It goes beyond offense for some. But likewise, some people don’t sympathize for those who don’t have easy access to drugs. Both ways are fine for those who get their way.
I have not read the whole thread so, do not know if it has been mentioned but, I think the possible psychosis that can be caused by said drugs is being downplayed. I have seen many people be changed by a bad trip/ high from many psychedelics and weed. Once a person has something like a panic/anxiety attack they seem to fear having another one given the experience and fear something else triggering it. Not to mention more serious disorders like schizophrenia.
1 Like
In my state (Minnesota) we have a lot of lakes in Minneapolis, one of which was formally called Calhoun (after John C Calhoun). It was changed to the native name Bde Maka Ska when people started learning about John C Calhoun’s (former vice president of the US) letters and speaches. In them he advocated for the morality of slavery being a moral positive for both white and black people. My point is that at the time some viewed slavery as a morally positive, some viewed it as a “necessary evil”, and some viewed it as morally unacceptable.
You could find all sorts of stuff on the name change of the lake. It is very divisive here. Many want to keep the name and actually have arguments that are legitimate (their business has Calhoun in the name for example). It was changed by the MN parks department, but then a court determined that the MN parks department did not have the rights to change the name, but did have the rights to change road signs. So they changed all the road signs to Bde Maka Ska. The whole thing is kinda in limbo from the last I have heard.
Are they harmed by something like cannabis legalization, or a different activity like a DUI car crash?
Harmed physically from someone smoking it in their own homes or designated areas? Actually no.
But legalization sets a precedent some don’t want. And others feel it’s sacrilegious. They hate it.
I think we mostly agree. I think we disagree on the premise of being offended is a legitimate reason to ban (make illegal) a substance. I don’t count being offended as harm and I think you do? Correct me if I am wrong here. If this is the case, I think we will just have to agree to disagree.
1 Like
I think we agree and I’m not trying to one-up any in here or “win” an argument. I don’t think offense is harm, but I’m also not what I refer to as a logic machine considering I recognize the world doesn’t operate on logic alone. We can think what many people don’t do, do, feel or want is irrational or rational. What counts ultimately is who gets their ways. And again, that involves forcing the matter. That’s all.
2 Likes
I appreciate the answer mate
At this point I’m going to be taking a break from the forums lasting an undetermined amount of time whilst I get my shit together, start working full time etc (looking at the prospect of full time work now… At least until I go to college next year, these forums serve as somewhat of a distraction to the mundane nature of my daily life… a distraction I don’t particularly need at this point.)
Haha I actually didn’t interpret it this way, I saw you’re aforementioned comment about Islam as an explanation as to perhaps “why” these societies are somewhat more barbaric. I’m inclined to agree with you to a certain extent. Many third world, “low trust” societies (I’d just call them straight up “dangerous to live in”) tend to have higher rates of crime, poverty etc. However the multiple wives, the lack of female rights in particular stem from religious belief.
In Australia (first world country), despite being illigal… Some of the Islam communities still practice polygamous marriage, certain restrictions apply regarding what women in particuar can/cannot do/wear within both the stricter Islam and haredi/heavily religious Jewish neighborhoods (look up Haredi Judaism… It’ll blow you’re mind!)
The lack of female rights stemming from these countries aren’t on the sole basis of environmental factors driving a lack of trust, though I’m sure it plays a part… if this were the case men would have similar restrictions imposed (can’t drive, can only copulate with one partner etc)
As to why such a rape culture is prevelant within some of these countries… I can’t exactly answer that… I don’t believe it states anywhere within the Coran that rape is acceptable, I’d imagine it goes against the philosophies of what “Allah” preaches… I’m not well versed in Islam… But given that religion within a generalised context tries to preach ethical behavior I highly doubt the act of rape would be praised. Perhaps such a “rape culture” exists due to rampant uneducation, societal and sexual frustration (did you hear about what happened within the Women’s University in Delhi?)
