MichaelFarker

What if drugs were checked by the government but not restricted? Say, perhaps, that you had to submit any substance to government labeling. The lable would summarize any effects evidenced during well conducted research. Any medicinal claims would have to be proven to a group of medical experts, as is the case currently. Otherwise, adults could purchase and use anything, so long as they hold noone but themselves to be legally responsible.

I believe this would have to be accompanied by four careful restrictions. Significant efforts would need to be made to prevent people still in the first stages of growth from becoming intoxicated; teenagers need to experience their emotional highs and lows while sober enough to remember them. In addition, any cars and other heavy equipment would need to have built-in checks of judgement, dexterity and reaction time. Employers would have to be allowed to administer appropriate tests of ability at the begining of the work day and after lunch. Last but not least, effective addiction recovery would have to be available at prices anyone with a full-time job could afford.

I'm not sure these limitations are feasible, so perhaps it is best to ban most of the fun drugs. When you realize having one legal intoxicant (liquor) is beyond many people's ability to handle, putting other drugs out of reach almost seems reasonable. Can you imagine how people would overeat if McDonald's sold marijuana? Or how some people would drive home from a cocaine themed dance club? Since America's economy is based on its labor force, what would happen to our wealth relative to other countries if a major portion of our population became hopelessly addicted?