve a walnut into a pipe to eat anyone's face.
25. Re:Legalize it all. by cayenne8 · 2012-06-03 05:19 · Score: 2
  
  I don't think anyone has ever eaten some guy's face after smoking a cigarette or filling up their car with gas, so no... the same reason shouldn't be used to ban cigarettes and fossil fuels.
  There are rational arguments for why you might want to ban either (and arguments for why you shouldn't), but the one you're presenting here makes no sense whatsoever.
  
  A very small minority of these actions tho.
  I mean, in human history, there have been many more incidents of egregious acts by humans to other humans...fueled by nothing more than breathing simple oxygen. People that snap...can and will do it with or without chemical help.
  The VAST majority of people that use chemicals...alcohol (actually one of the more dangerous ones), pot, coke..what-have-you do not go out and harm other people. If that were the case, the world would be a smoking, smoldering pile many decades back.
  The majority can and often does use these chemicals recreationally with no harm to anyone, except possibly themselves. It isn't the governments job to protect someone from their own actions, is it? If so...where is that in any of the state or federal constitutions as an enumerated function of said governing body?
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
26. Re:Legalize it all. by sjames · 2012-06-03 05:39 · Score: 2
  
  I don't know about the plastics companies, but as for the others, YES! Try to run on a legalization platform and see how quickly the various law enforcement fraternal organizations back your opponent and shout you down.
  The drug dealers most certainly do NOT want competition from CVS.
27. Re:Legalize it all. by ewieling · 2012-06-03 05:44 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  So I tried THC for the first time in my life last week a few weeks leading up to my 30th. (To go along with my "Try everything once" mantra since I was raised a very picky eater having never tried some vegetables before 25).
  
  Holy fark have I (we) been lied to. Jesus Christ, that's illegal? I want to go back and cock punch every single cop and DARE presenter I ever had.
  
  This War on (some) Drugs undermines people's faith in our government. Once someone realizes they were lied to about marijuana they start to wonder what other lies they were told. It is easy to think the the government lies about stuff, but seldom do people have direct experience proving it. You have now had one of those experiences.
  
  --
  I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
28. Re:Legalize it all. by gstrickler · 2012-06-03 06:00 · Score: 2
  
  However we should follow New York city and find ways to Ban the consumption of sugary sodas.
  No, we shouldn't
  
  Black Market sell products that you cannot legally get or get at the price close to what supply and demand can tolerate. It is a natural part of the economy.
  No. Black markets exist only because you can't get it legally, or because you can get it cheaper on the black market. Make it legal and you kill most of the black market.
  
  In New York the biggest black market item is unpasteurized milk.
  Demonstrates the above perfectly. Black market didn't exist until they made it illegal.
  
  The reason why something is illegal, is the combination of two things, 1. It is overall more dangerous then it will help.
  Incorrect. Marijuana is less dangerous than tobacco. Many illegal drugs are safer than many prescription drugs.
  
