5 ms·
> In short: I'm the most vanilla, square, anti-drug person you can find. I don't want to use them, and I think other people would be better off if they reduced
by hawkice 11y ago
> In short: I'm the most vanilla, square, anti-drug person you can find. I don't want to use them, and I think other people would be better off if they reduced their usage as well.
You say you don't understand why drugs are illegal. I think this is your core misunderstanding.
You are not the most anti-drug person I can find. I've never used alcohol or cigarettes (I didn't even use painkillers when my four wisdom teeth were taken out), and spent the majority of my life admonishing the use of caffeine.
I am not even anti-drug compared to most Americans. A substantial portion of America believes that using drugs (illegal drugs only, of course) is _morally wrong_. That is why they have favored sending people to prison instead of rehab. Because it is a violation of the social contract they favor to be under the influence of such substances, and that by using them you are no longer able to execute your duties as a citizen. And you aren't. I don't want you high on meth when you vote. I don't want you high on pot when you drive. I don't want you coming down from heroin when you serve on a jury. Those actions have consequences, all actions as a citizen do, because we cannot isolate from each other. Breaking those commitments _could be_ considered morally wrong, and not just from puritans or fundamentalists.
- md224 11y agoInteresting view. What I find problematic is equating drug use with being "high." Sure, you can use enough of a drug that it impairs you, but you can also use less than that. Some may refer to this as "microdosing" but I think this gets it backwards. If anything, drugs are useful tools that can also be "macrodosed" by those wishing to experience extreme effects. I would like to live in a world where all drugs are legal and people can use them to enrich their lives, not just escape from them.
- pc86 11y agoI'm curious what life-enriching experience you can have with "a little bit" of heroin or meth.
- rwmj 11y agoA "little bit" of heroin is good for pain control. It is prescribed as such to pregnant women giving birth in the UK (it's called "diamorphine" but it's chemically the same). Amphetamines are prescribed in the army to keep soldiers and pilots awake.
- neverknowsbest 11y agoAmphetamines are also the basis of most ADD medications. ... I think OP was using those examples because they're the stereotypical horror story drugs, but their analogues are everywhere.
- sgift 11y agoLack of horrible pain, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxycodone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxycodone which is in the same category as Heroin.
- hawkice 11y agoI didn't equate them. Saying "I don't think people should drive drunk" doesn't mean I want the legal limit blood alcohol level reduced to epsilon.
- hutzlibu 11y agoWhat I find problematic, is equating the word "high" with "wasted" ... High ... in a higher state of mind. But of course, there is a connection, because people tend to force that high so much, that they just do too much ... and also forgetting that you can't be "high" forever. What goes up, usually comes down. (just being pedantic, in general I agree with you)
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- pc86 11y agoI promise you that if you spent any time "admonishing the use of caffeine" you are more anti-drug than the vast majority of Americans. And being under the influence of marijuana while operating a vehicle is illegal everywhere, even where it is a legal substance. DUI is not limited to alcohol.
- hawkice 11y agoYou confuse my meaning. I am against my own personal use of drugs, but would (with some caveats) support the legalization of all substances in any quantity, particularly prescription medications. EDIT: my position, which would typically be described as extremely pro-drug, is largely due to my discomfort in treating medical personnel as de facto agents of the government on drug policy without requiring medical experts judge at trial for drug crimes like they do for malpractice proceedings. Essentially you have the people who decide what drug use is legal and illegal having no competent oversight -- we are in a nation with functionally no drug laws to the influential or wealthy enough to locate a doctor amenable to their suggestions, so why not at least offer everyone the same freedom until a more coherent policy is found?