Prescription drugs I have used, for example, contain warnings of side-effects which include convulsions, irritability, inability to sleep, severe headaches, and damage to internal organs. By anyone's standards, these are not trivial matters. Before this, however, the State did not see the need even to warn me of them, and I still find it easier to get reliable information about drugs and their effects from the Net. Nevertheless, this is the sort of civil legislation designed to protect consumers, which contrasts markedly with criminal legislation designed to forbid altogether the consumption or use of drugs like cannabis. It is clear that there is no hard and fast chemical evidence, or evidence based on clinical trials, to help us decide objectively what should be an illegal drug.
All drugs offer combinations of pleasure and harm.
As usual, I am suggesting that we look at social and political processes to explain these patterns. The feelings of excitement, enhanced perception, pleasurable loss of control and the rest are really provided by the subculture, Becker argues, or, in a softer version, are interpreted by members of that sub culture as pleasurable and not just disorienting. On more familiar ground, perhaps we permit relatively easy access to alcohol in Britain, because there is a cultural tradition of drinking, or, perhaps because there are powerful vested interests in brewing and distilling who are able to mount effective campaigns to persuade politicians to adopt a light touch. You might even be familiar with arguments that suggest that ethnic minorities in Britain should be permitted to use their traditional drugs, such as cannabis. Finally in this section, there is the usual plea for more sociological research on this matter.