|
Mrit posted:Why is this even being discussed? Marijuana legalization has only recently become popular enough to pass in two states(and as a resident of one of those states, there is a bit of backlash on TV/radio from those against it), and the percentage of people who want to deschedule all drugs is likely lower than the percent that wants us to become a monarchy. Yeah, and in the post where I was quoted as wanting to repeal the CSA I specifically called it a fantasy that would never happen but, hey, DnD. As to the argument that we should keep the CSA to prevent date rape, all I can say is rape culture is the problem, not drugs. Scheduling is in no way going to stop some shithead from using drugs to commit rape, but it will fill prisons and destroy people's lives and communities. Computer parts, I understand that your intentions are good, but there are better ways to combat date rape. It was pointed out earlier that drugs could be dyed or flavored so that they can't be slipped into drinks. Oxycotin was reformulated so that it can't be crushed or dissolved in water. More importantly, rape culture needs to be opposed, by men, and rapists must be held accountable always, no matter what college sports team they might play for.
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 17:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 19:23 |
|
|
Mrit posted:Why is this even being discussed? Marijuana legalization has only recently become popular enough to pass in two states(and as a resident of one of those states, there is a bit of backlash on TV/radio from those against it), and the percentage of people who want to deschedule all drugs is likely lower than the percent that wants us to become a monarchy. This was true of marijuana within living memory, and legalization has become a reality in Portugal. The unthinkable can become thinkable very quickly, and vice versa; my father lived in the segregated South, for example. The harm reduction movement is very new, but needle exchanges went from sheer madness as a concept to a fairly uncontroversial drug policy over the course of a decade or so. All of these things start with a small group of radicals with an impossible idea convincing others that their facts are good, their studies check out, and their cause is worth fighting for. I don't think it will happen soon, but it's definitely worth discussing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
Mrit posted:Why is this even being discussed? Marijuana legalization has only recently become popular enough to pass in two states(and as a resident of one of those states, there is a bit of backlash on TV/radio from those against it), and the percentage of people who want to deschedule all drugs is likely lower than the percent that wants us to become a monarchy. Its being discussed because a lot of people in this thread are like some sort of bizarro world DARE. "First they legalize marijuana, and that's the gateway to repealing the entire CSA. I'll be doing PCP down in front of the police station in no time, after all recreational drugs only affect me, the government has no right to tell me what I can and cannot put in my body." In all reality, it is looking like, barring a Gonzales v. Raich II: This time its personal, weed is going to end up like cigarettes or salvia here in Washington. Its tolerated as long as you keep it out of public places and don't make a federal case out of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 18:19
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Its being discussed because a lot of people in this thread are like some sort of bizarro world DARE. "First they legalize marijuana, and that's the gateway to repealing the entire CSA. I'll be doing PCP down in front of the police station in no time, after all recreational drugs only affect me, the government has no right to tell me what I can and cannot put in my body." Right so this is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of the anti-prohibitionist stance, which is unfortunate, though I can understand how you might have gotten this impression. The anti-prohibitionist stance is that prohibition causes many more problems than it solves. Nobody is saying you should be able to smoke PCP in the middle of the street (you also can't chug a beer in front of the police station), or that drugs are harmless, or that you should be able to buy whatever you want from the corner store. Under the current regime, access to psychoactive substances has not been meaningfully limited - indeed, there is an argument to be made that for minors, access is significantly expanded. Instead, what has been created is an unregulated black market moving impure product of unknown strength; a ballooning prison population of largely nonviolent offenders; the destruction of black communities; the creation of a paramilitary police force; and the creation of criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens, causing a massive rift between the police and the people they serve. All of this at a cost of billions of dollars. While it feels correct, emotionally, to ban substances that we know to be harmful to society and their users outright, we would do better to regulate and tax psychoactive substances and provide access points to treatment for users.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
