Many of the substances in question can't be made safer except by dosing at lower levels, and, for manufactured products, ensuring repeatable potency.

Heroin does what it does because the molecule fits neatly into the same receptors in our brains as do internally generated pain blocking peptides such as beta endorphin.

One of the travesties of pharmacological history is we've tended to go in the other direction - demonize opium (poppy extract is about 12% morphine), then produce a pure morphine salt, and promise it less addictive. No, that's not right ... OK, lets throw a diacetyl ester side-chain onto morphine (which produces a drug with much stronger effects - heroin), and do it again .... which sums up the history behind semi-synthetic opiates up to Oxycontin.

I support broad legalization because it would be impossible to, for instance, allow the importation of coca leaf so it could be chewed or used as an infusion in the traditional manner (which provides more benefits than negative consequences). If cocaine were still illegal then it would be impossible to assure legal coca leaves weren't being diverted for it's production.

I'm curious as to what criteria they used to determine harmfulness of each drug. I'm just surprised that weed is considered more dangerous than huffing paint and MDMA, because no one's ever died of a weed overdose

I think that a better route than outright legalizing heroin would be to decriminalize *possession* of heroin, and couple this with better support for addicts. And if research shows that prescribing addicts heroin is a viable treatment method, I'd support that too. Basically, try to remove some of the social stigma that can make it hard for an addict to recover, but at the same time still have the ability to go after the guys supplying it all over the street.

However, I understand that this would still qualify as a "drug war." I'm not 100% opposed to the war on drugs, just certain aspects of it. I think that if pot were completely legalized (because I dare anyone to convince me that pot is more harmful than alcohol, which according to the above study it is, and we all know that alcohol is freely available to anyone of legal age) the money spent on stopping the marijuana trade could be shifted into stopping the trade of harder drugs (such as heroin).

Unfortunately it can be hard to justify legalizing one drug over another. I mean, I could say heroin should remain illegal because it can kill you, but of course, so can alcohol.

For me, though, it all comes down to this: the fact that the state of California has made selling marijuana for medicinal purposes legal, and yet not just the DEA, but *LOCAL* police forces in California are continuing to raid and shut down these places. I can understand the justification for the DEA coming (though I do not agree with it) but local police? Really? I think it shows that if federal and local forces (and a percentage of the public, too) are that resistant to allowing marijuana for even just medicinal use, it's gonna be a long time before you find people willing to listen to the idea of decriminalizing or legalizing heroin. I'm just flabbergasted by the number of people that will down a six-pack like it's nothing, but at the same time say that marijuana is a dangerous drug that should remain illegal.

Like with every other social problem, drug issues are complex and there is no simple answer. But it should be evident that the impact of drugs should be evaluated in a balanced manner between the casualties directly inflicted by drugs versus the abominable collateral produced by the drug war and the latter not just on drug users but on the whole society.

A short list would be as follow::

1. Keeping potential profits huge and illegal subsidizes, on a grand scale, an ever expanding criminal empire and now increasingly, terrorism.

2. The vacuum created by the denial of legal supply make certain that it will be filled by dangerous street drugs free from any quality control.

3. Enforcing the law is inherently haphazard and hopeless if as a society we are to keep a modicum of personal freedom, but it destroys the lives of countless citizens and families who are non violents and pose no serious threat to the rest of society.

4. It makes impossible a legitimate taxation that would benefit the whole of society instead of just the drug barons and supporting cast.

5. It sustains a de facto and often corrupt collusion of drug interests with politicians, law enforcers, lawyers and countless others with legally sanctioned activities that rely on the war for their very livelihood.


I am not personally convinced that a dispassionate cost-benefit analysis would not favor that placing drugs in demand in vending machines

It's been a while since I've seen the documentary, but I think it was a combination of short-term risks, long-term risks, impact on society, and deaths.

That's because of the tar and carcinogens in marijuana. Studies in Europe show that it may be linked to cancer and also in adolescents - mental illness. The study regarding mental illness was done in ack...trying to remember the country...was like Sweden, Switzerland, Norway...something like that. Anyway, they are studying the effects on young teens and show that because of the stage of development they are in, the researchers say there is a significant link to mental illness - or at least enough for it to be a concern. I want to say schizophrenia but I'd hafta watch the documentary again to be sure.

As for the claim about MDMA killing people: Nobody has ever died from MDMA. That is another nifty urban legend. The closest anyone can claim is that people have died from extreme dehydration at raves while having traces of MDMA in their system. Nobody has ever died from an overdose. Ever.

In their studies, the negative they found was that MDMA can produce short-term memory loss in subjects but said it completely clears up once the subject stops taking the drug for a while.

I'm isolating this because there's a lot to respond to in this thread. But I really have to call total horseshit on this list (kinda). I'm guessing their basis for harm criteria on any number of factors which are totally independent of the drugs being studied, many of which I've previously discussed. Tobacco, for instance, is proven to contribute to heart disease, cancer, & emphysema. Read this about heroin use, none of the dangers listed have anything to do with the actual chemical being delivered into the body. Every risk associated with heroin has to do with potential harm that could generally be mitigated through legalization & regulation: overdose from varying strength, abscesses/infections from dirty/dull needles, blood borne diseases from shared needles... yeah, it just goes on & on. While I appreciate their approach--it has its place--its shit like this that gives prohibition advocates more ammunition.

I tend to agree with you. There's no bottom line in drug companies setting out to lower addictiveness in drugs which are already addictive, though there would be in adding addictive elements to ones which are not (marijuana, MDMA, LSD), although that would probably draw ire, & would be immediately recognizable. Frankly, I just don't see the addictiveness of drugs being tinkered with a legal environment. If suddenly marijuana was as deadly & addictive as tobacco, people would be pissed.

Well, I said there were several criteria for the list in another post. I started watching the documentary again because I didn't want to miss something...and the criteria are:

* Harmful effects on the user (they list negative short-term and long-term effects,)
* Addiction.
* Consequences on society.

I did forget that "addiction" was one of the criteria. This list, by the way, is not in any way an anti-drug documentary. It's a call for a reclassification of drugs and says that too many drugs.

By the way, I had no clue that MDMA was originally patented in 1912 to stop bleeding from wounds. Bonus.

...have have classifications that are much higher than necessary.

Wow, and I wasn't even high when I wrote this.

I don't think anyone would be opposed to anyone joining who doesn't currently use.

To many, the only difference between using drugs versus using alcohol is the legality.

I think anyone would be a good addition to that group - even if to only ask questions.

Pfft...Rizzo's in charge of that group now. She's pretty cool for an Internet person.

I don't know what the solution is...only that the current plan in place isn't it.

While I tend to lean towards legalization...I just can't see that happening in this country for a long, long time. Marijuana....arguably the MOST socially acceptable drug that is currently not legal can't even get legalized in our most liberal state.

Can you imagine the field day that the bible belt would have if there was a move to legalize heroin? I'm not saying I'm against it.....just that....You'd need to come up with one hell of a fight to get it to move forward.

That's a really good point, Cash. Although I don't think it will happen for a long, long time - I could see the legalization of certain classes of drugs long before the of legalization of all drugs (if that would ever happen).

That's one of the reasons that I feel the BBC documentary is so important. All drugs (including alcohol and cigarettes) should be reassessed and reclassified for consideration of legalization.

I know it's important to address the issue of legalization of heron but since that probably won't happen for a millennium or so - but if certain classes were legalized, the taxes could go to drug and alcohol treatment centers which could and should treat any drug addiction...including heroin.