What would happen if Crystal Meth was legal?

[cthulu2016]

Last edited Tue May 29, 2012, 06:28 PM - Edit history (1)

What would happen if Crystal Meth was legal?

This kind of question distorts drug debates because it has two very different answers.

If Meth, and only meth, was legalized tomorrow it would really suck. A lot of people would be taking meth, which makes people pretty evil and crazy.

On the other hand, if all drugs were legal and available at the (aptly named) drug store very few people would use crystal meth. Why would they? IIt is an unusually bad drug, and most people take it because it's cheaper and more available to them than comparable high-powered stimulants.

All people who take meth to stay awake working two jobs (they are real in the heartland) would stop taking meth on the spot. Most would use, say, adderall or Dexedrine. And some of them would have serious problems abusing those drugs, just like people do today, though the problems would be a tiny bit less operatic (meth is an amazingly fucked up drug). Others of them would pop a moderate dose of adderall at the beginning of the work day the way I drink one or two or six cups of coffee, and not have a problem.

A lot of people do take drugs illegally without having a problem. They do not make headlines, however, and are thus somewhat overlooked. (I say take drugs illegally instead of take illegal drugs to include the vast secondary market in perscription pills.) Not everyone who does or would like drugs is a born drug addict. (In the same way some people really do have only two or three beers.)

Someone who wanted to be fucked-up speedy buzzed would use cocaine... a pretty dangerous and crazy-making drug but not quite as bad as meth. Would they smoke that cocaine? Snort that cocaine off a mirror? No, probably not. They would squirt that cocaine in their nose in a mist dissolved in distilled water, just like they were taking Afrin.

If things were legal they would be made by drug companies, pure and reliably dosed.

And half the drugs we have heard of would fade away quickly. Most street drugs are used because they can be made easily, not because they are the funnest possible drugs, and certainly with no eye toward safety. The drug companies would come up with more enjoyable, and safer, and more reliably dosed drugs overnight. (Dead customers cut into repeat business.)

Nobody really wants to take "bath salts" or huff spray paint. They just want to get fucked up. These perverse poisons that come along every few weeks are all about legality and availability.

Heroin addicts would mostly switch to dilaudid. Not a great improvement, but better. Some people who drink at lunch would switch to xanax. Not saying that's better, but it is different.

Could big RecPharma develop a safe form of ecstasy? Maybe so. From watching people it seems like a lovely drug that makes everyone want to hug. Unfortunately it leaves you short of dopamine and chronically depressed. And it can kill you if you drink to much fluids while on it. (I mention that as a PSA.) Would a safer, less psychiatrically disabling form of ecstasy be a good thing or a bad thing? That's a complex question. (Personally, I reject all "the danger is good for public morality" arguments because I saw that first-hand with AIDS in the 1980s.)

Anyway, none of this means that drug legalization would necessarily be good. It would, however, be different in complex ways. It would change everything, not just one or two variables. Maybe it would be worse, but it cannot be analyzed by simply extrapolating illegal drugs and criminal drug use.

Some people probably oppose drug legalization because it would empower the crack-dealer on the corner who is destroying their neighborhood. But it wouldn't empower him. It would make him disappear. There would be almost no street drugs in a drug-legalized world, and almost no drug-dealers. Except CVS and Walgreens. What about "crack whores"? (A very real phenomenon.) Is there a price point for crack below which one could be a crack panhandler without having to have sexual intercourse with a crack dealer's dog for the entertainment of his friends? It's a straightforward economic question.

Very complex questions with a lot of interdependent moving parts.

[randome]

1. Did I miss a memo? I thought drug companies were evil.

Okay, sure, the dealers might fade a bit into the background, but so would a good many people's lives. Needlessly.

[3waygeek]

2. Meth makes people evil & crazy?

I thought conservatism was responsible for that.

[slackmaster]

15. I've seen first-hand the effects of long-term amphetamine abuse

It does indeed make people mentally ill, and is very damaging to general health.

Chemical addictions in general re-wire the brain. They result in major changes in behavior that are never good.

[Scuba]

3. Stop making sense.

[Ezlivin]

4. Heisenberg would be out of business

And Jesse, too.

Back in the real world, I agree with your logic. The main reason a person picks up a meth addiction is inability to access other drugs. They are going to self-medicate regardless of what society wants and they will use the drug they can get. Remove the legal penalties and make all drug abuse a medical, not criminal problem.

[Arctic Dave]

5. Ending drug prohibition would be the same as ending alcohol prohibition.

Do you see people on a corner selling a fifth tucked in their jeans? No.

Do you see people being massacred for alcohol distribution? No.