Chitin posted:The anti-prohibitionist stance is that prohibition causes many more problems than it solves. Nobody is saying you should be able to smoke PCP in the middle of the street (you also can't chug a beer in front of the police station), or that drugs are harmless, or that you should be able to buy whatever you want from the corner store. I am aware of the anti-prohibition stance, and for many substances I support it. Your list of downsides to prohibition is, while a touch hyperbolic (and tautological with the criminals out of citizens comment) , accurate and horrifying. The reason I summed up the calls to repeal the CSA as I did is threefold. 1. You do in fact have people in this thread arguing that what they put in their body is solely their own business. Certain substances prove that is categorically untrue. While no one drug (at least that I am aware of, there are an awful lot of RCs and Pharmas out there) is going to turn anyone into a murderous sociopath, there are plenty of drugs that impair judgement to a degree where it is impossible to claim that their use solely affects the user. 2. As many anti-prohibitionists rightly argue, Alcohol and Tobacco have devastating societal effects, and they are legalized. This is used as an argument for why other substances should be (because they are not as bad as Alcohol), I think this is backwards. While the cost would go down, and substance addiction might harm the families of victims slightly less, I think what we know of the Great Binge and the Opium wars period suggests the number of people addicted would go up. Much like alcoholism or a gambling addiction can be financially ruinous, despite being perfectly legal, I think the number of innocent people hurt would increase if addiction increases. 3. Many countries that do not have many of the problems that appear to be tied to the drug war still have the prohibition on those drugs. Obviously there are many factors at play in the problems you listed, but I don't think the war on drugs is the primary cause for, say, the massive rift between the police and the citizens. Now to be honest, much of this could just be my opinion. I would like to see what would happen if a modern first world nation took most drugs off of the various schedules and bans. I don't think that nation should necessarily be the United States though, because I think the existing problems we have with healthcare, class inequality, and lack of socioeconomic mobility are the prime causes of most of the issues you listed, and ditching the CSA and letting Heroin stores open up in poor neighborhoods is going to be even more devastating than the lovely status quo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:I would like to see what would happen if a modern first world nation took most drugs off of the various schedules and bans.. You mean like Portugal?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 19:43
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:1. You do in fact have people in this thread arguing that what they put in their body is solely their own business. Certain substances prove that is categorically untrue. While no one drug (at least that I am aware of, there are an awful lot of RCs and Pharmas out there) is going to turn anyone into a murderous sociopath, there are plenty of drugs that impair judgement to a degree where it is impossible to claim that their use solely affects the user. Like? quote:2. As many anti-prohibitionists rightly argue, Alcohol and Tobacco have devastating societal effects, and they are legalized. This is used as an argument for why other substances should be (because they are not as bad as Alcohol), I think this is backwards. While the cost would go down, and substance addiction might harm the families of victims slightly less, I think what we know of the Great Binge and the Opium wars period suggests the number of people addicted would go up. Much like alcoholism or a gambling addiction can be financially ruinous, despite being perfectly legal, I think the number of innocent people hurt would increase if addiction increases. On the other hand, countries like Portugal have decriminalized drugs recently and have seen nothing close to "the Great Binge" or "the Opium wars" There's nothing to suggest that prohibition reduces addiction rates. quote:Now to be honest, much of this could just be my opinion. I would like to see what would happen if a modern first world nation took most drugs off of the various schedules and bans. I don't think that nation should necessarily be the United States though, because I think the existing problems we have with healthcare, class inequality, and lack of socioeconomic mobility are the prime causes of most of the issues you listed, and ditching the CSA and letting Heroin stores open up in poor neighborhoods is going to be even more devastating than the lovely status quo. It already happened 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:ditching the CSA and letting Heroin stores open up in poor neighborhoods is going to be even more devastating than the lovely status quo. Yeah, god forbid the poor have a safe regulated substance to ease the pain of having a poo poo life. That'd be way worse than the status quo of going to the crazy dealer in the alley. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
There is no reason that drug needs to be heroin instead of something else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 19:51
