h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Narcotics etc, not prescription drugs.

I'm writing an essay on the War on Drugs and it occurs to me that I don't really know why certain things are illegal (heroin) whereas some are a grey area (cannabis) and some are legal (alcohol)

I'm looking for resources but of course I've been procrastinating and wondered if the might of the h2g2 collective brain (bigger than a planet) might help?

Plus, it is an interesting discussion to have.

All I can think of is that the longer it's been around, the more accepted it is.

I don't think alcohol could be eliminated, as it's a good way to sterilize your skin in preparation for a blood sample. Drinking alcohol seems to have a good effect on your hart health if done in moderation.

Morphine, when used under strict supervision, alleviates severe pain in ways that few other substances can match.

Even nicotine isn't completely harmful. It is said to show promise in alleviating Parkinson's.

I guess the controlling factor is proven medical benefits.

"I don't think alcohol could be eliminated, as it's a good way to sterilize your skin in preparation for a blood sample."


Oh, you wouldn't want to drink that. THAT will kill you.

It's a tough thing to explain for sure. The expressed opinion that alcohol is long-known might be valid in that folks have a good idea what to expect in most people. In excess, there are legal penalties already devised - driving, behaviour in public, etc. Marijuana seems to be coming closer to generally accepted, and mostly known for what effects it can cause. Laws are trying to catch up for excesses and poor behaviour in the public world.

Narcotics and home-grown chemicals seem to be a lot less predictable as to how they will affect individuals. And also far less known, to be able to 'manage' outcomes of folks using them and then driving or interacting with the public.

These are just my opinions, of course. I am a user of alcohol and tobacco and never tried any of the other sorts.

Having used/taken most, at some point in my life; often both as recriational and also as prescribed medacine, the answer is... nah, it doesn't make any sense; there is often so much variability between individuals with the same drug (whether alcohol or a banned/illegal one etc), that I can't see much sense in it, - ones known to cause the most damamge, tobacco and alcohol remain legal, whilst some of the safer illegal drugs, like Extasy etc., remain illegal...
And the whatever they are called eyedrops with cocaine in, are the best eye pain relief ever (well its a simular thing to cocaine in them if I recall; instant pain relief)

Reasonable self-control then, perhaps, while experiencing these recreational stimulants? I expect that everyone feels that they are fully in control - just as a heavy drinker will always think after too many pints. But are they? Safe to put in the control of a ton or more of motorized vehicles, powerful machinery, public transit, fire fighters and other first responders, etc ...

Where is the line, as to what leaves a person in reasonable self control and not a danger to themselves or anyone else?

Just questions ...

Isn't it all about the quantities consumed though? Not like two sides of a coin, more like a sliding scale of consumption. Having a drink is not the same as getting drunk, and taking a sedative to send you to sleep is not the same as going into a stupor.

And back in the days of yore, drinking alcohol was always much safer than drinking water which could have all sorts of things in it. I believe there was more beer on the Mayflower than water.

Alcohol has been acceptable for many thousands of years so it I suppose acceptable.

The new drugs that need a chemistry set to create a different. They are far more dangerous and the association with crime, and misuse have put them the wrong side of the law.

Nanny state probably

Here's an idea. Before painting those who would protect us from ourselves, ... How's about an understanding of these products?

People who have smoked, popped, injected, what-ever else ...

What were the effects on YOU? Your perceptions?

Me first. Alcohol is my choice of "adjuster", brandy in particular.

I have developed a fair tolerance for it, but still recognize that my perception, physical coordination and any sort of reaction time is distinctly diminished. Driving would be criminal, not in that I might get caught, but in that if someone else acted out of the norms - a kid running into the street, another drowsy driver drifting into my lane face on or alongside - I can't be sure that I could react correctly or in enough time to avoid something catastrophic.

So in brief - I don't do it. EVER. Not just rarely, but never.

reasonable self-control?! yeh. so, like right now ATM... th e prescribed meds I'm on.... far less a grip on reality than any other drug I can think of and ahve taken, (perhaps other than over excessive taking of alcohol/... seriously. these medications make me hallucinate more than hallucinants that I've taken... etc., etc., taht arguement doesn't seem to make sense to me ... as it were... mind, these are prescribed drugs, not over the counter.... but there are soem pretty potant over the counters too

J Collis Brown's stomach medicine which contains morphine was available without a prescription when I was a child. I appreciate why it worked for runny tummies: when I was given morphine after a Caesar 45 years ago in Ethiopia I had the worst constipation I have ever had.
Rather spectacular withdrawal symptoms also

Have a look at toptenz.net/top-10-drugs-that-used-to-be-illegal.php
This is American, but a lot of pressure was put on the UK over the years to conform and basically nowadays American drug laws rule the world.
When they banned opium it was mostly because it was believed that Chinese addicts in the opium dens were seducing white women, when actually more addicts were women on isolated farms.
When I was 16 and 18 I was in a very famous English hospital for jaw surgery where post-operative Guinness was prescribed. I don't seem to have had any withdrawal symptoms from that.

Another 'possible' reason certain substances are legal is that influential people in power make a lot of money from selling them.

"Before painting those who would protect us from ourselves ... "

I don't need or *want* someone to "protect from myself". I don't believe other people do either, so I find the phrase "nanny state" perfectly reasonable.

But, as impaired driving does endanger others, I agree that there should at least be similar laws regarding all other drugs, all the same.


To return to the original question, I agree with earlier posters. The "legal" drugs were already widespread and accepted by the populace long before this crusade against drugs began. So they were able to weather the storm where the others didn't.

Now (just to confuse you a little more) despite my political leanings, I myself do not take any drugs unless prescribed by a doctor, nor do I think it's a good idea for anybody else to do so. Don't understand the appeal either.

<>

I am in control of my life, even with congestive heart failure and some serious resulting organ stresses. So agreed, I temper protections that are 'in my best interest'.

How-ever, when it comes to impairments by intoxication or hallucinogens or completely unpredictable basement-lab products - I like the little comfort factor that there are efforts to protect others from ME.

Perhaps a poor analogy - how many would like all gun and cutting-edge laws to be scrapped? Everyone knows that a mishandled firearm can be lethal, the same for switch-blades, machetes and absolutely gorgeous Samurai swords worn in the streets. Just as you can trust everyone equally, self-managed, with "drugs", you can trust them with fabulous machining and artistry, right?

Well, I believe I did point that out.

thanks all!

I have been meaning to post here, but I knew my reply would be a bit long.

Any discussion about illegal drugs should start with when and where they became against the law. My reply will be primarily based on the US because that is where I am and the history I know.

Until the begining of the 20th century there was little if any control of narcotic drugs. The 'Coke' in 'Coca-Cola' was short for cocaine, which was a part of the original formula. In the 19th century there were travelling 'Medicine Shows' that that provided free entertainment to gather a croud that was then offered 'patent medicine' at so much a bottle. There was no regulation and most of them contained substances that are banned today.

In the 1920's the US government made the sale of alcohol for human consumption illegal. The main result of this was a sharp increase in organized crime and home made spirits.
Although the Prohibition against alcohol was repealed the the control and outlawing of certain drugs remained in effect.

Today the massive profits of the pharmaceutical industry, and the doctors who are paid to prescribe these drugs, make any easing of these laws unlikely, except in some states marijuana. Even there there is an uneasy conflict between state and federal law.

I hope some of you find this at least a little bit interesting



F S