  2. People want it anyways.
  Prohibition didn't work because the Demand was much too high. The other drugs do not have as much of demand and are not part of our culture.
  Demand for drugs is at an all-time high. Making it illegal hasn't decreased demand, it has increased demand (and costs). If it's something that people really want, making it illegal won't decrease demand, and it doesn't matter what percentage of the population wants it.
  Before anyone runs off on a tangent of absurdity, no, that does not mean we should make everything legal. Just because there are psychopaths who enjoy killing people doesn't mean we should make murder legal. When an activity starts to infringe on the rights, life, liberty, etc of another, it must be curbed. But there is no reason to make something illegal if in normal use/practice it doesn't affect another's life, liberty, property, or rights.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
29. Re:Legalize it all. by stochos · 2012-06-03 06:20 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I don't think anyone has ever eaten some guy's face after smoking a cigarette or filling up their car with gas, so no... the same reason shouldn't be used to ban cigarettes and fossil fuels.
  There are rational arguments for why you might want to ban either (and arguments for why you shouldn't), but the one you're presenting here makes no sense whatsoever.
  The only evidence that the face-eating zombie guy was on bath salts is speculation by a police officer, who was previously quoted in the Miami Herald as saying that the cause of the attack was "cocaine" and "a new form of LSD" time.com. They're just pulling it out of their rear ends to fit an anti-drug agenda. In fact, no drugs were found on the suspect, and no toxicology reports have been released proving he was on ANY drugs. The other high-profile murder attributed to bath salts was the murder of a New Jersey student that led to the passing of Megan's Law, criminalizing possession and sale of bath salts. Well lo and behold, the murderer turned out not to have any bath salts in his system. What a shock! I wouldn't be surprised if the same is the case with the face-eating zombie. Why is it so hard for people to accept that people can commit horrific acts without the aid of drugs or demons? Some people are just mentally ill.
30. Re:Legalize it all. by FiloEleven · 2012-06-03 07:16 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Don't fall prey to the fallacy of the single cause. There was also Dupont, who wanted nylon to replace hemp. There were also racist motivations: making marihuana illegal was a good way to deport the Mexican laborers who were "stealing our jobs" and the Negro musicians who were "corrupting our youth." I'm sure there are a number of other fringe reasons for making it illegal.
  Also, it actually started with the Marihuana Tax Act, in which farmers could only grow hemp if they bought stamps to do so from the government. The government didn't sell any stamps. The scheduling came later.
  
  --
  Your brain is not a computer.
31. Re:Legalize it all. by ColdWetDog · 2012-06-03 07:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If we're going to rag on drugs, we should start with alcohol. Ask any policeman, fireman, EMT, ER staffer. We have entire ER wings devoted to that one particular drug.
  Since we, as a country, decided that it was OK to pickle ourselves into oblivion while simultaneously plastering bystanders to the concrete, then getting all high and mighty about pretty much any other 'recreational' substance is the height of hypocrisy.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
32. Re:Legalize it all. by roman_mir · 2012-06-03 08:11 · Score: 2
  
  If other drugs were legal, this 'cannibal' wouldn't be taking the synthetic stuff.
  The only way that one drug leads to somebody taking another drug (gateway) is because the client already had to approach a pusher rather than going to a store to get some pot or blow or crack or other similar known substance.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
33. Re:Legalize it all. by Internetuser1248 · 2012-06-03 09:03 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I remember seeing a story in the UK news recently: Some guy had taken a 'legal high' so called ecstasy substitute, and died from it. His parents were out for blood. Their position was that if the government was more aggressive in prohibiting new recreational drugs their son would still be alive. Even disregarding all the completely obvious flaws in their argument (mainly the impossibility of regulating these substances as discussed in the OP), it was a massive facepalm moment for me. I felt like grabbing them by the collar and shaking them and saying "If ecstasy were legal he would still be alive".
  
  I have taken a few untested analogues myself, only after extensive research. Personally I thoroughly recommend tryptamine analogues especially 5-methoxy Di-isopropyl Tryptamine, that stuff is the bees knees. But the fact remains, lsd, ecstasy and marijuana are relatively safe, there are some deaths from ecstasy, maybe one or two from lsd, and exactly 0 from marijuana. Experimental analogues on the other hand are dangerous. Yes I know that the war on drugs is not there to prevent user harm, but I want everyone else to know that too and start asking why we don't start reducing that harm.
when will we learn? by wwwrench · 2012-06-03 01:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

What this means is that the drugs which are legal, are potentially more dangerous than the ones which are banned. Marijuana, mushrooms, LSD have been around long enough that they've been well studied, and we know the risks are minimal. But the latest synthesised version of them has not been studied, and might be dangerous. When will we learn that the war on drugs is just making things worse?

