Does the law belong in the 'regulation' of drugs in society?
Anthropologists have studied the question of drug use in a wide variety of societies, including those that utilize psychedelics. The generally accepted wisdom, correct me if I'm wrong or out of date, is that societies who have older individuals as mentors for younger users are generally healthy and avoid many of the problems of drug abuse. The role of the native 'medicine man' is perhaps the easiest way to understand this position, at least from my lay perspective.
Certainly drug use can be a contributing factor in crime. Here in Pierce County the current stereotypical problem is the unemployable meth addict looking for income to support drug use in the mix of his or her life's priorities. Not so long ago, and still with us to some extent, would be the similar, but manifestly different, heroin junkie.
The biggest societal problem in this regard though is alcohol and violent crime. In history the provision of alcohol as a reward to fighting troops provided a benefit to the commander - a more aggressive fighter, once the hangover wore off. (not a bad timing factor in the conduct of battle either) The history of marijuana use during the Vietnam era in this regard probably merits continuing historical review (marijuana probably lowers the fighting ability of soldiers).
The trend towards medical marijuana, including in California, federal efforts opposing not withstanding is, I believe, the way to go. And not just for marijuana, but for every drug, including alcohol. Our society has 'medicine men' - they are called medical doctors and they have extensive scientifically founded training as well as strong requirements for social capability manifested as 'bedside manner'.
My thought is that alcohol purchases should be regulated - via the medical profession. The 'administrative' way to do this is something that we should be doing regardless of medical oversight. If you look at the back of your Washington State driver's license it has a barcode. It is merely a minor software problem to require the scanning of this barcode with any alcohol purchase. The benefit of preventing sales to minors alone would justify this wise implementation of technology.
Privacy protections on this information should be high - standards in this age that need review - especially in light of current abuses, including within the legal profession itself. Judgement in the use of this information should also be high. Laws should not be so strict that a person is prevented from hosting a private party without being called an alcoholic. There is nothing wrong with a determined person being able to find small workarounds as a price of protecting liberty for us all. Those workarounds though will require a social network, and those sorts of networks will develop their other problems as well - another case for a law enforcement professional with good judgement.
The availability of alcohol purchase records will also be a useful tool for the law enforcement investigator in the course of sorting through persons of interest and conflicting statements.
I'd argue that all products with psychological effects be regulated to some extent - including stimulants such as caffeine and relaxants. I'm not going to say those products require a bar code scan or age restrictions but their management in that context is definitely appropriate.
I do think psychedelics should be medically regulated products as well, but their use should be among the most difficult.
In my opinion one of the ways to understand a drug is how often you can use it before problems start to appear. Alcohol can be used relatively frequently by some without major problems, even daily in smaller doses. ( I would argue though that this is medically undesirable.) 1-2 cups of Coffee a day is nothing to be concerned about at all, though that too might have minor medical disadvantages. 'Desirable' alcohol use is probably in the area of 3-4 total drinks per week.
Marijuana on a daily, or even weekly, basis does become a dangerous drug. Airplane pilots are regulated on the use of alcohol for a nearly a day prior to flight, as I recall. I would argue those same time frame constraints be placed on anyone in a position of responsibility. In the case of marijuana a time frame from use to work, such as with a truck driver, should be on the order of a week. (that's a lay guess, not scientific or medical judgement) I'd also guess that desirable use of Marijuana is on the order of once a month or so, though it would probably be okay if that was an annual average whereby use was concentrated during a summer vacation or the like.
Psychedelics should most likely be used the most infrequently - as a guesstimate I'd say once a year, maybe twice. Higher frequency use might be okay, but again in the context of annual use as an average, with these drugs though that should be spread out over the course of a lifetime.
Although the emergence of universal insurance may make this moot, it still merits mention as a part of the current conversation on insurance. Making medical insurance a requirement for any drug 'use', including alcohol, would do much to encourage the purchase of that product among groups that are both higher medical risk and less likely to act prudently. The resulting actuarial tables should be a core part of the drug discussion, as well as violent and property crime statistics resulting from relatively more accurate data. FWIW I'd bet there are a fair amount of problem alcohol users trying to scapegoat the marijuana users for some of there own 'problems'.
Lastly, a personal observation. If I am so lucky to die in bed, doing so being stoned during my last days might well not be a bad way to go. Call that a living will, if you wish.
