The Illogical Favouritism of Alcohol over Other Psychotropics - A Work by Cde. Ascendant Humanity (RL Perspectives)

Please Note: This text represents my actual perspective on a real issue that confronts our world today - namely, the logic of the ban on essentially all psychotropic drugs which aren't alcohol, nicotine, or caffeine (or as I see it, the lack thereof). It is not written in the context of NationStates, nor is it directly connected to NationStates - however, it _is_ relevant to real-life politics, which is really what NationStates is about to me: stimulating dialogue and the formation of opinions regarding real issues, and helping people expand their understanding of politics. So, without any further ado (note, I am not a lawyer, nor a scientist, nor a political expert, nor an encyclopedia writer - so I would please ask you to please pardon any informalities, as well as the lack of citations, possible incorrect use of terminology, or non-objectivity; while I attempted to eliminate each issue (besides the lack of citations - because finding proof for each and every little assertion would take forever; however, the foundational idea upon which the whole thing lies is supported by quite a few experts, including David Nutt, former UK chief drugs adviser, and neuropsychopharmacologist) I probably missed some things) here's my opinion on the so-called "War on Drugs":

It doesn't make much sense that alcohol is legal whilst other psychotropic drugs (with the exceptions of caffeine and nicotine, of course) aren't - alcohol poses at very least an equal threat (if not a greater one) to public health compared to the illegal drugs. It is incredibly systemically toxic (causing damage to multiple organs), has amnesic effects (making it easy to over-consume by forgetting how much one has already had, and making its consumers easier targets for rape), lowers inhibitions (making consumers more likely to a: do something they regret, causing emotional harm; b: do something that is damaging to society, like murder someone, and/or c: inflict significant damage to their reputation, likely interfering with well-being and/or productivity), has severe adverse effects on motor control (making driving a vehicle etc extremely dangerous), and tends to cause delusions of sobriety in the severely inebriated (making them more likely to do something like drive a vehicle, which is very unsafe while drunk).

By comparison, most of the currently illegal drugs have a more limited scope of deleterious effects, and do not have the same sort of effect negativity compounding that alcohol does - especially if you consider the pure drugs rather than the currently more readily available street forms. For example, heroin: While it is extremely addictive, impairs motor control, causes apathy, and has some amnesic effects, its amnesic effects are significantly milder (making a rape victim who was under the influence of heroin significantly more capable of identifying their attacker), it doesn't really reduce inhibitions (meaning someone under the influence is a lot less likely to do something they wouldn't do sober), and its long-term after-effects are significantly less harmful to the body, as it doesn't cause systemic orgam damage - though it does throw hormones out of balance in long-term users, hormone levels will eventually return to normal, and permanent damage (if any) is significantly less than that caused by alcohol. Heroin's bad rap in modern-day society is actually mostly because it tends to be carelessly cut as well as adulturated with super-potent synthetic opioids like fentanyl, in addition to the fact that illicit heroin production tends to be done under the umbrella of criminal syndicates who use the proceeds to fund other activities which directly undermine societal integrity.

Some currently illegal drugs actually have the potential to improve societal productivity and well-being if legalized; for example, amphetamine. Amphetamine, compared to its often-reviled cousin methamphetamine, has been shown not to be significantly neurotoxic. As well, as a stimulant, it has the potential to improve the focus and productivity of users - offering obvious potential benefits to society - and as a bonus, it is not physically addictive, which means users attempting to quit have very little in the way of physical symptoms to deal with (compared to alcohol, with which physical withdrawal symptoms can cause death). It does have the potential to cause increased wear and tear on the body, if not used carefully - largely due to its appetite suppressant and sleep preventative properties - but if users are adequately educated, which is quite likely to happen if it is made legal, these potential issues can be greatly minimized. Methamphetamine, amphetamine's significantly more hazardous neurotoxic cousin, is only as prevalent as it is because it has a much higher potency per unit mass than amphetamine, meaning illicit producers and distributors are able to generate more profit. Methamphetamine would be made almost entirely obsolete if amphetamine was legally mass-produced, because users could reap the same potential benefits with a much smaller risk to their health and well-being, using amphetamine instead. As well, while stimulants like amphetamine have the potential to increase aggression - which alcohol also does - they do not produce the same decrease in inhibitions, and they tend to be a bit anxiogenic, causing the user to consider the consequences of their actions a bit more carefully.

Another example of a currently illegal drug with a huge potential for the induction of positive change in society is, oddly enough, the dissociative anaesthetic Ketamine. Ketamine, while having amnesic effects and adversely affecting motor control, does not cause delusions of sobriety - nor does it cause any significant decrease in inhibitions. As an added positive, it has been shown to be a highly effective treatment for depression if properly applied - potentially increasing the motivation and happiness of a normally unmotivated and unhappy sector of society.

