In your opinion, which drugs, if any, should be legal and which should be illegal?
Printable View
In your opinion, which drugs, if any, should be legal and which should be illegal?
All drugs should be legal, even for children.
prohibition built the mob
bans on morphine led to heroin, whose ban led to fentanyl, krokodil
All drugs should be legal to use. Putting addicts and even casual users in prison doesn't help anyone. I'm not sure where the line should be drawn exactly, but hard drugs, particularly opiates/opioids, should be illegal to sell. They destroy individuals, families, and communities. There are some choices people shouldn't be allowed to make.
Making drugs illegal is like making guns illegal. Nice in theory but impossible in practice. With drugs in particular, it hurts more than it helps
the fentanyl crisis started in vancouver of all places. sorry to hear it made its way to the States. there is a level of low that drug makers go and adding fentanyl to the drugs is one level even below that.Quote:
Originally Posted by woofwoofl
As a very anti-drug person, I think they should all be legalized.
Regulation matters, stuff that one slightly careless dosing can kill needs a more restricted access imo. Beside that, whatever. I think a place where there are sellers who can help people choose and know what they are taking is a great way to keep a lot of people safe.
No matter my preferences, peeps are gonna keep seeking the thrill, might as well provide the best context for it.
Help and care above punishment.
common sense that marijuana should be recreationally legal. i don't see the big deal about other natural things like shrooms.
when it comes to stuff that is blatantly harmful like heroin, it boggles my mind to consider the idea that they should be legal. but i think it would be best for the least number of people to use blatantly harmful drugs, and reaching that goal to the maximum extent possible seems to involve some kind of psychological economics that i've always been terrible at understanding.
If drugs are legalized, then should it be legal for parents to get high in front of their young children?
(won’t someone think of the children?!?)
:thinking: yeah drugs should be legal imo, but I refuse to associate myself with people who indulge in them, that includes weed users, chain smokers and alcoholics.
For example when I found out Jordan Peterson's situation he lost all credibility to me. What use is a man who preaches how one should get one's shit together when he is falling apart himself. Kinda pathetic, damn rug salesman.
I'll just put this out there. No more fucking "half-measures" is the only moral stance one can take on this issue. Either you're in favor of full legalization of pretty much all "drugs" no matter the kind or type or you want to go down the "Rodrigo Duterte" route (i.e. summary executions of any and all drug dealers).
It's officially a binary choice now. We've all seen how trying to be "nuanced" hasn't really helped matters at all. I doubt we'll get that answer officially however. Much like with war, the PTB profit the most in many a way by ensuring the underlying issue isn't truly solved one way or another.
For much of my life, I will say, I favored the full legalization route. Still do to an extent. But I cannot deny the appeal of busting a cap in every single true merchant of death in so many ways personally.
I put it to you all like that. Legalize it all forevermore or go full Inquisition purge mode on those who dare to defile the metal states of their victims? Which "answer" would you give to this sadly important inquiry?
jenkem
Huffing farts seems dangerous.. kekQuote:
Originally Posted by Grendel
https://i.imgur.com/4KkPyGt.jpg
:DD he seems to be having a LOT of fun tho..
If person reaches a point of no return it most likely indicates other issues.
I only inject sulfuric acid into my veins. It dehydrates your body.
The years have not been kind to Drake Bell.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGF
Yes, well, as others have pointed out, prohibition was a bust. I don’t think it’s a good thing to make all drugs legal, but not to make them all illegal either. Marijuana is pretty harmless imo, and seems less harmful than alcohol. As for hard drugs...in my youth I would have said people should have the choice and if they want to kill themselves with drugs, let them. It should be a personal choice. However, now that I’m a bit older, I do think some drugs should remain illegal (drugs like heroine) because people make bad decisions sometimes, and when you are in the throes of addiction, it can make you do some really stupid shit that would generally be out of character. With personal experience in this matter, I can say where there have been times when not having access, or having hard access to something, was definitely life saving. I also think of the affect that legal drug usage would have on society as a whole. And I don’t think it would necessarily be a direction that the majority would want to go down. Yes, we can say let them do what they want, but it’s eventually going to affect us all. The affects are going to leak out into society as a whole, which will affect the individuals.
All of them should be legal. The state doesn't have any business in this area as far as I'm concerned beyond perhaps ensuring proper labelling or providing rehab services and that sort of thing. Personally I've only done weed, but have an interest in psychedelics in general and will be experimenting with a lot of them when I can finally travel to more permissive countries again. The American drug war has been a complete disaster. People will do hard drugs whether or not they're legal and all making them illegal does is create massive incentive for black market suppliers and makes cartels rich
@Poptart
Is it legal to drink alcohol in front of kids? How many deaths has alcohol caused again? Wait what drug is present in roughly a third of child abuse cases? Oh yeah, that's alcohol, right. Funny how our culture does things isn't it?