--

Deconstruct the State
1. Re:when will we learn? by garcia · 2012-06-03 02:02 · Score: 2
  
  When business and public safety unions cannot lobby politicians and they will be prosecuted, by death or indefinite jail terms not funded by taxpayers, for doing so.
2. Re:when will we learn? by AngryDeuce · 2012-06-03 02:02 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  All one has to do is look at the US drug schedules to realize that they have no realistic basis.
  I mean, THC is ranked as having a higher abuse potential and danger than cocaine. Psilocybin is ranked higher than amphetamines. Peyote is ranked higher than opiates.
  I'm sure it's just coincidental that all the intoxicating substances that grow wild with little human intervention, that have been used spiritually and medicinally for tens of thousands of years, are rated as being "more dangerous" than the opiates that make up the bulk of the pharmaceuticals in use around the world today. It's not like the companies selling the legal recreational drugs like alcohol and tobacco are putting money into keeping these things scheduled in this unrealistic way or anything. Oh, wait...
3. Re:when will we learn? by khipu · 2012-06-03 02:13 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Opiates also grow naturally and have also been used medically for thousands of years.
4. Re:when will we learn? by betterunixthanunix · 2012-06-03 02:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I mean, THC is ranked as having a higher abuse potential and danger than cocaine.
  This is not 100% accurate; Schedule II drugs are supposedly drugs with a high potential for abuse, but which have legitimate medical uses; Schedule I are those with a high potential for abuse, but no legitimate medical uses. Cocaine has use as an anesthetic, and amphetamines have use in treating narcolepsy, ADD, and obesity.
  
  The problem with these schedules, of course, is that things become political hotbuttons. Law enforcement officers want to be able to arrest anyone who possesses marijuana, without having to listen to a story about having a prescription; they view placing marijuana in Schedule II as conceding defeat. MDMA was put in Schedule I despite legitimate medical uses as well, because cops wanted to crack down on hippies, punk rockers, and other subcultures. The war on drugs is more about increasing and maintaining police power than about public health.
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
5. Re:when will we learn? by kestasjk · 2012-06-03 03:28 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  You're like, totally harshing my buzz man..
  
  --
  // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
6. Re:when will we learn? by khipu · 2012-06-03 08:29 · Score: 2
  
  Sure it has been grown in the US. Opium use was very widespread (laudanum, paregoric) in the US in the 19th century, and it was legal. The opium used was produced from US farms, including in California and the tobacco states. It was legal to do so until the late 30's.
Yes Please by JamesP · 2012-06-03 01:47 · Score: 2

Let's ban synthetic drugs while the tradicional/crime financing drugs are still around
Let's make more difficult for people to have their nicotin fix in a less harmful way by banning all 'less harmful' alternatives.
The drug traffickers and tobacco companies are grateful for your cooperation.

--
how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
Innovation by Chemisor · 2012-06-03 01:50 · Score: 2

And they say there is no innovation in America...
1. Re:Innovation by AshtangiMan · 2012-06-03 02:40 · Score: 2
  
  Sugar is a mind altering drug. In fact most foods do affect brain chemistry. What you suggest is not only abhorrent for human rights (pursuit of happiness, liberty) but likely impossible. Not that there won't be lobbyists and politicians and evangelical preachers who won't try something like that. Also I'd like to second what your previous replied said.
Re:Declare the compounds by geoskd · 2012-06-03 01:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

Make it illegal to sell drugs without declaring the exact compounds and forbid driving or operating dangerous machinery under the influence of any drug.
What about Prozac? What about caffeine, or sugar for that matter. These are all psychoactive chemicals, and quantifying the difference between them and ... say cocaine... is extremely subjective.
-=Geoskd

--
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
Re:Whitelist by camperdave · 2012-06-03 02:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

Blacklisting is always going to be running behind the curve. I think whitelisting allowed recreational mood/thought-altering substances (currently: ethanol, nicotine, caffeine, sugar, fat, others?) might work better. Simply make it illegal to sell or distribute new substances to the general public without permission from the FDA.
One pill makes you larger, and one pill makes you small
And the ones that mother gives you, don't do anything at all.