Agreed, it’s unfortunate… Yet humanity at it’s core is rather primal, barbaric in nature. The development of civilised society is what I believe sets us apart from our primates. One can argue higher intellect would dictate this too… But look at how barbaric some of these “low trust” societies are!
Why would one feel sympathy for another over this? Sympathy from me is doled out towards those who have acquired criminal records, prison sentences for possession.
Not particularly. Given these substances are schedule I substances we don’t have enough research to come to an adequate conclusion. The FDA tends to put extensive restrictions upon scientific research pertaining to schedule I substances as they’re deemed to have no possible therapeutic or medicinal use/potential. The most recent research pertaining to cannabis and psychosis indicates significant genetic overlap between those who use and those who are predisposed to psychiatric ailment may be present (as in… Those with underlying predispositions may be more likely to use these drugs in the first place). If this is the case, how do we weed out whether an elicited psychotic state is strictly chemically induced or whether a predisposition existed to begin wirh?
Same goes with alcohol, some become violent, destructive, unruly, paranoid, extremely disinhibited from a few drinks (I’ve seen it… Many times)… Why is this? It doesn’t happen to the majority, but some simply don’t react well, is the booze to blame? Or the neurological makeup of the person at stake? It’s more than simply the amount consumed, many behave relatively well even when drunk… Won’t go out looking to start fights etc… Why does it affect a certain select few SO deleteriously. I’ve anecdotally noticed a correlation between younger individuals drinking and serious alteration in generalised demeanour/induction of significantly antisocial behavior. The younger they are, (ANECDOTALLY, take this with a grain of salt) the higher the likelihood of serious behavioral alteration.
The aspect of booze = disinhibition exists for everyone… But the aspect of booze = purposefully trying to start fights with whoever possible certainly doesn’t pertain to the majority of those who drink.
There’s also data to indicate “bad trips” for some can have a positive effect upon ones mentality lasting many months after the experience is over. Not condoning the use of these compounds. Set/setting furthermore needs to be taken into account with psychedelics. If you take a large dosage of mushshrooms in the middle of a club you’re almost certainly going to have a terrible time. Out in nature with friends in a calming environment etc… Different story. That being said I understand what you’re referring to. I’ve anecdotally heard of ONE individual who took LSD, was never the same again… This might’ve been fear mongering though as this was an adult telling 14y/o me how terrible drugs were, was also provided with a case report at the time of a man high on cannabis who castrated himself if I recall correctly… Got the “don’t let this happen to you” type talk… Despite the fact that I hadn’t tried cannabis at this point within my life. The prospects of HPPD, psychiatric abnormalities stemming from the use of psychedelic drugs… Almost all recreational drugs actually is a very real prospect that needs to be researched more in depth. Given the prevalence of HPPD is 1/50,000 for those who frequently and heavily abuse psychedelic drugs (probably far lower for occasional/once off users) I’m inclined to say such a risk doesn’t particularly harbour significance… SSRI’s are on the market despite the miniscule risk of serotonin syndrome developing after imitating use. QT prolongation is a possibility with certain SSRI’s potentially leading to lethal arrythmia (torsades de pointes can easily deteriorate into ventricular fibrillation). It’s about a cost/risk ratio, and I believe leaving these substances unregulated, enforcing harsh penalties induces more harm than it does good…
That’s just my opinion though, I fully respect those who disagree with me. This message may be incoherent, I’m very tired… About to head off to sleep
This particular disorder has a very confusing, debatable and convoluted relationship pertaining to marijuana usage. Within the 60s/70s it was widely pushed that cannabis could induce a psychotic, schizophrenic state in just about anyone who smoked… As of today, this no longer appears to be the ideology harboured by many, particularly due to a lack of clear cut evidence. It could very well be the case, we don’t know yet… Given over 50% of the populace has tried it, I highly doubt it puts most healthy adults at serious risk for chronic psychosis.
Alcohol has a documented history within inducing psychosis within those predisposed
“Clinically, alcohol induced psychosis is similar to schizophrenia but has been found to be a unique and independent condition”
Just my opinion, this will be my last post for a couple/few weeks.
