5 ms·

Besides all of the stated reasons to legalize/decriminalize, I think just as important is personal liberty. I should be free to experiment with my own consciou

Besides all of the stated reasons to legalize/decriminalize, I think just as important is personal liberty. I should be free to experiment with my own consciousness (so long as it does not impede on the rights of others) - how much more personal can you get? For the government to impede on this is unconscionable (pun intended).

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
This is not happening in a vacuum. There's already problems with experimentation causing considerable public expense, exposure to danger and needless suffering. Anybody can give you an anecdote - I will resist posting mine since they are a dime a dozen.
- alsetmusic 11y ago
  > Anybody can give you an anecdote - I will resist posting mine since they are a dime a dozen. Links to reputable studies backing this up would be welcome.
- sixQuarks 11y ago
  You can say that about anything. Should the government stop people from eating junk food? from participating in dangerous sports activities? Why are drugs different?
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    Because, car accidents, child neglect, spouse abuse, healthcare, time lost to work... Some of those other things are regulated as well. E.g. You can't rappel in many state parks, because idiots kept getting hurt and costing the state $$$ in rescue attempts to remote locations. Its not all cruel government heedlessly restricting rights. That's an immature viewpoint. Count the cost and see that nothing is free.
    - sixQuarks 11y ago
      So that means you ARE for prohibition of alcohol. Read your last sentence: count the cost and see that nothing is free. Do you think prohibition of alcohol had no costs? Same thing with drugs - which the article pointed out. The cost of keeping it illegal far outweighs the potential costs resulting from irresponsible users (which we still pay for even when it is illegal)
      - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        Alcohol is regulated in almost every state in the US. Because its dangerous.
    - lm______ 11y ago
      Show me any evidence that taking a drug causes a person to beat their spouse or neglect their child. And, for anyone who would drive intoxicated or cripple their health via drug abuse, that is already easy to do -- drugs aren't hard to find if you're looking. Prohibition hasn't and will not stop any of the negative consequences of drug use.
    - pstuart 11y ago
      Count the cost of prohibition and do the math. It's cheaper to not spend billions of dollars on prisons and courts then to treat drug abuse like the health issue that it is. Perhaps the police need to come and kick down your door and throw you in prison to keep you from drinking any more alcohol. You know, for your own good and to protect society.
      - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        They'd have the wrong house :) I don't drink.
        pstuart 11y ago
        Well that would be too bad, because it's happening today over drugs. Mistakes happen, and if it's to protect citizens from hurting themselves then it's all for good, right? Meanwhile people are dying all over the world due to the Drug War but you can feel smug and secure knowing that you are above it all.
  - bredren 11y ago
    This sub-thread seems to be begging for an anecdote. https://www.reddit.com/r/oakland/comments/3pf0xk/machete_wielding_lunatic_at_37th_and/ https://www.reddit.com/r/oakland/comments/3pf0xk/machete_wie...
- pstuart 11y ago
  The war on drugs has never been about public safety - it's been about control on minorities. This is well documented. Do drugs have risks? Of course. But as pointed out elsewhere, so does everything else. It's also very clear that any ostensible benefit from prohibition is easily outweighed by the crime and suffering caused by it.
lighthawk 11y ago
> so long as it does not impede on the rights of others This is really the crux of the problem. How do you suggest that you legalize all drugs and then keep people on those drugs from harming others? Public safety has a hard enough time without having to deal with some unknown number of additional people that would try drugs are harm themselves or others if those drugs were legal.
- sixQuarks 11y ago
  No, the crux of the problem is your line of thinking. The government cannot and should not replace personal responsibility. Your argument would mean that no one could drive a car or drink alcohol. Why are drugs different?
  - jamespo 11y ago
    drugs aren't different to alcohol, but I'm sure you can appreciate they are different to cars
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      Temporarily and in places without great public transport. Once automated cars become common place, the argument will hold for choosing to manually drive. That being said, I've seen a lot of people who think it will eventually become illegal to manually drive, at least on crowded public roads within large cities.
- werber 11y ago
  >How do you suggest that you legalize all drugs and then keep people on those drugs from harming others? The bulk of the societal harm that comes from drug use is in the steps people take to get drugs, not from the actual drug use. Having adverse reactions to drugs can be mitigated by actually knowing what you're taking. And removing the stigma and taking on addiction as a public health issue and not a criminal one is a huge boost to community safety.
- clavalle 11y ago