The FDA is never going to whitelist anything potent for over-the-counter recreational use.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:If they were Realy serious by AngryDeuce · 2012-06-03 02:08 · Score: 4, Informative

Why not pass a law that just bans any drug that has the potential to be used recreation-ally? Or is that too easy?
Because that always works so well...
Humanity was getting high since the dawn of time. At some point people are going to have to confront the fact that humanity enjoys altering their consciousness for recreational purposes.
Re:If they were Realy serious by betterunixthanunix · 2012-06-03 02:12 · Score: 2

You mean like alcohol and tobacco? People use caffeine recreationally, despite the danger in doing so. There are a number of ornamental plants that can be used as a drug.

We need to go in the other direction, and stop banning drugs. We also need to stop letting a law enforcement agency dictate the laws it is charged with enforcing (see: emergency drug scheduling). While we are at it, let's stop having paramilitary police, stop attacking civil rights, and stop having the largest prison population on Earth.

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:Whitelist by betterunixthanunix · 2012-06-03 02:16 · Score: 2

I think whitelisting allowed recreational mood/thought-altering substances
That is exactly what we have now. How does this help at all?

We should legalize drugs, and then apply truth in advertising laws to drug packaging. The FDA can evaluate the safety and risks of recreational drugs; the packages should include a summary of that assessment, and drugs which have not been assessed should have a big warning on them. Give people accurate information, not a jail cell, when they want to get high.

--
Palm trees and 8
"Analogue" extremely misleading by NCatron · 2012-06-03 02:32 · Score: 5, Interesting

Working in drug discovery, I'm still amazed at how often a small change of sometimes even a single atom of a molecule can take an pharmacologically active molecule and make it near-worthless - or even worse take a (relatively) safe molecule and turn it unacceptably toxic. I'd stay FAR away from any "analogue" being created with the sole purpose of rounding a ban without having any sort of safety and probably minimal efficacy testing.
I'd say this kind of story gives even stronger evidence for why illicit drugs (the less-toxic at least) should be legalized & controlled - if this article is not overly sensational and there really is an escalating war of chemistry we could get into some pretty nasty stuff being marketed to consumers who do not know any better.
Propoganda by Zero__Kelvin · 2012-06-03 02:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

I've got news for you. If the guy beat his adoptive mother and brother to within an inch of their lives on K2, then they should thank their lucky stars he was on K2, or they would be dead right now.*.

Disclaimer:I've actually tried K2 and know what I'm talking about.

Perhaps you were unaware of this, but when the government wants to make something illegal, they are often not truthful. Furthermore, correlation doesn't equal causation. If one smokes a joint and then goes and kills someone, they didn't kill someone because they smoked a joint; they killed someone because they are a murderous person.

--
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Canada by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 02:37 · Score: 2, Informative

In Canada, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act bans "Cannabis, its preparations, derivatives and similar synthetic preparations".
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-38.8/page-24.html#h-27
The War On Some Drugs exists because... by couchslug · 2012-06-03 02:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

...religion hates spiritual experience and even simple pleasure it doesn't ration.
Note the level of Bible Thumper influence which not only drove Prohibition, but anti-"narcotics" (cannabis is not one) laws in the same era.
Taliban must control sex and control other pleasures, and to accomplish that goal must define disobedience as "sin" then punish it.
The cost of WOSD is spectacular, and it fuels the wave of immigration from the narco-states it creates (though the Christian Taliban are completely incapable of connecting the disruption of civil society with flight to the US!).

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Re:Declare the compounds by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 02:53 · Score: 2, Informative

Caffeine is a non-selective adenosine antagonist. Prozac is an SSRI. Cocaine is an SNDRI. Sugar is indirectly psychoactive, at best. The pharmacology is far from subjective.
Religion is a minor issue in the war on drugs by betterunixthanunix · 2012-06-03 02:55 · Score: 4, Interesting
...religion hates spiritual experience and even simple pleasure it doesn't ration.
Thus explaining why Jews are required to drink wine every week and are required to drink four glasses (definitely enough for almost anyone to at least get a buzz) on Passover. You also forgot about the numerous religions that use psychedelic mushrooms as part of their ceremonies. Religion is not the problem here.

