4 ms·

As I posted further down in the comments: "I don't understand something. Why is a compromise not an option? Like safe spaces for such vices. State or city, or

As I posted further down in the comments: "I don't understand something. Why is a compromise not an option? Like safe spaces for such vices. State or city, or even privately owned venues with highly audited and regulated enviornments. Solid security, but also inviting enough to be an option for anyone. Revenue and taxes generated from them ofcourse benefits society, while also putting a damper on crime lords income that could possibly end up being used to fund worse activities such as human trafficking. Those who currently refuse to observe laws and still want that 'fix' have a legal option in a controlled enviornment. Reducing convictions to only those who do not utilize the safe space and put theirself and others at risk. They can cheaply and efficiently be monitored to know if they are well enough to be back in public. If not, sleep it off or have a verified driver pick them up. Consumption can be monitored possibly greatly reducing accidental overdoses. Increases availability which may lead to less 'its hard to get, I want it more' scenarios that strengthen addiction and habits. It may also help prevent people from getting in over their head by racking up debt with individuals who have no problem resorting to violence and sometimes also intentionally or unintentionaly hurting other innocent people. I truly cannot think of any 'Cons' to having such a system other than the possible general public's opinion that 'we have accepted defeat and decided to join them' pinning involved organizations and business as effectively drug dealers and just as bad. Let me summarize with an example: Gambling other than lottery is not permitted in my state as far as I know. If I want to gamble I have to hit the casinos 1-2 states over. Knowing I have such an exquisite option available if I decide to do so allows me to appreciate that. I've never stepped foot inside a casino, nor done any type of serious gambling, but if I ever did I would like for it to be in a nice, fair, and engaging enviornment like those available. Just as if I decided to take a trip on shrooms, or hit a line of cocaine just for the experience with friends. I'd rather be in a place that I can relax and know everyone involved is exponentially safer than doing so in the neighborhood crack house. I would love to hear others thoughts."

kefka 10y ago
Mainly from the US perspective, "It's an affront to God to allow such debauchery, so no one is allowed to, except for those dirty natives, that we had to allow because of the Constitution." I blame Christians, and their previous roots from the Puritans. I've seen enough other Christian-majority things shoved through as laws - it's no long stretch. And I come from the state that thinks, and funded, "electrocution to fix gayness". That was one of Mike Pence's doings in our state.
- jdironman 10y ago
  I politely dissagree. Puritan / christianity beliefs may have once been at the core of America's original founders visions but it has been a rather progressive 200+ years. We now can find and see things, rather common place at that, that a majority of the forefathers would be enraged over. I think while morality issues play the largest role in such a decision, it is in reality a 'technically' hard problem that we still feel we can 'fight'. (War on drugs since early 60's and seventies). The majority is not ready to admit defeat by accomodating, no matter what benefit.
atom_enger 10y ago
I like this idea better than any of the ideas I've come up with or have heard from others. I think this is something that could accompany full blown legalization, as a few people have pointed out(and I agree) that some drugs are more likely to have a person react outwardly(heroin, meth, pcp) as opposed to something like cannabis. Could you imagine being able to convince your great aunt who has back pain to head down to the local safe space to try out a small chunk of a cannabis brownie? You could rent a room with a tv and some movies/video games/board games and just let it ride out. Once she realizes how much she can take safely and how she feels on the drug, she can purchase some from the dispensary around the corner and confidently enjoy herself when she'd like to at home by herself. I'm not familiar with the effects of more serious drugs as I haven't had any interest in trying them but I imagine there are similar things you could do for a person who wanted to try them or who was addicted. I'm sure there's scientific and unscientific ways of calming someone who has lost touch with themselves on different substances. We could do so much for each other if we are to embrace the fact that humans have the propensity to ingest substances to directly impact our state of consciousness. Whether it's for fun or to escape, it's a reality of the human condition that we can't ignore for much longer. What we're doing in response to this behavior is extremely damaging to our world and our kind.
clmckinley 10y ago
I think this works for some of the softer things like the vast majority of drugs, but i don't know if i want there to be an easy way to get "clean"/untraceable weapons, chemical weapons or child porn. Even some of the harder drugs can have a significant negative impact on your life and society after a single use. Basically telling people they cannot have or do anything would create a black market and the associated problems. So assuming there is anything we want to regulate (which i think most people do) then we don't really solve the core problem, we just change it and potentially make it smaller or bigger. In terms of most drugs though i am 100% on board, especially if it goes along with treating addiction like other mental illnesses and provide help, instead of prison.

kefka 10y ago

Mainly from the US perspective, "It's an affront to God to allow such debauchery, so no one is allowed to, except for those dirty natives, that we had to allow because of the Constitution." I blame Christians, and their previous roots from the Puritans. I've seen enough other Christian-majority things shoved through as laws - it's no long stretch. And I come from the state that thinks, and funded, "electrocution to fix gayness". That was one of Mike Pence's doings in our state.

jdironman 10y ago
I politely dissagree. Puritan / christianity beliefs may have once been at the core of America's original founders visions but it has been a rather progressive 200+ years. We now can find and see things, rather common place at that, that a majority of the forefathers would be enraged over. I think while morality issues play the largest role in such a decision, it is in reality a 'technically' hard problem that we still feel we can 'fight'. (War on drugs since early 60's and seventies). The majority is not ready to admit defeat by accomodating, no matter what benefit.

atom_enger 10y ago

I like this idea better than any of the ideas I've come up with or have heard from others. I think this is something that could accompany full blown legalization, as a few people have pointed out(and I agree) that some drugs are more likely to have a person react outwardly(heroin, meth, pcp) as opposed to something like cannabis. Could you imagine being able to convince your great aunt who has back pain to head down to the local safe space to try out a small chunk of a cannabis brownie? You could rent a room with a tv and some movies/video games/board games and just let it ride out. Once she realizes how much she can take safely and how she feels on the drug, she can purchase some from the dispensary around the corner and confidently enjoy herself when she'd like to at home by herself. I'm not familiar with the effects of more serious drugs as I haven't had any interest in trying them but I imagine there are similar things you could do for a person who wanted to try them or who was addicted. I'm sure there's scientific and unscientific ways of calming someone who has lost touch with themselves on different substances. We could do so much for each other if we are to embrace the fact that humans have the propensity to ingest substances to directly impact our state of consciousness. Whether it's for fun or to escape, it's a reality of the human condition that we can't ignore for much longer. What we're doing in response to this behavior is extremely damaging to our world and our kind.

clmckinley 10y ago

I think this works for some of the softer things like the vast majority of drugs, but i don't know if i want there to be an easy way to get "clean"/untraceable weapons, chemical weapons or child porn. Even some of the harder drugs can have a significant negative impact on your life and society after a single use. Basically telling people they cannot have or do anything would create a black market and the associated problems. So assuming there is anything we want to regulate (which i think most people do) then we don't really solve the core problem, we just change it and potentially make it smaller or bigger. In terms of most drugs though i am 100% on board, especially if it goes along with treating addiction like other mental illnesses and provide help, instead of prison.