The class of currently illegal drugs which is most difficult to analyze and assess is, by all accounts, the hallucinogens. While hallucinogens have the potential to cause strange behavior, and like stimulants can be dangerous for those with heart problems, they also tend to display extremely low systemic toxicity. The strange and erratic behavior often displayed by those who have consumed hallucinogens is rarely violent - instead, simply being bizarre rather than directly dangerous - in comparison to alcohol, which has an amazing propensity for bringing out violent undercurrents in consumers' personalities, and tends to cause consumers to behave recklessly. While it may seem like hallucinogens are unlikely to have any potential to impart positive change on society, this is simply an illusion - hallucinogens have been shown to have the potential to greatly amplify creativity in the short term, promote creative thinking in the long term, as well as help treat PTSD. However, due to the often unpredictable impact of hallucinogens on human beings, people should have to go through some psychiometric testing as well as being tested for hazardous reactions through supervised administration of a single dose, before they are allowed to freely purchase these chemicals.

While I have not covered all nuances of the effects of each drug class (as well as alcohol), I have (as far as I can tell) provided an accurate image of their general natures and potential benefits. The one class which I did not explicitly declare potential societal benefits for is the opioids, exemplified by heroin (the most recognized, as well as most reviled, member of this class). Opioids, while not having any direct broad societal benefits, have the potential to offer individuals relief from pain and stress - allowing potential improvement in quality of life through chronic administration for those suffering from chronic pain, as well as humane direct medical use in relieving extreme acute pain, and stabilization of those who have reached a stressful "breaking point"; allowing the extremely stressed to experience a respite without the same societal negatives as alcohol - while also maintaining a much higher level of functionality than had they consumed alcohol to achieve the same respite.

Conclusion: It makes no sense that the governments of the world have outlawed broad swathes of psychotropic substances, with the exception of alcohol - as each class of substances has the potential to bring positive change to the world, while also (with careful regulation) imparting nearly no negative societal consequences - or at very least, causing societal consequences less severe than those of alcohol, which are largely if not entirely balanced out by the potential positives. While some drugs in each class have physical harm potential equal to or greater than that of alcohol (methamphetamine, cocaine, and crack cocaine in the stimulant class, for example) they have relatives (like amphetamine) which are far less physically harmful and have the potential to impart the same (or greater) positive impacts. As a result, while I support full legalization of every drug, I do not support State production and distribution of every drug; rather, the drug(s) with the greatest potential gain to potential harm ratio(s) in each class would be produced and distributed by the State. Private production and consumption of any drug would be legal, however, since the objective best(s) of each class would be mass-produced and provided cheaply (or provided freely, depending on the situation - for example, if used in medical treatments) by the State, there would be little incentive to produce and/or consume other substances - especially since the objective best compound(s) can essentially always replace their less favourable cousins with few (if any) negatives.

TL;DR: Alcohol causes harm to society, while providing few benefits; by contrast, each class of currently banned drugs, while still having the potential to cause some societal harm (almost universally less than alcohol, if considered in their pure form rather than the common street forms seen today), also has the potential to provide significant benefits to society. As such, since alcohol is legal, all other drugs should be legalized - and the most potentially beneficial ones from each class should be mass-produced by the State and sold in stores similar to today's liquor stores, offering the population (and thus the entirety of society) access to a previously forbidden suite of powerful tools with which both improvements in productivity and increases in happiness can be achieved; both for the individual, and for the whole of society. This is a quick-n-dirty summary - not a replacement for the whole thing, but it'll do if you're short on time or just don't have the patience for my incredibly wordy writing style. If you have the time and the patience, I'd really appreciate if you read my the whole work rather than just this TL;DR section.

Author's postnote: I did not cover cannabis, aka marijuana, aka weed, because it is already the subject of a massive public debate - and my stance on it can easily be deduced through extrapolation of my stance on all the other drugs and drug classes listed in this article, meaning any commentary on it would be largely superfluous. After all, my opinion on cannabis's legal status is one that's been repeated many times before - and many world-class writers have already outlined arguments for nearly every stance on cannabis in nearly every context.

Author's postnote #2: I'm not being down on alcohol here, I actually find alcohol enjojable myself. I'm just saying that if alcohol is legal, then other drugs should be legal too - because alcohol isn't intrinsically any less harmful overall than other drugs (from a biological and sociological standpoint), and other drugs have the potential to improve the well-being and productivity of our society. Now, I'm not arguing for a reintroduction of Prohibition - in my opinion, that was a ridiculous and unnecessary violation of freedom. I believe individuals should be free to do with their bodies as they wish.

DISCLAIMER: My opinions are not necessarily reflective of those held by any other member of the USSD, nor are they necessarily endorsed by any other member of the USSD. The opinions presented above are wholly my own, and while I attempted to support them with as much factual information as possible, I am only human - it is entirely possible I have made errors (or perceived errors), in which case I would encourage you to let me know, preferably with a source for verification.

I hope this was at least as interesting to read as it was fun to write. If it was fun to read, even better!

Some of you are probably scratching your heads thinking "wait, this was fun to write? How?". A bit of deductive reasoning might allow you to figure that one out ;)

Please send me any questions, comments, criticisms, counter-arguments, or really whatever else you have to say related to this piece - and I'll do my best to respond.