Prohibition and Bath Salts

rj40 · Post by **rj40** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:29 pm

There is a lot of talk about drugs and prohibition here. What about recent experiences with substances that sneak through only to become prohibited after a time? I wonder if it would be instructive to look at that. I keep hearing about something called Bath Salts. Apparently, for a time, they were legal and sold openly. How did society and people deal with that? Was there an increase in crime? Hospital visits? Maybe if we have numbers for info like that, we can compare pre and post ban. Is there a shift in the type of crime? After a ban, do we see a shift from crimes tending to be happening in the middle and upper classes to more crimes in the lower classes? That sort of thing.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:44 pm

Bath Salts are a very recent designer drug, created specifically to avoid the law in the short term. There's very little data on it as result. Reports of toxic episodes from Bath Salts rose 2,000% in 2011 over 2010, and they were banned in 2012. There's a decent write up on this in wiki.

Bath Salts are famous because they've been linked to some of the most notorious crimes in the last year or two--people running around naked having psychotic episodes, people eating other people's faces, and so on. If you think that's how society ought to be acting, then of course you think Bath Salts should be legal. If on the other hand, you think people eating other people's faces is a bad thing, and you are not ready for a zombie apocalypse; you probably don't think Bath Salts should be legalized.

rj40 · Post by **rj40** » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:57 am

It sounds awful. So this would be appear to be SO bad for society in general that it should be banned.

Is there any drug you can think of that may be used recreationally whose effects are not so bad to society that it should be banned? Nicotine maybe? Not good, does cost society, but perhaps not bad enough to justify banning and all that entails (underground economy, crime, tax free money, etc)?

Any others? No, no, I'm not looking to experiment with drugs.

I looked at the Wikipedia article on bath salts. Yeah, call me crazy, but I'm thinking I will avoid.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:59 am

rj40 wrote:Is there any drug you can think of that may be used recreationally whose effects are not so bad to society that it should be banned? Nicotine maybe?

IMHO, nicotine and alcohol are both benign enough that society is not best suited to inhibit their use.

Hard to imagine, but what I'm suggesting is what we have works, and should not be messed with.

williatw · Post by **williatw** » Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:40 pm

GIThruster wrote:IMHO, nicotine and alcohol are both benign enough that society is not best suited to inhibit their use.

Wow...alcohol and nicotine are benign?! Holy s&*t.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:56 pm

benign enough.

You have a terrible habit of misquoting and misrepresenting others when you don't agree with them. It's just awful. That's a sign of emotional immaturity and dishonesty. You need to knock it off.

williatw · Post by **williatw** » Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:23 am

GIThruster wrote:benign enough.

You have a terrible habit of misquoting and misrepresenting others when you don't agree with them. It's just awful. That's a sign of emotional immaturity and dishonesty. You need to knock it off.

That someone would actually use benign and nicotine in the same sentence.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:28 am

Even Arnold Schwartzenegger, who headed the Presidential Counsel for Fitness back in the 90's, smokes cigars.

Whatever your feeling, that is not license to misrepresent others.

williatw · Post by **williatw** » Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:39 am

GIThruster wrote:Even Arnold Schwartzenegger, who headed the Presidential Counsel for Fitness back in the 90's, smokes cigars.

Whatever your feeling, that is not license to misrepresent others.

He also apparently smoked weed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6IpLSjaKSE

choff · Post by **choff** » Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:30 am

Didn't he also need heart surgery?

rj40 · Post by **rj40** » Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:46 pm

It sounds like a lot of this depends on where people think "benign enough to leave things alone" transitions to "not benign enough to leave things alone."
And then antipcating what the future has in store.

I think that is difficult to do.

palladin9479 · Post by **palladin9479** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 4:35 am

rj40 wrote:It sounds like a lot of this depends on where people think "benign enough to leave things alone" transitions to "not benign enough to leave things alone."
And then antipcating what the future has in store.

I think that is difficult to do.

Much simpler then that. Stop looking for the rational thought process behind the decisions and instead look for the emotional one. People feel comfortable with the legal status of Alcohol and Nicotine products. They have been socially acceptable for centuries. "Drugs" is a very big word and covers everything from OTC acetaminophen to schedule II controlled substances methylmorphinan and even the schedule I substance THC. You take "drugs" practically every day of your life.

The real debate is whether other substances should be included into the "socially acceptable" category of recreational drugs, similar to Nicotine, Ethanol and Caffeine. There are debates and fights on both sides but ultimately all discourses boil down to the question "Are you emotionally comfortable with item X being legally available for recreational use?". The two sides tend to be divided by age groups, though there are some exceptions. Younger generations are more accepting of new social changes, older generations tend to be vehemently against new social changes. Of course older people tend to be the ones dieing out so eventually the younger generation wins.

Anyhow the issue of the Prohibition of THC (the liberals will make it into a social issue, like they do everything else) will come up in the 2016 elections. Election demographics in the USA are changing, as last election proved. Younger people are voting, minorities are voting and unless the current Republican party alters it's position they'll be losing again in 2016.

williatw · Post by **williatw** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 6:35 am

GIThruster wrote:benign enough.

You have a terrible habit of misquoting and misrepresenting others when you don't agree with them. It's just awful. That's a sign of emotional immaturity and dishonesty. You need to knock it off.

As opposed to the name calling and personal insults you frequently indulge in? That how you demonstrate your emotional maturity?

rj40 · Post by **rj40** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:36 pm

What metrics do ya'll use when deciding if you think a drug should be legal for recreational use or not? It wold be interesting to see what king of overlap, if any, there is between each side of the debate.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:59 pm

I don't have a single set of criteria I apply. I look at the consequences of each individually. For instance, Cannabis is an hallucinogen that makes people psychotic. It destroys ambition. It makes people more interested in their casual time than in pursuing a fulfilling life. It therefore goes on the top of my list of drugs that should be prohibited, and the proof's for this are easy to find in the failed life of simon.

Likewise with Meth--when you look at the consequences of recreational use, you find destroyed lives. That is almost the only criteria one needs to judge it as worthy of prohibition. It simply does not matter that a select few can use it without destroying their lives when the vast majority who use it end up shriveled wrecks.

And so on. Bath salts make people crazy. 'nuff said.