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:I am aware of the anti-prohibition stance, and for many substances I support it. Your list of downsides to prohibition is, while a touch hyperbolic (and tautological with the criminals out of citizens comment) , accurate and horrifying. The reason I summed up the calls to repeal the CSA as I did is threefold. 1. For example...? 2. I have specifically avoided making these arguments, because while a convenient shorthand for people new to the idea they are beside the point. However, we don't have to go as far back as the Opium Wars to find out how addiction is affected when prohibition ends; we did it with alcohol in this country within the last century. The answer is "not very much at all." And "people being hurt" is a fairly vague statement to make when the primary harm of many drugs is their illegality in and of itself. 3. Not all of the countries participating in the war on drugs have all of the listed problems, but they all have most of them. And I hate to break this to you, but the war on drugs is a major factor in many of our issues with healthcare, class inequality, and socioeconomic mobility. Portugal is a modern first world nation that has legalized drugs. The result has been fantastic on more or less every front. Edit to add: Incidentally, a heroin habit isn't the worst thing in the world when one has easy access to clean heroin (Google "Heroin assisted treatment," for example). I try not to base my arguments ENTIRELY on heroin, but heroin is a particularly egregious example of how the drug war causes way more harm than it helps. Chitin fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Mar 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:There is no reason that drug needs to be heroin instead of something else. Prozac is much better option for the poor to have a safe regulated substance to ease the pain of having a poo poo life.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
But if you make weed legal people will smoke it. Imagine if everyone did drugs why we would have "cocaine crazied negros immune to bullets" robbing banks and raping white people. This is literally the justification the United states government gave for making cocaine illegal. How about now that we have invented something called "science" we commission a study to verify if cocaine really does make black men immune to gunshots. How about we double check if our immigration policy of "make marijuana illegal so the Mexicans leave and stop taking our jobs" was a success compared with traditional methods.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:Yeah, god forbid the poor have a safe regulated substance to ease the pain of having a poo poo life. That'd be way worse than the status quo of going to the crazy dealer in the alley. It's really sad that the government has managed to brainwash such a large amount of the population into believing that drugs are the driving force behind the lower quality of life for the poor and not our draconian economic policies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:2. As many anti-prohibitionists rightly argue, Alcohol and Tobacco have devastating societal effects, and they are legalized. This is used as an argument for why other substances should be (because they are not as bad as Alcohol), I think this is backwards. While the cost would go down, and substance addiction might harm the families of victims slightly less, I think what we know of the Great Binge and the Opium wars period suggests the number of people addicted would go up. Much like alcoholism or a gambling addiction can be financially ruinous, despite being perfectly legal, I think the number of innocent people hurt would increase if addiction increases. I'd like to refute this. The Great Binge and the Opium wars were direct results of a lack of wider education about the drugs and little understanding of the biological and medical sides. Heroin was marketed as less addictive (then habit-forming as addiction wasn't defined until the early 20th century) than Morphine or not at all. Cocaine or coca leaves were relatively new to the western world and also not very well known beyond it's superficial effects. A storm of misinformation, lack of information and major social and economic changes really contributed to the Great Binge. The social climate has changed massively now. With one search you can find dozens upon dozens of reports about a certain drug. You can find safe dosages, what to avoid, what not to do, the effects, the duration. All sorts of information just a few clicks away. With added research you can even learn how the drugs affect your body on the biological side of things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:Prozac is much better option for the poor to have a safe regulated substance to ease the pain of having a poo poo life. The ability of the poor to utilize mental health services notwithstanding, and the lack of statistical evidence on the efficacy of SSRIs notwithstanding, and the flippant tone you're taking notwithstanding, why on earth are you making a comparison between a prescription antidepressant and a recreational substance? Many people do use heroin to self-medicate (making the voices stop is a pretty common reason to start shooting; so is losing your health insurance and being unable to afford your pain medication), but in this case the comparison you're making doesn't even make sense. Clinical depression is a mental health issue, regardless of one's actual circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:I'd like to refute this. And under a regulatory scheme, all of this information could be printed RIGHT ON THE PACKAGE!