But… We legalised alcohol, the sky didn’t fall, prohibition was inducing more harm than it was good. The same analogy can be made for cannabis prohibition (initially legal, prohibited under the pretense of racism/hatred towards immigrants and African Americans… Almost all scientific bodies at the time vehemently opposed the ban)… We’ve upheld this failed attempt at prohibition for decades… And decades and decades…
I understand you’re playing devil’s advocate. Personally I don’t believe it’s important as to whether someone is offended by the prospect of legalisation on the basis of instilling potentially sacreligious ideology. At this point this populace would make up the minority of Americans as the majority do appear to support legalisation. It’s instilling potentially sacreligiois ideology vs allowing hundreds of thousands (if not more) to suffer due to harsh penalties, imposed criminal records and incarceration… The amount of money we’d save regarding incarceration rates, tax expendature from those purchasing legally etc… New jobs created, I’m all for the legalisation of marijuana, shrooms, LSD, MDMA etc so long as they’re treated within a similar fashion to how tobacco is treated here
- sold within plain packaging filled with warnings/graphic pictures
- no advertising
- campaigns designed to honestly educate the users of the risks
- resctrictions pertaining to where one can use
- I’d argue a database should be set up to control quantities/frequency of purchase between those buying.
- age restrictions of 18+, preferably 21+ but the populace here would complain… I’m also not sure how effective setting age limits actually is… I don’t know a single kid who actually waited til 18 before he/she touched alcohol/cigarettes
Supposedly the Trump Administration will remove all Federal funding pertaining to state medicinal marijuana programs, perhaps even interfere federally with state laws… or not… it’s murky… if this were to happen it’d be sending things waaaaaaayyy back (some would call what I percieved to be “regression” as progression here though).
Anyhow… I’m out for a couple/few weeks, I wish you all the best. I’ll check this thread tommorow once more though.
2 Likes
Disagree with such extreme measure being taken. Furthermore such barbarity would never pass within a secular, first world, democratic society.
Another problem… Margin of error, you’ve got the wrong guy… Now he’s missing an arm…
I didn’t want to clog up the dudes thread with a conversation not relevant to the primary topic at stake
Rehabilitative measures need to be taken to cater towards those using narcotics. As to those trafficking… Prison time (obviously), public dismemberment is a bit extreme.
Ice destroys families, ravages communities and appears to irreversibly alter the demeanour of those who have used for prolonged periods of time… There is no justification to sell this… It’s seriously akin to profiting off the misery of others
Why don’t we legalize sex with children ?
How is that relevant?
Saying drug use should be treated as a health issue rather than a criminal issue isn’t the same as having sex with a child
It isn’t always an addicts fault as to why he/she is the way he/she is. Trauma, force and environmental factors can greatly enhance risk factors or even outright induce drug addiction (if the person is forced). Look at the statistics pertaining to how Portugul did post drug decriminalisation. Problematic use for those most vulnerable dropped. Lifetime use of any illicit substance and lifetime use of heroin increased slightly, but these factors also increased within neighboring countries to a higher degree compared to that of Portugul (these countries were stricter)… Incarceration rates dropped… Most of all society didn’t devolve into degeneracy. The rate of heroin addiction within Portugul is quite a bit lower compared to the staggering 1% of which it was when users were criminalised for possession.
I mean if you have sex with a kid it doesn’t effect me so why not ? If we legalize it the pedos won’t have to traffic children anymore… Ergo no more child rape !
You seem to also imagine a drug utopia where addicts function in a way that doesn’t effect the rest of us. It doesn’t exist anywhere on earth.
1 Like
Because if you have sex with a child it has a long lasting impact on the child… Potentially the child’s children later on in life etc… You’re irreversibly altering the CHILDS neurology… Not merely you’re own… What’s the difference between owning a gun and shooting someone in the chest?