Will the problems of addiction go away? No, but with the money saved by not criminalizing drugs that money could go to fund treatment centers instead.

[loyalsister]

9. We do see people killing people

with vehicles and in abusive situations. Destroying their own and others' lives because they can't keep a job, maintain relationships, etc.

I can see those possibilities, but the cost benefit analysis is pretty tricky.

[Arctic Dave]

12. I mention that in my post.

Last edited Tue May 29, 2012, 07:45 PM - Edit history (1)

However, making any of the mentioned illegal won't stop that from happening. That is why I mention treatment for misuse.

[loyalsister]

17. You're talking about assumptions vs. what we know, without a doubt, happens

The problem I see is that despite all the damage, alcohol has yet to be considered truly harmful- largely because it is legal.
I question whether that attitude based on legality would carry over to legalized access to more addictive substances.
I think that until addiction (even to alcohol) is viewed as a serious health problem as opposed to a moral failing there are more serious risks than truly predictable effects.

[Arctic Dave]

28. Had to edit my post.

Meant to say "won't" instead of "will".

Not sure what more can be seen from alcohol prohibition that hasn't beeen learned already. Or any other drug that is banned for "moral" reasons.

[loyalsister]

31. Maybe not so much worse

as more. It's hard to imagine that legally widening the range of available drug preferences wouldn't increase use and therefore the number of people affected by the negative behavioral effects of addiction.

I can see both sides. I am just very skeptical. There are plenty of people who don't use illegal drugs because they don't want to break the law. I support decriminalizing marijuana now. I'm just not sure it would be wise to take those steps with drugs that have more pronounced negative influences on behavior.

[loyalsister]

6. medicalizing and decriminalizing addiction would definitely help

From what I understand people with addictions seek a particular "high." As you say meth and the criminals and environmental damage that come with it might at least be significantly reduce.

I wonder if removing the criminality would also remove some of the attraction. If addiction were regulated, and managed in such a way that it is viewed as a problem as opposed to a fun rebellious activity maybe it would be less interesting.
It would have to be a well regulated system for the sake of safety, and that would invite illegal activity. But, it's possible that fewer lives would be ruined.
If intoxication were permitted in a less discriminatory way, I do wonder if the intoxication context and therefore seeking behavior could be altered in a way that prevents dangerous usage that is so common.

There are a lot of possibilities. I think removing the criminal element, and possibly reducing the damage that comes with addiction could have positive results. However, the only truly legal drug - alcohol- does more damage than the others.
So, the outcome is pretty unpredictable.

[cthulu2016]

16. I do not know if criminality attracts...

but I am troubled that kids who want some pot know and interact with drug-dealers. Drug dealers are serious criminals (in terms of the risk taken)... why does anyone want their kids to know them?

If possession of a pound of pot carries the same or greater penalty as beating someone with a tire iron what does that say?

Does serious criminality attract the best sort of people for your kids to know?

Do your kids draw a distinction between possession of drugs and stealing a car? Beating someone with a pipe? And if they do, why? Society doesn't.

And so on.

[loyalsister]

23. I see it in the media

A lot of movies dramatize and romanticize drug use. The drug dealer characters are very often appealing to people who want look cool. The process of using drugs is also sort of glamorized in many cases. This is a perception that is both represented and fostered.

Take the movie "Blow." They showed the dealer's great life as a drug dealer without mentioning how terrible prison was.

Society may not make a distinction between the very unfamiliar punishment but the crimes are definitely presented and understood differently. The young person who gets a joint from a friend doesnt have far to go to get to the dealer.

[spanone]

7. dentists would rule the world

[cherokeeprogressive]

8. I thought that for a moment but then remembered; no meth addict ever visits a dentist.

As evidenced by their pictures.

[cherokeeprogressive]

10. A whole lot of people would become unemployable within weeks.

I've never met a hardcore tweaker whose life was headed anywhere but toward the little whirlpool that circles the drain.

[oldernwiser]

25. thing is...

it's HIS life that's heading for the big cesspool in the sky. It's HIS choice as to whether he seeks treatment or just pushes the handle for the final flush.

If users can obtain their drug of choice legally and at fair market prices, they would be far more inclined to seek treatment since they wouldn't need to fear imprisonment and there would be less inclination to rob your house for the cash they need to feed their habits.

With truly informed education and not the tripe we're currently being fed, we could possibly reduce the number of users to a much more manageable level. That seems to be the model developing in every other country breaking the mold and just saying "Whatever" to drugs.

[cherokeeprogressive]

26. You could be right but

I've never seen a tweaker display that kind of rationality and I've known plenty of them.