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:Prozac is much better option for the poor to have a safe regulated substance to ease the pain of having a poo poo life. Or we could have actual research into making drugs that would be safe as possible to get high on. It's not like heroin for example came out of that, it was a halfassed pain medicine that was then picked up as a recreational drug and has problems with long term use due to the way its used. Some stuff already is perfectly safe, like for example weed and LSD. A lot of other stuff isn't, and we could surely make better things then them. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Mar 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
Chitin posted:1. For example...? 1. I'd have a hard time saying someone abusing Ambien, for example, is in completely in control of their actions. Same for my friend who decided to slice his hand open and spray a crowd with blood while robotripping and on acid (I have no loving idea why he did this). There are obviously different degrees and different people react in different ways, but its willfully ignorant to say that drugs people do only affect themselves. 2. Props for you to avoid making them, but it doesn't mean they aren't being made repeatedly by people in this thread. The primary harm of many drugs (IMO) is economic in nature, and if they were given away freely, I would care far less about addictions to them, because then then addiction would only hurt the addict. 3. I doubt the war on drugs is as large of a factor on the lack of access to healthcare in this country is as large a factor as you say. Portugal's approach is actually great, but it isn't really legalization (unless this changed recently), its decriminalization. There are still penalties levied for drug use, they are just not Jail time, they are more productive things like "get treatment" or "stop coming around this neighborhood." This is something I wholeheartedly support, it is not however what was being called for. Rigged Death Trap posted:I'd like to refute this. This is a fantastically good point that I genuinely had not considered. While the increased access to information certainly has been a boon for users that take the time to do the research, I do question how many first timers would. You are probably right though, we wouldn't see a repeat of the great binge. Red_Mage fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Mar 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 20:15
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:1. I'd have a hard time saying someone abusing Ambien, for example, is in completely in control of their actions. Same for my friend who decided to slice his hand open and spray a crowd with blood while robotripping and on acid (I have no loving idea why he did this). There are obviously different degrees and different people react in different ways, but its willfully ignorant to say that drugs people do only affect themselves. You could say the same thing about literally anything. The bottom line is that Ambien, LSD, and DXM can all be done safely without negatively impacting those around you. "It could be dangerous for those around the citizen" should not be an argument for banning something unless you can show that those risks are large enough. The whole point of drugs is to not be completely in control of your mental state (if such a thing exists in the first place, obviously not the thread for it) and to "let go". quote:2. Props for you to avoid making them, but it doesn't mean they aren't being made repeatedly by people in this thread. The primary harm of many drugs (IMO) is economic in nature, and if they were given away freely, I would care far less about addictions to them, because then then addiction would only hurt the addict. Drugs don't have a primary harm, the primary harm is from the government trying to eradicate them from society. quote:3. I doubt the war on drugs is as large of a factor on the lack of access to healthcare in this country is as large a factor as you say. This doesn't make sense. quote:Portugal's approach is actually great, but it isn't really legalization (unless this changed recently), its decriminalization. There are still penalties levied for drug use, they are just not Jail time, they are more productive things like "get treatment" or "stop coming around this neighborhood." This is something I wholeheartedly support, it is not however what was being called for. Except that it is. Everyone I've seen who's gone into any depth about planning for legalization speaks volumes about how we should be focusing on treatment and rehabilitation. This is exactly what the CSA doesn't do and exactly why it shouldn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Except that it is. Everyone I've seen who's gone into any depth about planning for legalization speaks volumes about how we should be focusing on treatment and rehabilitation. This is exactly what the CSA doesn't do and exactly why it shouldn't exist. No a lot of them just want people to do as much of whatever they want as they want. "No one should tell me what I can put in my body ever" is kinda incompatible with "focusing on treatment and rehabilitation".
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:The social climate has changed massively now. With one search you can find dozens upon dozens of reports about a certain drug. You can find safe dosages, what to avoid, what not to do, the effects, the duration. All sorts of information just a few clicks away. With added research you can even learn how the drugs affect your body on the biological side of things. Erowid changed my whole approach to drug use, and really opened my eyes to the importance of knowing what a substance does and how to properly use it. I'd probably be a junkie addict without it's existence. Thank you internet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:No a lot of them just want people to do as much of whatever they want as they want. "No one should tell me what I can put in my body ever" is kinda incompatible with "focusing on treatment and rehabilitation". How so?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Drugs don't have a primary harm, the primary harm is from the government trying to eradicate them from society. Install Gentoo posted:No a lot of them just want people to do as much of whatever they want as they want. "No one should tell me what I can put in my body ever" is kinda incompatible with "focusing on treatment and rehabilitation". This post beat me to it, but exactly. If drugs have no harm (other than the legal consequences of using them), than there is no need for treatment or rehab. I would agree that, say, Marijuana certainly has no primary harm (if you are eating/maybe vaping it, smoking it might not be the best for you still), and as such there is no really good reason for it being illegal. It seems most voters in Washington and Colorado also agreed. I sincerely doubt this is a sign that they are going to agree with the more extreme "all drugs should be legal" stance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:This post beat me to it, but exactly. If drugs have no harm (other than the legal consequences of using them), than there is no need for treatment or rehab. I didn't say that drugs have no harm, I said that the primary harm from drugs comes from the establishment trying to eradicate them. It's like the minute you hear "all drugs should be legal" your eyes just glaze over and you ignore anything else said past that. 800peepee51doodoo posted:all I can say is rape culture is the problem, not drugs. Scheduling is in no way going to stop some shithead from using drugs to commit rape, but it will fill prisons and destroy people's lives and communities. Chitin posted:While it feels correct, emotionally, to ban substances that we know to be harmful to society and their users outright, we would do better to regulate and tax psychoactive substances and provide access points to treatment for users.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 20:34
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:How so? If you're focusing on treatment and rehab, you're saying that certain drugs are actually bad for some or all people and we can't just let people have as much of them as they want. Especially the decriminalization programs where "caught with drug, go to jail" gets replaced with "caught with drug, mandatory rehab and detox".