To me your question is backwards. The question is not "Should it be legal for parents to get high in front of their young children," but rather, "Is a parent getting high in front of their young child reason enough for the State to punish them somehow?" Is it good for a child if daddy gets taken away because he was smoking in the living room? Is the removal of that particular influence worth the trauma of separation? We shouldn't view these things as "what ought to be legal". In the default state everything is legal. Everything is permissible. What we have to decide is the point at which intervention is justified. It's the job of the interveners to prove that their intervention is justified, not the job of the intervened to prove that they ought to be left alone.
Obviously this will depend greatly on the situation, the relative danger of the drug being consumed, the behaviour of the parent around the child in other aspects and other times, how the child appears individually to be responding to the situation, etc. I have had many near and dear friends who came from a background of abuse, and I have worked with kids from troubled backgrounds and I assure you that often our best intentions only result in making everything worse for the child. We should be very careful not to do too much for people "for their own good". Black and white laws are ungraceful things prone to harming those they're meant to protect - especially when it comes to drugs in the US I feel (reference how our law enforcement officers think finding a leaf is enough reason to murder someone).
Prohibition permanently (to this day!) and substantially reduced average alcohol consumption and changed public attitudes about alcohol. Simply calling it a "failure" is too one-dimensional a perspective. It was repealed; in that sense it was a failure. It reduced alcohol consumption; in that sense it was a success.Quote:
Originally Posted by aster
For an example of a society which has no prohibitions on drugs, look at China during/after the Opium Wars. Making opium legal and flooding the market with it destroyed China. The idea that making something illegal makes no difference re. its consumption simply isn't true, and I promise you that heroin being sold on every street corner would have devastating effects.
It's also the case that locking up everyone who takes drugs is also disastrous. If someone were suffering from frostbite you'd warm him up before wondering which body parts to chop off, because if you were to do it the other way around your problems would suddenly get a whole lot worse. In the same way it's necessary to control the source of drugs rather than imprison people who take them.
@AWellArmedCat Why don’t you visit a few meth shacks and then let me know if you think they’re a safe place to raise children.
@Poptart Of course they aren't. My point isn't that meth addicts make great parents. What I'm trying to say is that our current laws around this sort of thing make little sense, and we should be very careful to understand that all laws represent us giving the government permission to use violence to remedy a given situation. Whether or not a given law enforcement officer actually uses violence or not the threat is *always* implicit in the enforcement. A law against theft means that force by a law enforcement officer against a thief is permitted. That force may be channeled appropriately (non-lethally/proportionate to the offense) or inappropriately (they just shoot the poor guy), but in all cases it is force. I think we should grant permission to use such force in as few places as possible. I think the default state of human society ought to be that we agree not to use force on each other and exceptions to that need to be proven and considered long and hard before we grant them. Sorry if I came off a bit combative, but my issue with your statement was not that I disagree in essence with the use of certain drugs in front of children being reason enough to take action. I just get a little jumpy with how often "think of the children" gets used as an excuse to give the state authority over things it really shouldn't have authority over
:thinking: nah, just publicly execute them post trial and terrorize drug cartels. Prisons just allow them to run the business from the inside.Quote:
Originally Posted by lkdhf qkb
Shrooms are hella fun though.
ALL of them, and regulated so they are all safe, and recovery spas for addicts.
:thinking: how does one regulate me pooping and pissing inside a plastic bottle to them put a balloon on the bottle's mouth, leave it for 2 weeks for fermentation.. then huff the gases? This hallucinogenic inhalant made from fermented sewage is disgusting and can poison the body in ways too many to mention... considered a hard drug :D WTF ..Quote:
Originally Posted by inumbra
https://i.redd.it/gg33szuu3c861.png
Legalize everything. Focus on creating healthy individuals instead of controlling substances.
https://boards.420chan.org/jenk/src/1587314811490.gif
I didn't drink my morning coffee now I got a migraine....
:thinking: IF they surrender they will be given a single chance at rehabilitation, with job provided and opportunity to move on to better jobs or whatever they want to do that does not destroy the lives of others.. so they can feed their families. Otherwise extermination without mercy imo, to be taken into custody only if possible, deadly force authorized with priority to protect the lives of the special units meant to deal with them. They are to be hunted down and put to death like dogs. No half measures, salt the earth they stand on, poison the wells and burn everything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by lkdhf qkb
https://thumbs.gfycat.com/BreakableP...restricted.gif
Here is the deal tho. IF we legalize drugs, the old drug cartels can still try to undercut the competition and sell illegally like be4.. people will still buy the cheapest :shrug: solves nothing really. Its never going to be ideal & safe.
