Mind Drugs

(LQ) With the recent crackdown on wellness institutes for selling growth hormones, is regulation of these places only enforced as a result of political pressure? If so, then when will the government decide to regulate if in fact it hasn’t, the drugs coming in from the offshore pharmacy.

(LQ) A constant theme that seems to be surrounding this class is that the law cannot keep up with the technology and will always lag behind. When, if ever, should the government realize the futility of regulating the drug trade both legal and the so called “bad” scheduled drugs.

(LQ) We have seen in the sports world become the forefront for scandal most notably with the BALCO, the recent Olympians, MLB baseball players some of whom still deny taking steroids despite the abnormal increase in the size of not just muscles but their actually skull and the “wellness centers.” There is the debate if everyone is juiced is it cheating. What happens if these smart drugs become more accessible and widespread? Is that cheating especially on the academic world? As a corollary, if this occurs, will there be an increased stratification as a result of those who have money to buy the drugs in order to compete while leaving those who cannot afford them behind?

(LQ) Since these drugs can theoretically be designed to be untraceable, is regulation rendered worthless? Is the integrity of the whole competitive academic arena compromised if there is not a level playing field?

(DF) I may be illegal to have sex with a woman who is drunk even if she voluntarily chose to get drunk, on the theory that once under the influence she is incapable of giving consent. How would similar issues be dealt with for other sorts of drugs? Suppose we have a drug that makes someone fall in love? What about a real aphrodisiac? Someone under such a drug may be able to think clearly, unlike someone who is drunk, but the thinking will be within the context established by the drug.

(DF) Perfumes claim to make the wearer more attractive to the opposite sex. What if we develop improved versions that actually work, and work well. What legal restrictions, if any, might be imposed on their use? Is this any different from a man who makes himself attractive by driving a Porsche or a woman who dresses well and uses makeup?

(DF) Suppose we develop happiness drugs. Are there circumstances in which they should be banned? Required? Consider a wife who wants to make her husband take a happiness drug because his gloom is making her life miserable.

(PYS) In sports, steroids that make athletes stronger/faster/bigger, and reduce healing time after injuries are banned. What about a drug that gave an athlete such superior concentration, that there would be no way to "get him off his game." Should that be banned?

(PYS) If a 100% reliable "truth serum" is perfected, are police allowed to use it during interrogations w/out Mirandizing the suspect? If Miranda is a "prophylactic" provision, rather than a Constitutional requirement (does anyone really know what Dickerson said?), required only because "coerced" confessions are unreliable, does that doctrine fall by the wayside? Do police need permission from the suspect before giving him/her the serum?

(PYS) Technology is advancing quickly and drugs are not longer defined as serums or pills. If a person is genetically engineered so that their body releases “drugs” into their systems to make them feel or perform how they wish, are they considered to be under the influence of drugs? If so, are they acting illegally? How do we regulate these people?

(PYS) If at some point mind drugs are developed to a point where a person can take a drug to feel any way they please will this cause new legislation concerning capacity? When will they be considered capable of making legal decision, i.e. entering into contracts?

(PYS) Should parents be permitted to slip their teens a drug which would make the kid more studious/responsible/respectful, etc.? Parents already give their kids Ritalin for ADHD as a means of controlling behavior the parents believe is disruptive or inconvenient.

(DF) Suppose we have drugs that enhance mental performance in various ways, perhaps with some risk of undesirable side effects. Should there be restrictions on parents giving them to their children?

(PYS) Should convicted felons be given long-term, rehabilitating "mood control" drugs designed to reduce violent propensities? Should they be returned to society in the interest of reducing overcrowding in jails? If such criminals were returned to society, and the drug unexpectedly wore off, would the manufacturer or the government be liable?

(PYS) What right should the government have to use mind-controlling drugs. Does it require consent:

-To pacify aggressive convicted felons in prison (i.e., reduce prison violence through drugs)?
-To increase aggressive tendencies in combat soldiers?
-To extract information from captured terrorists or prisoners-of-war?
-To control a mob?