During my specified actions in December during a night out there were no far reaching implications towards anyone, no one was harmed… I reiterate I don’t deserve to be locked up for a decision of an acute nature that I made months ago… I didn’t endanger anyone
I still smoke cannabis occasionally (like once per month)… Due to the fact I’m currently self isolated my use will probably become regular over the next two weeks… Do you think I deserve to be locked up for doing this in my own home whilst not operating any heavy machinery/driving?
You may ask why I’d make such a dumb decision… Not that I need to justify my decision here but I work on the farm doing whatever is required of me. Aside from that I have exercise to fall back on. I don’t watch much TV, nor do I use social media or play video games. Pot makes one feel okay with being bored, it makes the mundane enjoyable. I certainly don’t deserve to be put in prison for that. It might make me an idiot… But a criminal?
Intoxication, public intoxication and driving under the influence are three very different prospects. With public intoxication I believe set/setting is key. No one is getting beaten up at a coffee shop in the Netherlands… Or even the stores where people take hallucinogenic drugs in the back section. Driving under the influence is a huge issue that should not be tolerated.
I should specify UNDER THE INFLUENCE is unacceptable to me pertaining to a level of impairment comparable to .05BAC (or .08 if you’re more leniant… But I think .08 is too high given the risk of crash statistically skyrockets after .02). A trace amount (you’ve taken meth four days ago) to me doesn’t indicate you deserve to be penalised because you’ve been found to have a trace of something in you’re system during a roadside drug test.
Drug use has long lasting effects, too, and can have effects beyond the user.
1 Like
Well… Not a uptopia because drugs as a generalisation are always detrimental to society. We’d always be better off without them, I just argue that if we wish to keep society humane, such intervention isn’t possible.
You need to distinguish between drugs here. Have you ever been around those on MDMA? They aren’t addicts, they don’t hurt anyone (esp compared to alcohol). The vast majority of those who use drugs aren’t addicts either.
Perhaps you’re thinking about meth, fentanyl, heroin, crack etc. I’ve posted numerous studies/graphs showcasing a case by case basis reviewing compounds based on harms (looking at individualistic impact, societal impact and addictive potential). Even ketamine is below alcohol, MDMA is right at the bottom of the list pertaining to potential harm induced.
People who occasionally pop a pill every few months can certainly integrate within normalised society, and they do. As a matter of fact I know of a few highly, highly successful people who very occasionally use cocaine. It’s not as black and white as it seems, some users use within a purely recreational context on occasion in a similar fashion to how you might get drink at a friend’s bachelor party. Not everyone is an addict… And some compounds are more addictive than others… You never hear about a guy getting hooked on LSD. If you believe someone taking… Let’s say GHB in their own home should be locked up, you ought to believe excess consumption of alcohol on private premises should end with incarceration/criminal penalties for the person drinking.
I don’t know if you believe this though. You merely said you support far harsher penalties for drug use comparative to what is currently in place so I’d assume you believe personal consumption = harsh penalties… In which case I’d assume you also believe consumption of alcohol = penalisation otherwise such a stance is hypocritical
My farcical “Utopia” (which already exists in Portugul, The Netherlands and a few other countries without any significant detriment to the populace) is no more farcical than you’re idea of a civilised, secular, democratic society of which dismembers people in public for non violent offences. Sometimes the harsh penalties imposed upon these demographics make things worse, heighten certain environmental risk factors (being in prison for one… If we can’t even keep drugs out of prison how do you expect to keep it out of society) etc.
One needs to be open to numerous different avenues of which we can tackle this issue. I’d be open to harsher penalties… But scientific literature doesn’t support harsher penalties. Perhaps propaganda/public campaigning could induce a cultural shift wherein all substance abuse could be intensely vilified similarly to tobacco… But I get the feeling this would backfire, scare campaigns typically do (look what happened with marijuana)… Furthermore, people aren’t going to be stupid enough to start using heroin just because it’s decriminalised. No one in their right mind thinks using heroin is a good idea.