None
"Drugs" are forbidden as strongly harm the health (toxicity) and develop strong dependency in their common usage (doses, frequency). In other case they are not named as drugs and not forbidden.
There are other toxic substances which are forbidden in wide use. The sense is similar.
There is alcohol. But most people can limit themselves and get no significant harm. 30g spirit per day is relatively safe, to use in rare days more is not a problem too. Very most do not develop alcoholism, only a minority has such predisposition. For that minority (<5%) alcohol is "drug". While common drugs are "drugs" for most of people.
There was China example with opium in 19 century. It had significant social problems. It's what happens if do not restrict drugs.
If the aim is to make a harm to supress people minds, disorganise their social relations and harm the health, then sure - drugs should be allowed and falsely claimed as "safe" decent entertaining.
I'd add, that people which are seen as using illegal substances are good to get an enforced protection. Obligate medical threatment and regular control, as in other case they support drugs spreading and may harm own health significantly more. It's not done today, unlike was before in some places.
I'm suprised why are not forbidden ANY substances whith significant abbility to affect the mind and health, except those which get official resolution for appropriate usage. Today technology allows to make new drugs substances quickly and it's impossibly to check them and forbid before they are sold widely. If you are using suspicious substance and it will be confirmed as a "drug" - that should lead to same consequences as when you'd used known drug.
I'm also suprised why is not forbidden tobacco when it's shouted on every corner about its harm to health (in common usage) and hence being a drug.
And not forbidden alcohol having spirit more than 30g in a quantity what a human may take per a dinner. Let's say it 3 cups - 600 ml (~600 g), hence the highest alcohol should be 5%. I know not a single example when people had problems with alcohol - they lost jobs, harmed health, died being careless.
They forbid one drugs and allow other drugs. Just some lesser dangerous ones, but significantly dangerous anyway.
This is the best thread, we should have more threads like this.
My 2c on this is that it will still do damage to the cartel economy because many people would rather buy legally. Do you know many people who buy homemade moonshine, even if it's cheaper? I think it's kinda the same phenomenon here. People might still buy from the cartels though, but I suspect it would nonetheless seriously hurt their economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGF
:thinking: I brew my own moonshine and wine.. and liquor.. so does almost every dude here.. because its legal (I think). Well if the mayor does it, it has to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Ave
Alcohol is a hard drug. Change my mind. ;)
(All should be legal... Though not in the sense that you could stroll to the corner store and buy a bag of black tar - that seems silly and I don’t think anyone that agrees with universal legality is pushing for that either, unless I have some misconception. :p I also believe there should be safe spaces for IV users to shoot up with clean utensils and be watched for safety- which DOES exist in more developed countries)
(But then again, I live in a city that legally sells meth pipes in just about every corner store, I’m not sure how just straight up selling dope would do any further harm... No sane person is going to walk up to the counter and politely ask for hard drugs without ever doing any before unless they were already an addict [addiction begins before the drugs])
Yes... but you live in Eastern Europe (I am from there so take no offense :P). The whole region is pretty much the Alabama of Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGF
:lol: Yeah I agree! HAHAHA.. funny a lot of Szeklers (my people) here own Japanese trucks.Quote:
Originally Posted by flames
When folks here say "Its 100% natural moonshine! Better than the chemical store stuff!" I always feel a wide grin creeping across my face. Lmao, a drug is a drug.
>sips home made moonshine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cQNkIrg-Tk
I've been thinking, this might sound naive and possibly ignorant of how neurochemistry works but, if you can get highs and other states of mind from these drugs which, by some subjective measure, make for a temporarily beneficial experience that motivates users to go after them, and the problem is with how this is overshadowed by long-term health risks and behavioral side-effects, then as long as they aren't inherently part of the high itself, why don't we just solve this problem by producing better drugs that can give you the same high without doing all the bad stuff?
Since it's almost the future, I imagine we might get that as something like AI nanobots that give you highs through remote control activation while regulating your neurotransmitters and buildup of tolerance so that it doesn't break anything in you or stop being effective. I can see that as a breakthrough for the whole field of medicine. Sure, there might still be lots of potential for abuse, but it'll probably lead to the end of most drugs at least.
Only caffeine legal
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by LemurianLo
they should all be legal but the punishments for driving under influence and drug induced violence etc should be higher.
legal, we are over populated.
All or none. I'm done with half-measures on this issue. Either it's all punishable by summary execution or it's a thing you routinely grow in your own community garden. Either the Amsterdam or Duterte Model is the way to go. Either it's all legal (within reason, force injecting coke into someone ought still be a crime no matter what), or it's so illegal that you'd cap your own progeny if they get caught dealin'.
I'm actually down for either. Again, to hell with these half-measures that secure the worst of both worlds in either case. Binary Choice. Yes/No. Pick an option and stick to it damnit!
All of them should be legal.