I’m all for a significant overhaul to how drugs are regulated so that there is a consistent set of rules surrounding why certain drugs are over the counter medications, need to be behind the counter, have age requirements, require prescriptions, need to be directly administered by a trained professional, and/or are banned substances which it is illegal to possess or sell. The reason behind this position is that the current legal framework of most countries is arbitrary and inconsistent at best. A point that someone made awhile back was that it is acceptable in our legal system for a man to take hormone replacements for cosmetic reasons to alter their body to be more feminine, but it is not acceptable in our legal system for a man to take hormone replacements for cosmetic reasons to alter their body to be more masculine; and, while I don’t support steroid use (especially for athletes), I can see the inconsistency in the position.
Now, I’m not for or against the legalization or prohibition of any drug in particular but I would like the reason something is legal or illegal to be based on logical rules. If one of the rules of a recreational drug is that a single dose can not be in your system or have a lasting effect 60 minutes after administering it, and a drug like Marijuana still had a measurable effect 2 hours after administering it I could understand why it was not a recreational drug; but at the moment the justification of why it is illegal is not solid at all.