I get the feeling within 30-40 years the majority of my ideologies will become law, certain substances will be legalised and regulated … And we will probably treat drug USE as more of a health issue rather than a criminal issue in the following years to come.
If I look at how low the rate of heroin addiction is within the Netherlands compared to that of Australia, the US etc… I’m inclined to think they’re doing something correctly that we simply aren’t.
I’m not advocating for the use of more drugs. I’m advocating for an approach to drug use that minimises harm induced to the user whilst simultaneously catering towards decreasing rates of addiction. I believe human life is an under valued commodity within many societies. Losing lives to overdoses, drug related violence and addiction etc equates to wasted potential.
Literature regarding punishment being used as the sole treatment for drug use
" Punishment alone is a futile and ineffective response to drug abuse, failing as a public safety intervention for offenders whose criminal behavior is directly related to drug use"
Imprisonment having nil effect regarding state prevalence of drug use
https://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/jpi_njreport.pdf
This study in particular looks at the incarceration rate within NJ for non-violent drug offences, indicates a massive disparity between race and those locked up despite very little to no difference existing regarding race and the prevalence of drug use. 18% of offenders incarcerated were Caucasian… furthermore the study talks about lack of access for jobs upon getting out. I know Brickhead doesn’t believe in harsh criminal penalties fro those who have made the decision to use. I’m inclined to agree, especially when we’re talking about a kid who had a few pills on him at the wrong place/wrong time. This particularly grinds my gears because I’ve known kids my age to down everything they have at festivals upon sighting the police. I don’t understand why one couldn’t simply toss the drugs out, however I suppose when police are enclosing they’ll pull you aside if they see you drop anything. The answer is clearly “don’t take drugs”, but people do take drugs regardless.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00952990.2019.1669626
(looking at the impact of marijuana legalisation) “Research suggests MCLs increase adult but not adolescent cannabis use, and provisions of the laws associated with less regulated supply may increase adult cannabis use disorders. These laws may reduce some opioid-related harms, while their impacts on alcohol and tobacco use remain uncertain.”
“Some of the greatest harms from using illicit drugs are because they are illegal.”
“A large proportion of the work of the justice system, police, courts and prisons is occupied with drug-related offences. Many people have a criminal record for possessing drugs intended for personal use, which can affect their work prospects. Drug busts have little impact on the availability of drugs and, as we continue to see more harms including overdoses and deaths, it is clear we need a new approach to illicit drugs.”
“several studies have shown that decriminalisation does not increase drug use among existing or new users. It reduces demand on, and the cost of, the criminal justice system.
Portugal decriminalised the use and possession of all illicit drugs in 2001. At the same time, it expanded investment in drug treatment, harm reduction and social reintegration. Impacts of this reform included a reduced burden on the criminal justice system, reductions in problematic drug use, reductions in drug-related HIV and AIDS, reductions in drug-related deaths, and reduced social costs of responding to drugs.”
This document looks at the effect of seizures/large scale drug busts (that @marine77 may be involved within given he’s SWAT), showcases the busts have literally no correlation with the availability of heroin on the street. Marine77 furthermore stated his team will strip search those both suspected of dealing drugs and USING drugs… I believe the latter is a tremendous waste of resources, why bother searching/pressing charges against someone holding 0.2 grams of heroin? Data empirically demonstrates this punitive approach is rather ineffective. You’re sticking you’re hands in someones vagina/asshole over a trivial amount of drugs, think about whether that’s worth it. You stated you’d rather people in the doghouse than sourcing drugs in the ghetto…
- there’s no shortage of drugs in prison
Showcases many inmates actually develop drug problems IN PRISON (a staggering 5%, this is a LOT compared to rates of drug dependancy within the general populace). We aren’t talking about cannabis either, this study states 61.8% of incarcerated heroin users will use in prison… great deterrent right?
Could you find me some literature that backs up you’re opinion of more punitive measures being a humane, reliable and effective deterrent?
