Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
There are already safe alternatives available. But they don't get you as high, so users seek out the more potent street drugs. Anything safe enough not to kill you won't get you high enough to satisfy the people who desperately want to get wrecked.
Let's turn this around - why do we have any regulations around drugs? Why can't I buy codeine, Tylenol 4s, or percocet at a convenience store?
|
It is difficult avoid any arguments over addiction psychology.
The highlighted part is very interesting to me. The general argument is that regulation stems from a need to keep the public safe. Let's call it public health. Yet, other goods which endanger public health are not so carefully regulated as drugs. High salt, fat, and sugar foods are easily accessible and marketable to the vulnerable, the obese ( addicts) and children (those who lack the judgment to avoid addiction). Arguably these high fat salt and sugar foods are not utilitarian outside of their role in the economy, and the emotional response one gets from using them. Indeed, There is not really a purpose for them except for self medication.
So why are codine, T4s or other opiets, which are arguably utilitarian both economically and physiologically, treated the same way. Well because it seems that they are a greater threat to public health, primarily by effecting brain function.
So what about street drugs, they are not utilitarian, or are they? they have great economic power, moreover their development was initially for pharmaceutical reasons, but now they are only used for emotional purposes. That said like these other goods, they impinge on public health. Still, they arguably cost the health care system less than high fat, sugar and salt foods.
The difference between these coping mechanisms is more abstract than we would like to think.