Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by ScaryMonster, Sep 27, 2009.

1. ### ScaryMonsterI’m the whispered word.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
1,074
If a chemist went into the lab and genetically altered tobacco so that it was harmless, but still gave the same sort of nicotine hit would we still frown on its use?
Also just say a drug was invented that had all the pleasant effects of illicit drugs and none of it’s harmful effects except maybe intoxication whist under it, would society and government still ban its use?
These substances might remain physiologically addictive but the chemical addiction would be cut out of them, this is quite possible given the advances in modern science but would it be wrong for a scientist to make such a substance?
Also what if someone invented a cap you could wear that stimulated the pleasure centers of your brain and had no detrimental side effects, would we be lining up at Wal-Mart to buy these things? Would they let us?

The issue is that drugs have been banned under the excuse that they harm people and yet alcohol and tobacco are legal, if that wasn’t an issue would drug taking just become another recreational past time or would it always hold a sigma of moral turpitude?

Last edited: Jan 19, 2010

3. ### Omega133Aus der DunkelheitValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,281
Yea we'd still frown on it. Mainly because it ruins lives.

The reason the government finds it illegal is because it is smuggled into the country and not regulated by the U.S. government. Beer and cigarrettes are legal because they make a profit.

5. ### ScaryMonsterI’m the whispered word.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
1,074
If is not physically harmful how could it ruin lives? Or do you think everyone would be too stoned all the time and civilization would collapse?

Way to state the obvious Omega dude! High Five! :worship:

7. ### DreddDreddRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
238
Addiction in our society is a description of results commented upon by the powers that be.

That can be demonstrated to some degree by comparing the notion "heroin addiction" to the notion "oil addiction".

The notion that nations can become addicts to oil is of late vintage. Once it was fashionable to use oil, once it was fashionable to use cocaine ("coke -> coca-cola").

When the majority sees the result of the use of oil, the result of the use of coke, and the like, there tends to be a reaction.

It can change the criminal prosecution system, or the energy distribution system.

In general our western world is reactionary instead of visionary in our approach to the use of commodities.

8. ### takethewarhomemidnatt klarhetRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
625

Isn't that really kind of true for all cultures.

9. ### ScaryMonsterI’m the whispered word.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
1,074
But are drugs commodities, I think half the appeal of drug taking has to do with its forbidden nature, sure once addiction takes hold the reasons for taking drugs might change but there is still this element of saying ‘screw you I’ll do what I want’ to the conventions of society.

Addiction to the use of oil? Well modern society might use a lot of it as fuel; lubrication, plastics and such but most people wouldn’t care if a substitute came along.
And why does society need to be anything but reactionary about the use of oil? To be honest when I eat the cow most people and I don’t really care about its family tree beyond the fact that its healthy and nutritious and available.
If it’s not available we’d eat a different tasty animal.
Drugs could be commodities, alcohol and tobacco are, why not cocaine and the opium poppy?
:m:

Messages:
6,281
I just think that drugs ruin lives from the addiction. I mean wasting $50 on dope instead of gas to go to work is not a good thing. Somebody has to. 11. ### ScaryMonsterI’m the whispered word.Valued Senior Member Messages: 1,074 You misunderstand my question, I'm asking: “what if the drugs didn’t have any bad side effects?” Would it then be okay to take them then? 12. ### Omega133Aus der DunkelheitValued Senior Member Messages: 6,281 Okay to take, yes. Legal, maybe/no. 13. ### Fraggle RockerStaff Member Messages: 24,690 The only reason it costs$50 is because it's illegal, so the only people who sell it are gangsters. Because selling drugs is illegal, it's a high-risk occupation, and people who work in high-risk occupations charge more for their services than we do. Furthermore, gangsters have their own way of eliminating competition, and reduced competition results in higher prices.

This is Economics 101A and everyone knows this except the shit-for-brains government.

The second-order effects of drug prohibition cause far more harm than the drugs themselves. My parents were hardly what you would call liberals, but they saw with their own eyes what Prohibition did to this country (gunfights in the street, children recruited as runners, corrupted cops and officials, declining respect for the law, sound familiar?) and they cheered when it was repealed.