I’m aware of this, I’m not stupid. I’ve seen what heroin addiction can do to otherwise smart, law abiding citizens, I’ve seen alcoholism tear families apart, I’ve seen the state of which those addicted to crystal meth live in… I’ve seen acute consequence stemming from the use of alcohol, methamphetamine and even cannabis (acutely psychotic reaction from within someone with underlying psychiatric ailment to begin with). Perhaps I’ve even seen the consequence that can stem from drug use from within members of my family (not immediate family), however it would be inappropriate for me to talk about this without the consent of numerous family members. Cannabis isn’t as benign as many make it out to be. It may be a far cry away from alcohol, but for a specific subset of the populace when used frequently over a long period of time it does appear to reversibly induce cognitive deficits, affect motivation. Furthermore extensive abuse over many years or abuse below the age of seventeen may induce irreversible cognitive stunting.
I’ve heard the argument that those who use drugs are generally perceived as less trustworthy from @BrickHead, however I’d like to clarify a criminal record pertaining to drug possession merely means someone had X amount of whatever many years ago. I wouldn’t hold it against an employee if he/she had an impressive resume, spotless record from prior companies whom he/she worked for… but wait, it’s known that he took MDMA twenty years ago when he was seventeen. This means fuck all… nor should it be a determining factor as to whether someone gets a job or not, many people make stupid decisions, if said decision didn’t harm anyone else I see NO reason to penalise them for it.
Finally, as to drug use having implications beyond the user, this is drug dependant. Shrooms probably aren’t harming anyone, MDMA isn’t harming anyone besides the user (MDMA is ecstasy). Given the pharmacokinetics of MDMA I highly doubt it’s far more dangerous than heavy dosages of ADHD medication (aside from 5ht2b receptor mediated cardiotoxicity, but MDMA use is highly acute in nature), 60mg dexamfetamine daily is an approved treatment for narcolepsy, 40mg daily for ADHD. These meds also raise heart rate, blood pressure/body temp… they stimulate catecholamine release through numerous mechanisms, thus increasing HR, BP, body temp increase etc. One might state “but it’s a therapeutic dose”, yes… it is, and it’s the dosage required to elicit a therapeutic response within a patient, doesn’t entirely change the pharmacodynamics of the drug at stake here (though those with ADHD are effected differently in terms of neurology when exposed to amphetamine). If you don’t believe me (this is a joke, never do this) actually take 40mg dexamfetamine at once… The therapeutic dosage of MDMA found to be safe within clinical settings for PTSD, enhancing sociability for those with autism is arguing 75-150mg (mg/mg not all drugs are as potent as one another), about the same as what one would take for recreation. Granted the prospect of dancing/exercise whilst under the influence makes the prospects of hyperthermia, dehydration (facilitating arrhythmia) more concerning. This makes sense as MDMA is merely a substituted amphetamine… Regardless the death rate stemming from ecstasy alone is very, very low. MDMA is traditionally more psychedelic/is an enactogen whereas racemic amphetamine isn’t… It also appears to be considerably less addictive
This was taken from a study published within the lancet (widely revered medical journal). So on that night in December wherein I tried a substance theoretically less harmful than alcohol @marine77 you never gave me a definitive answer as to whether you think I should’ve been locked up for this, so I’m going to assume you believe I’m a no good degenerate who deserves to be locked up given you’re prior comments regarding disdain towards anyone who has used drugs. Drug use DOES have far reaching implications, and it should be noted as a potential counterargument the reason alcohol is so high up on the list is partially due to widespread availability and inherent sociocultural normalisation/glorificaiton of the substance, thus those who abuse are less likely to feel ashamed about it as “it’s just alcohol”. Regardless, post decriminalisation/legalisation rates of substance abuse don’t skyrocket, this is because the government ensues via public campaigns, advertising (or lack thereof in relation to the regulated products) that these substances are still viewed negatively, there is little chance legalised cannabis, psychedelics will be seen as healthy/acceptable daily pastimes (not to mention it’s literally impossible to take psychedelics on a daily basis). I believe in 30-40 years from now alcohol, meat etc will be viewed within a similar vein to that of how tobacco is seen today. Somehow cigars/pipe smoking has managed to bypass the level of stigma associated with smoking cigarettes though.