If you want to know why we have a war on drugs, I can think of the following more plausible explanations:
1. Racism. Congressmen were told that black men who used cocaine would becoming unstoppable monsters, that Philipino immigrants would bring their horrible opium habits with them, that white women who smoked marijuana would want to have sex with black men, that crack makes black people crazy, that PCP makes black people crazy, etc.
2. Police militarization. The war on drugs is a great excuse to give police officers assault rifles, body armor, and even military tanks and helicopters (see: 1033 program). The police can also use the proceeds from seized assets from drug arrests in their own budgets.
3. Expanding executive branch power. The Controlled Substances Act allows the attorney general's office to simply declare drugs to be illegal, without any democratic process.
4. Corporate profits. Alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, pharmaceutical companies, firearms companies, prison operators, companies that make surveillance equipment, petrochemical companies, and numerous others have all seen expanded profits because of the war on drugs.
Religion is really a minor issue here. There are a few priests who will pound on their pulpits about the evils of drugs, but their power in the drug war is limited at best.
--
Palm trees and 8
1. Re:Religion is a minor issue in the war on drugs by ClioCJS · 2012-06-03 03:14 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  You're cherry picking. The religions you describe represent less than 5% of all religious people on the planet. The other 95% are exactly in line with what GP said.
  
  --
  -Clio
  Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
  Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
There is also the other side of this by durdur · 2012-06-03 03:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

If someone discovered a new biologically harmless but mind-altering drug, it would be made illegal, too. They are banning these things not only, or even primarily, because they are dangerous, but because they get you high.
Not Marijuana or LSD by Doc+Ruby · 2012-06-03 03:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

These synthetic drugs aren't mimicking the effects of marijuana, or of LSD. They just change your perceptions or ideas. They aren't mimicking the effects of valium, either, but nobody ays that they are. Because "mimicking valium" isn't scary scary scary. Because the corporate mass media isn't trying to scare people about valium. Because valium is actualy Valium, a brand name drug sold by giant pharmacos that advertise on TV. Marijuana and LSD are sold by independent operators who don't pay TV corps $billions a year to make them sound friendly. That's why they're illegal. Even though they're not anywhere near as scary as valium, which is actually addictive.
But that doesn't stop Slashdot from saying these drugs "mimic marijuana", or the Miami cops telling the corporate mass media that bath salts are "a new form of LSD" when some idiot turns themself into a flesh eating zombie possibly by smoking some. Because there's no corporate PR pushback to protect the brand, any kind of inane lie will fly around the media if it appeals to fear of drugs.
The fact that in 2012 the mass media is quoting cops saying bath salts are "the new form of LSD", and Slashdot is pimping the idea that some arbitrary drug "mimics marijuana" shows that the only victory in the Drug War is the first casualty of any war: the truth.

--
--
make install -not war
Re:A simple proposal by Doc+Ruby · 2012-06-03 03:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

How about you just leave us alone with whatever we want to do with our protein receptors?
Criminalize actual acts that actually harm someone else, regardless of the cause. If you want to make an aggravated crime out of doing harm as a result of doing something else that's known to be risky, especially on a second or further conviction, that's got some merit.
But criminalizing people self-stimulating (or inhibiting) their own bodies is tyranny. It has failed over and again, every time, creating far more damage than the drug consumption ever has. While failing to stop the consumption. And destroying both justice itself and the people's ability to trust it, atop the rubble of everything else the prohibition touches.

--
--
make install -not war
This article is a failure in its-self by kelemvor4 · 2012-06-03 03:38 · Score: 2

while I might think it's an analogue, another chemist might disagree,' says Shanks. 'That's the crux of the entire problem.