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:1. I'd have a hard time saying someone abusing Ambien, for example, is in completely in control of their actions. Same for my friend who decided to slice his hand open and spray a crowd with blood while robotripping and on acid (I have no loving idea why he did this). There are obviously different degrees and different people react in different ways, but its willfully ignorant to say that drugs people do only affect themselves. 1. Ambien is a lovely, lovely over prescribed drug. I have a hard time believing anyone would ever touch Ambien again if it weren't widely prescribed as a (horribly ineffective) sleep medication (that just makes you forget how much you didn't sleep) and had access to things that are... actually fun. Robitussin is completely legal, and LSD is one of the most benign substances known to man. Your friend makes terrible decisions, but I'd still support this combination over one of the mystery drugs that keeps getting pushed to market to skirt drug laws. Nobody has made the argument that drug use only affects the drug user but you; we live in an interconnected world after all. People freaking out on drugs to the point that it harms others in the immediate vicinity is a pretty fringe event, though. 2. One of the primary harms of drugs is economic in nature - for example, being convicted of a felony makes you more or less unemployable. Cigarettes are roughly as addictive and expensive as heroin, but people don't bankrupt themselves buying them because cigarettes are legal and readily available - they don't have a chaotic use pattern, and they don't bar one from employment. 3. It certainly can be; try seeking medication for your pain condition as a poor black man sometime.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 20:37
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:If you're focusing on treatment and rehab, you're saying that certain drugs are actually bad for some or all people and we can't just let people have as much of them as they want. Especially the decriminalization programs where "caught with drug, go to jail" gets replaced with "caught with drug, mandatory rehab and detox". I don't suggest programs involving mandatory rehab and detox. What I suggest is having those facilities open to whoever wants to use them free of charge and providing much better information regarding individual drugs and all of the stuff that comes with that (dosage, names, desirable effects, side effects, etc) There are many addicts in our society that want to get better but our system doesn't offer them a way to do so at this point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:I didn't say that drugs have no harm, I said that the primary harm from drugs comes from the establishment trying to eradicate them. It's like the minute you hear "all drugs should be legal" your eyes just glaze over and you ignore anything else said past that. a lovely poster posted:Drugs don't have a primary harm, the primary harm is from the government trying to eradicate them from society. a lovely poster posted:Drugs don't have a primary harm I am aware of what you said the primary harm is, but saying that any drug use in and of itself doesn't have a primary harm (outside the fact that it is illegal) is completely incompatible with reality. When someone leads with "all drugs should be legal," they've made their point. If the point is something like "we need to look at and revamp the way we punish people who abuse substances, to focus on treatment" or "the criminalization of drugs in this country is problematic," than lead with that. Leading with "all drugs should be legal" is a great reason to ignore things said past that, because its a dangerous and simplistic position to take. "All drugs should be illegal" is just as simplistic and dangerous, because of the simple fact that all drugs are not the same. Drugs covers an exceptionally broad spectrum of things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:If you're focusing on treatment and rehab, you're saying that certain drugs are actually bad for some or all people and we can't just let people have as much of them as they want. Especially the decriminalization programs where "caught with drug, go to jail" gets replaced with "caught with drug, mandatory rehab and detox". Mandatory rehab is a really dumb idea, incidentally - people get off drugs when the circumstances that cause them to use cease, not because they went to a program. If someone doesn't want to stop using, or isn't ready to stop using, then going to rehab is going to be a pointless, expensive, and damaging exercise. Users forced into rehab who aren't working the program bring down users who are doing their best to stop using. That's why I emphasized "points of access" - rehab should be encouraged, easy to get into, and readily available, but not mandatory under any circumstance. Red_Mage posted:When someone leads with "all drugs should be legal," they've made their point. If the point is something like "we need to look at and revamp the way we punish people who abuse substances, to focus on treatment" or "the criminalization of drugs in this country is problematic," than lead with that. Leading with "all drugs should be legal" is a great reason to ignore things said past that, because