My rebuttal to the aforementioned counterargument is, drugs are incredibly easy to get ahold of nowadays, punitive action via law enforcement appears to have done nothing to squash the supply, however it appears (at least here) we do plenty to punish users… a practice that has been deemed ineffective by many scientific bodies. If I can have hard drugs at my doorstep within fifteen minutes for a price cheaper than what I could acquire a bottle of vodka with, I think it’s fair to state perhaps the reason alcohol is deemed very high up isn’t merely due to a high rate of availability. I can chug a bottle of vodka but I theoretically can’t smoke a joint (but I CAN smoke a cigarette)… do you not see the sheer level of hypocrisy here? It isn’t to say something should be legalised on the sole basis of “but it’s less harmful than alcohol”, because such an argument is flawed. Just because something is less harmful doesn’t mean we want it within our daily lives… Shooting someone in the foot is less harmful than shooting someone in the face… either way I don’t want to get shot.
I advocate for legalisation/decriminalisation because I can’t see another avenue by which we could ETHICALLY lower rates of drug use whilst simultaneously catering towards help for those ravaged within the throes of addiction.
We should advocate for a society wherein more people are adequately educated and thus be less likely to make stupid decisions. Penalising drug users isn’t a strategy that works, raising public awareness (absent of scare tactics/fear mongering) IS effective (at least I think it is). For reference, look at tobacco… about five decades ago about 50% of the adult populace smoked, we now have this down to around 15-20%. Perhaps there’s a cut-off, a point wherein we can’t lower rates any lower… I don’t believe we are anywhere near this point. Societal attitude plays a large role, not the legality of a substance at stake. You’ll always have that one guy that for whatever reason has a predisposition towards using drugs, it’s inevitable, it’s present within all societies. However I believe if we treated illicit substances the same way we do tobacco perhaps we could lessen usage rates. This is a hypothetical scenario, yet perhaps we could reduce all time use of MDMA for kids on schoolies from say 35% to 13% etc, I’d call that a win.
We can’t entirely stamp out drug use, but we can certainly aim to either
- reduce usage rates
and if not - reduce the amount of detriment brought upon society
Criminalising/incarcerating drug users isn’t getting us anywhere, nor are tougher penalties… We need to re-think our strategy (note when I talk about education I’m referring to factual information, not fear-mongering/scare tactics implemented by programs like dare)
Another point I should make is… If alcohol were phased out and replaced with substances deemed less harmful, I’d also call it a win. GHB is in no way, shape or form safe. Yet a few months ago I came to the realisation large coorperatinos could certainly monopolise on this substance, marketing beverages with very small amounts (like beer) thus a fairly large amount would need to be consumed to reach a state of intoxication, and a small amount could be consumed (one/two beverages) to reach a state of slight relaxation. It’s probably about as neurologically toxic as alcohol without the extensive cardiotoxicity, hepatotoxicity, deleterious effect upon stomach lining, less carcinogenicity etc
At this point with Covid-19, we have far more pressing issues at stake. Relatively unimportant issues (it is important, but pales in comparison to a pandemic) such as this one should take a back seat.
Neither would I. Twenty years is a long freaking time ago and one can become a different person in that time.
I’ll read the rest of your post and links.