The author seems to have missed the fact that the real crux of the problem and that is that the country has banned the relatively safe versions, causing people to seek out these dangerous copies.
Expand the Swiss Canton system by barv · 2012-06-03 06:02 · Score: 2

The world has changed in the last twenty years. Online control by voter polling of our representatives' legislative acts has become a technical possibility. We can now go beyond the village and state level. We could set up a system whereby everybody would only need access to the Internet to securely vote.
No matter how many laws or constitutional changes we manage to have enacted, none would have such political impact as simply enacting an amendment allowing voters to repeal unwanted legislation.
Re:If they were Realy serious by sjames · 2012-06-03 06:57 · Score: 2

Do you really want to have open heart surgery under a local?
Perhaps you'd like to be the one to explain to chronic pain sufferers that they're just going to have to suffer living hell because otherwise someone might do something stupid (or have some illicit fun)?
What about things that are 'not a drug' like paint thinner, GHB or bath salts?
I'm so sick of this by Mr.CRC · 2012-06-03 07:25 · Score: 2

Here's my plan:
1. Legalize marijuana and traditional hard drugs: cocaine, methamphetamine and amphetamine, heroin, morphine, ketamine, MDMA, etc. I have reservations about PCP, but heck, legalize it too--because my system will create strong but non-criminal incentives to not sell people PCP (which is one of the very few drugs that can actually cause drug psychosis--meth's propensity for this is WAY over hyped by propaganda, and more likely due to poor nutrition and impure drug anyway in the rare cases that it occurs. Now do this:
2. Do NOT regulate and tax the heck out of it. Just:
2a. Pharmacy is legally exempt from legal ramifications if buyer has an adverse reaction.
2b. Pharmacy is legally restricted to sell a modest "ration" to each buyer per week. Of course, addicts will try to get their friends to sell them their ration. This is OK. Remember--it's all legal. But...
3. Since ONLY a pharmacist is legally exempt from lawsuit for selling the regulated amount, and your friend or factory is NOT, your friend can choose to sell it to you or not. But many, such as myself, will tell you to go away because I have a life and a job, etc., and am not interested in the risk of a lawsuit because you blow your heart out snorting my weekly 0.5g of coke, for a measly $20. Some people will choose to take the risk and peddle their rations. That's Ok--but the incentive will be to not do this.
4. A free market for medical insurance to create financial incentives to not abuse drugs. The market may then evolve the following situation:
4a. Disaster insurance--covers hospital stays and serious medical bills that would financially wreck the typical person. Cheap to buy, but relatively high deductibles of several $1000. That will make most healthy young adults happy. Buy preventative care and small incidental care with cash--it will be much cheaper without the gov. mandating that doctors and ins. cos. cover everything. It cost me $7 for a doctor visit when I was a kid.
4b. More thorough insurance that covers stuff like child delivery, some prescription meds., etc. More expensive, but lower deductible, and guaranteed to cover things that are likely but not certain to happen, like child birth. Suitable for middle class folks when they get started on their careers.
4c. Steep discounts for healthy lifestyles. You take cocaine and heroin and it shows on your yearly insurance co. piss test, that's Ok. You just don't get the healthy lifestyle discount. Strong incentive for folks to not abuse drugs. Occasional users can just not use any for 2 weeks before their piss test.
4d. Charity hospitals for caring for the poor. To the extent that the charity system has the resources to treat. This was what worked, imperfectly, but better than bankrupting a whole nation which is going to happen with the present system. Then we will all get nothing. And how big a health risk is a civil war?
4e. Government clinics for preventative care, first aid, shooing away people with the common cold, vaccines, urgent care etc. I'm a libertarian, but life isn't simple. I'll make a compromise here. But no, we will NOT treat you with $500000 of care to extend your life 6 months when you are 77 and at the end of the road. We'll give you a bottle of morphine if you can't afford it and send you on your way to meet you maker. It's what we all much ultimately face. My neighbor should not be obligated to pay for my life extension with 1/2 of his lifetime earnings.
5. Pharmaceutical drugs should be similarly deregulated, so that folks with terminal diseases who are going to die anyway can take the risk of testing a new drug that has little risk data behind it, but which might just save them. And nonsense like this doesn't happen anymore... A final little anecdote:
GHB (gamma-hydroxy butyric acid) was banned because a handful of people were victimized by the "date rape" crime. One could argue that they took a large risk by hanging out with the nightclub trash where this happens anyway. Anyway, it u