its a dangerous and simplistic position to take. "All drugs should be illegal" is just as simplistic and dangerous, because of the simple fact that all drugs are not the same. Drugs covers an exceptionally broad spectrum of things. But I don't think drug use should be "punished" at all. I don't think using most drugs is a good idea, but just because something is a bad idea doesn't make it worth criminalizing. People ruin their lives in a huge variety of creative, legal ways all the time. Chitin fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Mar 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:I am aware of what you said the primary harm is, but saying that any drug use in and of itself doesn't have a primary harm (outside the fact that it is illegal) is completely incompatible with reality. Drugs don't have "harms", they have "effects". Some of them are desirable, some of them are undesirable, and it's up to the user to decide whether or not the effects fall into each of those categories. quote:When someone leads with "all drugs should be legal," they've made their point. No, they haven't. What they've done is manage to make people like you tune out because you're already convinced that 'drugs' are bad. quote:If the point is something like "we need to look at and revamp the way we punish people who abuse substances, to focus on treatment" or "the criminalization of drugs in this country is problematic," than lead with that. Leading with "all drugs should be legal" is a great reason to ignore things said past that, because its a dangerous and simplistic position to take. "All drugs should be illegal" is just as simplistic and dangerous, because of the simple fact that all drugs are not the same. Drugs covers an exceptionally broad spectrum of things. Or you could just read the rest of the argument that is being posted instead of fixating on one line you really hate because the word drug scares you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 20:46
|
|
|
Whether or not drugs can be harmful is frankly irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is how harmful they are under a specific policy. Criminalization is almost certainly the worst possible policy as far as the harm caused by drugs. Tax and regulate is almost certainly the best possible policy yet proposed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 20:46
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:Erowid changed my whole approach to drug use, and really opened my eyes to the importance of knowing what a substance does and how to properly use it. I'd probably be a junkie addict without it's existence. Thank you internet. Yeah erowid was a whole new way of looking at things to 12 year old me. I was trying to find information on Ritalin (which I had been on for years) and suddenly I'm reading reports from people that are snorting their children's Ritalin. Big eye opener, and I'm glad that such a website exists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:I don't suggest programs involving mandatory rehab and detox. What I suggest is having those facilities open to whoever wants to use them free of charge and providing much better information regarding individual drugs and all of the stuff that comes with that (dosage, names, desirable effects, side effects, etc) There are many addicts in our society that want to get better but our system doesn't offer them a way to do so at this point. I didn't say you did, other people do. When someone says "for drugs, we should focus on rehab and treatment" what they usually mean is "I don't want people to go to jail, but I do want them to stop doing some/all drugs". SurgicalOntologist posted:Criminalization is almost certainly the worst possible policy as far as the harm caused by drugs. Tax and regulate is almost certainly the best possible policy yet proposed. I'd prefer to keep the lovely ones illegal (mostly in that we shouldn't be letting people sell them to others) and should be researching better versions of them with less side effects and other problems. We do that for every other kind of drug; attempting to get the best effect with the least side effect for its purpose.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:I'd prefer to keep the lovely ones illegal (mostly in that we shouldn't be letting people sell them to others) and should be researching better versions of them with less side effects and other problems. We do that for every other kind of drug; attempting to get the best effect with the least side effect for its purpose. Yes we do that for every other kind of drug, minus the part about keeping them illegal in the meantime. What are "the lovely ones" anyway? \/ \/ Exactly. That's my point: Even the shittiest hypothetical drug I can imagine, would be more lovely illegal. Yes, it's still lovely when it's legal, but less so. SurgicalOntologist fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Mar 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 20:53