[bluestateguy]

11. I favor decriminalization, not outright legalization

Drug users need help and rehabilitation, not to be warehoused into cattle pen prisons and marked with a criminal record for life (unless they committed a violent crime, of course).

Marijuana, on the other hand, should be legalized outright.

[slackmaster]

13. I'm old enough to remember seeing the effects of legally sanctioned prescription amphetamine abuse

It took out a lot of doctors, and patients who were able to successfully "shop" doctors.

Amphetamines are highly addictive and can be extremely dangerous. Their possession, distribution, and use really do need to be strictly regulated.

Trust me on this, I know about it.

That all said, addiction itself should be treated mainly as a medical problem and not a major crime.

[RebelOne]

18. So do I know all about it.

I took amphetamines for years, mainly to keep my weight down. I had a doctor in Miami Beach who would give you a prescription for anything you wanted for only $20. Yes, they are highly addictive and dangerous. And, yes, they affected me mentally to point where I had to go to a psychiatrist for treatment.

[cthulu2016]

20. True. Amphetamine abuse makes people psychotic

On the other hand, I can name five people I know who are addicted to amphetamines but do not abuse them.

One friend takes 10mg of amphetamine salts three times every day and has for a decade. Seldom takes two. Seldom takes four. Never takes enough to be more of a menace than being too chatty.

He would have a hard time quitting it cold-turkey I am sure, but not all dependency is progressive or abusive.

But it costs the helthcare system huge wasted money because he has to have his health insurance pay for a doctors appointment every damn month, by law, to get his limited 30-day supply.

And a very useful drug is simply unavailable to people who would benefit, but who lack health insurance, even though the drug itself costs pennies.

No easy answers.

[MichiganVote]

14. Not quite. None of these drugs are exclusive among addicts. Meth is deadly. Always.

[PeaceNikki]

19. Well, currently cigarettes are the only product advertised which are lethal when used as intended.

[MichiganVote]

21. True. And that is not exclusive of Meth or other addictive substances either.

[cstanleytech]

30. That applies to some drugs to actually. Take Actos for example, its a legal drug for diabetics

however recently it was discovered to increase the chance of getting cancer dramatically.
Same for another diabetic drug called Avandia which increased the chances of a heart attack for some people taking it.

[TheKentuckian]

22. The people that want to use it would do so more safely, they would pose less danger to their

communities, children would have far less access, resources wouldn't be wasted vainly trying to combat it, and I'd continue to have zero interest.

Government's role is to provide an environment where our rights are not intruded upon not to prevent us from doing shit to ourselves.

[oldernwiser]

24. What would happen if there were no illegal drugs?

Let's see...

Most of Central America would immediately collapse financially due to their reliance on the current sale and distribution, but businesses would have a more favorable worker base to exploit.

The US gun shops - particularly those close to the border with Mexico - would close and those owners would be out of work.

The cartels from South America to Texas would need to find other employment or other reasons to kill their own people.

Pacific coast Canadians would have to get real jobs.

California would immediately file for bankruptcy.

City gangs would cease to exist.

Wackenhut and other privatized corrections companies would fail, and their shiny new prisons would close.

Fewer telemarketers calling from the above prisons.

Local police around the country would have the extra time and manpower they needed to solve criminal cases (and chase speeders).

Federal DEA agents could be re-deployed as Immigration agents and could actually put a serious dent in human smuggling.

The US government would benefit from a huge cash windfall plus the subsequent taxation of the newly regulated commodities would make it possible to educate people about the abuse of drugs and provide real treatment centers as needed.

Court dockets at both the local and federal levels would be immediately cleared.

Fewer inmates in local, state, and federal prisons. (Joe Arpaio's tent city prison would have to go as well.)

Apart from that, almost nothing would change. Anyone who wants access to drugs has it already. I don't see legalization changing usage statistics. In fact, it might be a good opportunity to convince kids from 12 to 20 that drugs might not be a good choice in their lives the way we do with tobacco at least.

Personally, I think it's MY choice whether I partake in the usage of a drug or not. Current drug laws don't make us want it any less, they just make us more careful in how we come by it.

[Generic Brad]

27. Legalizing drugs would not bother me

I would still choose to not take them though. Much in the same way that I don't drink wine or hard liquor or gamble or owns firearm. Just because something is legal, it does not mean we have to participate.

[MadHound]

29. Let's see, thousands of people could become productive citizens,

Our tax money wouldn't be going to police and prisons. In fact by taxing the product, we could gain in revenue. Users would get a clean, cheap product. Meth addiction could be treated as a public health problem instead of a criminal problem. And the secondary crime wave that is ravaging meth country would disappear.

But lawyers, cops, DA's, and other small groups of people would lose out on some big time money.