Perhaps sometimes it’s imprudent to take a drug, but there’s certainly nothing bad or immoral about it.
Even if I took your Momma’s prescription.
Especially.
Its not immoral unless the drug you’re using, has gotten to you, through the slavery or murder of someone else, or if you get into a car and drive through someone’s living room or son.
Drugs being illegal is surely unethical/immoral, as theres no control to who gets it (at what age) the purity of the drug, a lot easy for minors/everyone else to get.
Drug-use rates don’t go down when drugs are illegal. More people wouldn’t start smoking coke just because its legal either. black markets usually create huge consumer bases.
Speaking of that maybe I should have a bowl. (not cocaine)
I prefer snorting crack to smoking coke myself 
I’ve decided there’s too many exceptions to what I said in the OP- often it is bad to take drugs.
Oftentimes yes, but oftentimes it’s bad to do any number of otherwise harmless things - including eating food . . .
I think both legality and illegality have concerns. It is a complex topic. Let’s take amphetamine as an example. It’s been around for forever, insofar as synthetic drugs are concerned. German troops were using it during the Great War, for goodness’ sake! While I can’t speak for other countries, in the US it was available OTC until the late 60s/early 70s after it had become popular, emblematic even, of the punk and mod movements. Shortly after it became illegal, methamphetamine made its way onto the scene. Methamphetamine is a scourge, in terms of the effect it has on users, the effect its synthesis has on the environment, community problems such as crime, etc. A little while after that, drug companies also found out that they could sell this drug for a tidy profit to children as a prescription for ADD. So now we are pumping children full of the drug that was so terrible it had to be made illegal and is so damaging it is a scourge to society.
That system seems profoundly messed up to me.
everything is a drug.
some things just destroy us faster and more violently than others.
Legality and illegality is complex, but it should only be so in the details of how they should be legal.
theres huge amounts of evidence that suggests when you create a black market for somthing, you create a larger consumer base. It becomes more available at cheaper prices and oftentimes with black-market competition you get some pretty pure shit. you get more people, on more drugs, with less control.
If it was legalized there’d be no black market which could realistically compete. You would eliminate massive amounts of black-market crime (which is grossly common) you can help the addicts and so forth get off the juice (well it’d likely be easier anyway) with the amount of tax money you’d get from it.
It should be legal only if because it becomes more available to everyone on a black market, including children.
Theres all sorts of evidence that making somthing illegal and a black market for it, increases use of those drugs. As counter-intuitive as that is.
Prohibition may have worked, but eventually violent crime rates soared, and liquor consumption soared to higher than before prohibition levels. We see a lot of that with black markets.
Ultimately there is a correlation between recreational drugs and negative behaviour for some…
The fact the overwhelming majority of recreational drugs are illegal is simply because we are not trusted to make our own choices. Any black market is driven through criminals or crime, regulated correctly you can abolish black markets and try and control the drug its safety, source, quantity and liability.
Had an interesting conversation with a dutch man in Amsterdam, who commented most dutch people who try cannabis do as 14 yr olds then quickly grow out of the interest on the basis the novelty and interest is lost due to the knowledge its widely available and doesn’t sustain a thrill factor by doing something you by law shouldn’t.
In terms of medicinal drugs, again the risk should be weighed up and explained by an expert, however i’m a firm believer it is the individual whom should ultimately be given the choice to take the risk (Its their life for gods sake), some drugs for example on the market in the US and other places are not available in the UK. If you are increasing living towards your death bed and a drug unavailable in this country gives you another avenue to explore, then why should the patient be told they cannot explore that avenue in the comfort of their own country with their family close by on the NHS which they will have undoubtably contributed towards throughout their entire lives. Absurd IMO.
experts sold lipitol to women and effexor/a whole class of antidepressant drugs with no real evidence of clinical significance.
No, its more up to anyone who can look at a meta-analysis provided by researchers, who review the evidence for what some experts claim. Though experts themselves in analysing/reviewing statistical trial data.
Actually, it is a myth that Prohibition increased liquor consumption, it didn’t. The consumption of alcohol was greatly reduced (though not eliminated) through Prohibition. And it took a long time for alcohol consumption to return to its pre-Prohibition levels. It did, however, increase violent crime as you said. So it is a trade-off. Is the juice worth the squeeze?
True. I think I might give up trying to make a statement about the ethics of drugs. It’s just too hard.