It should also be noted I don’t believe the argument of legalising/decriminalising drugs (making use a civil penalty rather than a criminal one) is akin to that of legalising sex with children. You priorly mentioned me making straw man arguments, isn’t this a straw man argument? It’s along the lines of comparing homosexuality to bestiality/child molestation… you can’t compare the three given one revolves around two consenting partners, consent isn’t a principle regarding sex with a child/animal. Within a similar vein you can’t compare an individual harming himself to harming others, it’s a different ballpark. It’d be like looking at a suicide and a homicide and stating “they’re the same”… it’s not…
Furthermore as to a drug “utopia” or whatever wherein a different, non militaristic approach to drug use is taken… these places DO exist, contrary to Marine77’s statement, Portugal, The Netherlands, The Czech Republic, numerous countries have legalised and/or decriminalised cocaine possession (very, very small amounts)… The sky hasn’t fallen within any of the countries of which have implemented these laws/regulations. As a matter of fact they’re doing a hell of a lot better regarding healthcare burden (pertaining to drug use), legal system burden (clogged up with cases), overall death rates/rates of problematic use etc compared to Australia, America, UK etc.
Even I think legalising cocaine use/possession is preposterous (decriminalisation is a different story). But it works, and thus amplifies the fact that the majority don’t want to take cocaine/heroin. Just because it’s legal doesn’t equate to “everyone is going to do this” because the vast majority of us simply don’t want to use cocaine.
Perhaps I get slightly too emotional when arguing. For future reference I will structure my arguments as a conversation rather than an essay, thus we can go back and fourth. I’ve seen too many screwed over by the legal system (or close calls) for very trivial reasons for which by my opinion I don’t believe criminal penalties should’ve been be applicable.
I’ve also seen drugs/alcohol wreck havok upon families, relationships… Perhaps I indirectly/directly knew a few who have died from alcohol poisoning/drug overdose… These events effect everyone differently. I’m sure there would be many who would despise the notion of drug use, believe all should be locked up based on personal anecdote/seeing the destruction first hand of which these substances can induce. This wasn’t the case for me, esp when these cases occur within what I percieved to be entirely preventable scenarios… But stigma, lack of public awareness leads to a higher prevalence of these deaths.
I don’t think so considering he @marine77 mentioned that drug use effects people other from users. The notion that everything involving “consenting adults” is by default benign or inconsequential to the world, such as drugs and pornography, or even regular sex for recreation or procreation is played out and bunk.
Considering it’s incredibly easy, which makes use all the more possible, why not make punishment harsher for distributors than what we have now with some lesser punishment for chronic users? And as said, though not all rules in this world are fair, who are also unfair, are people who can’t follow a damn rule and have no regard for those around them.
You have mentioned ethics repeatedly. What kind of ethics does a person who can’t follow a rule that cannot be simpler and is 100% harmless to follow and benefits society at large: keep your freaking hands off drugs!
I challenge you to provide me with damn reason what is so horrible about such simple rule and who is suffering by abstaining. You say some people have an addictive personality, for whatever reason. Well, there are people with all sorts of inclinations who control themselves! I have my own inclinations and characteristics that I have to restrain to get along in this world, as do many other people. If I don’t restrain them, there will be huge penalties that I don’t want to live with.
Again, what kind of ethics does someone who can’t control himself have? I think you speak as if there’s a segment of the population composed of darlings who need drugs and who we are somehow mistreating by having rules in place to stop them from harming us! You keep speaking of drug addicts as some general group of salt-of-the-earth and down-on-their-luck types who need to be coddled by the rest of us. Well, I suspect, though wrongfully so, based on my experience and observation, that a small chunk of the group actually are those types, people who fell on hard times and in desperation turned to drugs. The rest are generally impulsive, don’t work well with others generally, consider damn near any rule as oppressive, make one bad decision after another, have high time preferences, and are generally undisciplined. That’s why they chose to do drugs despite the consequences, including wrecking their own lives.
I’m not referring to pot smokers and people who do another drug every now and then, but addicts, although occasional use of other drugs gives me suspicion too.
Good post.
1 Like
Drug dealers and pimps are some of the worst people humanity has to offer. When you see firsthand the impact they have on communities it makes you wish they were killed on sight. Not that I believe a nation of laws and a sense of justice should do that but they should be removed from society. If I had to choose between saving a cockroach’s life or a drug dealer or pimp, I would save the roach.
1 Like