The most popular reason given against recreational drug use is that it is dangerous. This is very often incorrect, marijuana is the safest drug in the world, ecstasy kills almost no-one (or actually no-one, it depends on how you measure it, but it may have psychological side-effects,) LSD kills nobody (but can cause psychological problems for the vulnerable). Still, heroin is extremely dangerous (although most overdoses are caused by not knowing the concentration, something caused by its illegality) and cocaine use can be fatal, killing thousands each year (but tiny fractions of those killed by alcohol and cigarettes.
I don't actually believe that the main reason for being against recreational drugs is safety, if that were true then marijuana and LSD would be legal and alcohol and cigarettes would be illegal. I believe the main reason is that they are viewed as icky (drunk and high people often look really stupid and people cannot imagine what is going on inside.) or a sign of weakness (I don't need those drugs) or puritanical (fun is inherently wrong.) These positions are sustained by massive amounts of misinformation, supported by bans on research, and huge alcohol and cigarette lobbies who don't want competition.
However, if safety was actually the reason then the sensible thing to do would be to try to design a recreational drug that fulfilled the recreational desires and yet was safe. We have a pretty good idea of what makes drugs fun (serotonin, dopamine, and endorphins) and we have some pretty good ideas of how to produce these chemicals. Research into a drug that produced these effects and yet was much safer then present street drugs would serve three purposes, it would meet recreational drug needs, reduce the dangerous effects of recreational drugs, and make pharmaceutical companies a ton of money.
There is a great deal of research going into the treatment of mental health drugs for such complicated mind-states such as schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder etc., for a tiny fraction of the population. If we are truly concerned about the well-being of people why can't we make something relatively safe (i.e. safer than any of heroin, cocaine, alcohol, and cigarettes) that makes well people feel better?
Now that there has been a tiny relaxation of the rules for scientific examination of recreational drugs (usually examining a medical use which would then somehow make the drug "legitimate", much like medical marijuana at the moment) perhaps we can actually get a good understanding of what makes drugs fun, and what makes them dangerous. As drug use becomes more mainstream, at least in the manner that most people will have met someone who has used recreational drugs without any noticeable effect, and more information becomes available, some sort of rational policy will be implemented.
Perhaps there is already something pretty close. MDMA, or ecstasy, acts on all the "happy drugs" in the brain and kills nobody directly (in seven years in New York City the only direct death from MDMA was a result of hyperthermia (overheating). We don't know much about the long-term effects because scientists aren't allowed to study illegal drugs, but the most severe side effects appear to be a "down day" of suppressed mood, energy, and sensory stimulation, and some psychological effects for vulnerable people.
I have never taken ecstasy. Partly because I haven't come across a group that took it (I have hung out with hippies, not ravers) but mostly because of initial information that it was dangerous enough to kill people and damaged the pleasure center of the brain. This turns out to have been either false or to have almost zero evidence (anecdotal and often false) for it. Basically these were lies. Wouldn't it be good if we could find out the truth, stop lying, and try to make the world a happier, safer place?
No comments:
Post a Comment