JoeAltmaier 11y ago

This is not happening in a vacuum. There's already problems with experimentation causing considerable public expense, exposure to danger and needless suffering. Anybody can give you an anecdote - I will resist posting mine since they are a dime a dozen.

alsetmusic 11y ago
> Anybody can give you an anecdote - I will resist posting mine since they are a dime a dozen. Links to reputable studies backing this up would be welcome.
sixQuarks 11y ago
You can say that about anything. Should the government stop people from eating junk food? from participating in dangerous sports activities? Why are drugs different?
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  Because, car accidents, child neglect, spouse abuse, healthcare, time lost to work... Some of those other things are regulated as well. E.g. You can't rappel in many state parks, because idiots kept getting hurt and costing the state $$$ in rescue attempts to remote locations. Its not all cruel government heedlessly restricting rights. That's an immature viewpoint. Count the cost and see that nothing is free.
  - sixQuarks 11y ago
    So that means you ARE for prohibition of alcohol. Read your last sentence: count the cost and see that nothing is free. Do you think prohibition of alcohol had no costs? Same thing with drugs - which the article pointed out. The cost of keeping it illegal far outweighs the potential costs resulting from irresponsible users (which we still pay for even when it is illegal)
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      Alcohol is regulated in almost every state in the US. Because its dangerous.
  - lm______ 11y ago
    Show me any evidence that taking a drug causes a person to beat their spouse or neglect their child. And, for anyone who would drive intoxicated or cripple their health via drug abuse, that is already easy to do -- drugs aren't hard to find if you're looking. Prohibition hasn't and will not stop any of the negative consequences of drug use.
  - pstuart 11y ago
    Count the cost of prohibition and do the math. It's cheaper to not spend billions of dollars on prisons and courts then to treat drug abuse like the health issue that it is. Perhaps the police need to come and kick down your door and throw you in prison to keep you from drinking any more alcohol. You know, for your own good and to protect society.
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      They'd have the wrong house :) I don't drink.
      - pstuart 11y ago
        Well that would be too bad, because it's happening today over drugs. Mistakes happen, and if it's to protect citizens from hurting themselves then it's all for good, right? Meanwhile people are dying all over the world due to the Drug War but you can feel smug and secure knowing that you are above it all.
- bredren 11y ago
  This sub-thread seems to be begging for an anecdote. https://www.reddit.com/r/oakland/comments/3pf0xk/machete_wielding_lunatic_at_37th_and/ https://www.reddit.com/r/oakland/comments/3pf0xk/machete_wie...
pstuart 11y ago
The war on drugs has never been about public safety - it's been about control on minorities. This is well documented. Do drugs have risks? Of course. But as pointed out elsewhere, so does everything else. It's also very clear that any ostensible benefit from prohibition is easily outweighed by the crime and suffering caused by it.

lighthawk 11y ago

> so long as it does not impede on the rights of others This is really the crux of the problem. How do you suggest that you legalize all drugs and then keep people on those drugs from harming others? Public safety has a hard enough time without having to deal with some unknown number of additional people that would try drugs are harm themselves or others if those drugs were legal.

sixQuarks 11y ago
No, the crux of the problem is your line of thinking. The government cannot and should not replace personal responsibility. Your argument would mean that no one could drive a car or drink alcohol. Why are drugs different?
- jamespo 11y ago
  drugs aren't different to alcohol, but I'm sure you can appreciate they are different to cars
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    Temporarily and in places without great public transport. Once automated cars become common place, the argument will hold for choosing to manually drive. That being said, I've seen a lot of people who think it will eventually become illegal to manually drive, at least on crowded public roads within large cities.
werber 11y ago
>How do you suggest that you legalize all drugs and then keep people on those drugs from harming others? The bulk of the societal harm that comes from drug use is in the steps people take to get drugs, not from the actual drug use. Having adverse reactions to drugs can be mitigated by actually knowing what you're taking. And removing the stigma and taking on addiction as a public health issue and not a criminal one is a huge boost to community safety.
clavalle 11y ago