Forum: Close to Home

Topic: Viewpoints - Should nicotine and alcohol be further regulated?

On the face of it, it's crazy that alcohol and tobacco,
 
arguably the two most dangerous recreational drugs that
kill hundreds of thousands of people year in the United
States and cause untold social chaos, are sold in grocery 
stores while 642,000 people got arrested for marijuana 
offenses last year, a drug that as far as anyone can tell 
has never killed anybody and is probably less addictive than
caffeine. (See NIDA addiction ratings in www.druglibrary.org)

Heroin is probably slightly less addictive than nicotine
and assuming it is pure, its only chronic long-term health
danger is constipation.  One of the leading surgeons of
the 19th century, "the father of modern surgery," was a
lifelong morphine addict. Yet, opiate addicts are today
pariahs, social outcasts for which no indignity is too
great.  While tobacco is no longer as socially acceptable
as it used to be, I don't think anyone thinks it would
have done any good to put George Burns in jail for smoking
his cigars.

Our current treatment of both legal and illegal drugs
is totally illogical, and it all derives from social
and racial prejudice, not from any rational reasoning. 
(See www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm 
for an excellent summary of just how we got our drug
laws.) We need to develop a pragmatic, comprehensive 
approach to drugs in this country based on the real 
dangers of the various drugs aimed at minimizing the 
harm done both to individuals and to society.  And we
need to be sure the policies of control do not do more
harm than the drugs themselves.

A few of my thoughts:

We of the United States love simple answers and quick
cures.  Right now we seem to be on a "pass a law against
it" kick.  If anything is wrong, there is a great call to
"pass a law against it," seemingly with the belief that
once we do that the problem is solved. Well, it isn't.
Outright prohibition doesn't work. It's never worked in
the history of the world.  See www.druglibrary.org
for historical details.

On the other hand, some kind of reasonable regulation,
coupled with social pressure, *does* work.  Look what
has already happened to the standing of tobacco in this
country. People do still smoke, kids still do start
smoking, but I think we've got to accept the fact that
some people are *always* going to smoke and some kids
are *always* going to start to smoke, the best we can do.
If we try to totally prohibit tobacco, it will become
just another commodity handled by drug smugglers.

And of course we already tried alcohol prohibition, and
we know what a disaster that was.

I'd like to see some kind of regulated distribution of all
"recreational" drugs.  That would mean tighter controls
on alcohol and tobacco, looser controls on the currently
illegal drugs.  I'd strive to make the controls as tight
as possible without triggering an illegal drug trade. At
the very least, I'd like to see NO advertising of any
"recreational" drug except perhaps at point-of-sale.
Letting a beer company sponsor a major sporting event is
crazy, as far as public health policy goes.