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:I didn't say you did, other people do. When someone says "for drugs, we should focus on rehab and treatment" what they usually mean is "I don't want people to go to jail, but I do want them to stop doing some/all drugs". Which are the "lovely ones?" This line of thinking ignores one of the biggest harms of the drug war: that unknown quantity and purity in the supply is what kills users more than anything else. We see this with heroin overdose (the most common cause of OD by a mile is a user misjudging the quality of new product), with the recent tainting of the cocaine supply with cow de-wormer that kills tissue, even with drugs that are, on their own, INCREDIBLY safe and benign like MDMA, which are often cut with cheaper, more dangerous drugs (especially if you don't know you're taking them) like meth and meph.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 20:56
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:There are obviously different degrees and different people react in different ways, but its willfully ignorant to say that drugs people do only affect themselves. I don't think anyone is saying this. What is being said is that the problems of individual drug use pale in comparison to the problems of the drug war, a nightmare of gangs, murder, prison and devastated communities caught between police and organized crime. Red_Mage posted:3. I doubt the war on drugs is as large of a factor on the lack of access to healthcare in this country is as large a factor as you say. I wouldn't be so sure. Part of the reason for the war on drugs is to keep pressure on the lower classes in order to keep them fractured and unable to organize for popular reforms such as UHC. The drug war also sucks a massive amount of wealth out of poor communities that could be used to provide healthcare which instead goes to the prison industrial complex. Even more nebulous issues like the drug war's contribution to racism makes it easier for many to simply not give a poo poo about what happens to poor people of color because they're all urban ferals or whatever so why should they get healthcare?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
SurgicalOntologist posted:Yes we do that for every other kind of drug, minus the part about keeping them illegal in the meantime. What are "the lovely ones" anyway? Well that's the problem, even researching how to make a better drug "to get high" is illegal right now. That needs to be made legal. Pretty much all the ones that are easy to overdose on/have other bad effects even when you have pure controlled doses are bad, and if we find replacements for each that cut that risk while providing the same high, then the old ones should then be banned in favor of selling of the new ones.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
Chitin posted:1. Ambien is a lovely, lovely over prescribed drug. I have a hard time believing anyone would ever touch Ambien again if it weren't widely prescribed as a (horribly ineffective) sleep medication (that just makes you forget how much you didn't sleep) and had access to things that are... actually fun. 1. I suggest you reread the various posts in the thread where people repeatedly state, and I quote (one of them), "But if I want to put it in my body, why is that anybody's business but mine?" While its true that the number of incidents where drug use affects other people 1:1 directly is low, its hardly nonexistant. I've also experienced firsthand the effect that drug abuse (and alcohol) can have on people related to the abuser, which is far more prevalent than anti-prohibitionists like to admit. 2. People do however bankrupt themselves buying alcohol, I would assume that it comes down to the type of drug and the effects it has. People can and do lie, steal, and drive others into debt to purchase substances they are addicted to, legal or not. 3. My point with the barrier to access was much more "try seeking medication as an uninsured poor." Certainly the "drug seeking behavior" checks are a staggering issue, but we right now live in a country where people literally cannot afford basic procedures. I think this is the biggest difference, that accounts for much of the problem. It is certainly a vicious cycle where the prohibitions contribute to a problem, that then contributes to the drug abuse rate, which then contributes to the prohibitions. I am not sure that simply removing the prohibitions is the chain in that cycle that would be best broken first (if at all).
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 21:01
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Pretty much all the ones that are easy to overdose on/have other bad effects even when you have pure controlled doses are bad, and if we find replacements for each that cut that risk while providing the same high, then the old ones should then be banned in favor of selling of the new ones. OK, but that's not what you said originally ("let's keep the lovely ones illegal").
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 19:23 |
|
|
Red_Mage posted:While its true that the number of incidents where drug use affects other people 1:1 directly is low, its hardly nonexistant. I've also experienced firsthand the effect that drug abuse (and alcohol) can have on people related to the abuser, which is far more prevalent than anti-prohibitionists like to admit. I have an idea, let's make these sorts of "incidents" illegal, rather than the circumstances that make them more likely to occur. See, e.g., drunk driving, assaults, rape, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 21:05
|
|