5 ms·

> This is pretty basic privacy and body autonomy rights. There are more than one party involved here. You think plain heroin is toxic, wait until you see the

> This is pretty basic privacy and body autonomy rights. There are more than one party involved here. You think plain heroin is toxic, wait until you see the engineered drugs that are created by big pharma in comparison. Do you think I should be able to purchase any drug, re-engineer it myself and consume it? I'm not selling it... Say I'm not even a scientist, I don't know the dangers of what I'm doing, should I be allowed to have access to those chemicals just because they exist?

int_19h 9y ago
> There are more than one party involved here. There is only one party involved in possession and use, by definition of those terms. > you think I should be able to purchase any drug, re-engineer it myself and consume it? I'm not selling it... Purchase - depends on the drug. Prohibiting trafficking in some items is outside of the scope of my comment, and I can see some cases where it might be warranted. But if you somehow obtained some drug, and decided to tweak it and consume it? Sure, you should be able to. Most certainly, if you do it and survive, we shouldn't lock you up because you might have hurt yourself - that's evidently pointless.
- tertius 9y ago
  We agree mostly. I don't think that the public should be able to get a device which they can, using rudimentary skills, turn into a proverbial nuclear weapon. I.e. buy cheap drug, make it better, die. > There is only one party involved in possession and use, by definition of those terms. I cannot possess something that I did not manufacture myself if I did not procure it from someone who did. They are a party. My point is that there are parties who engineer for profit without limits. Though I agree with you on possession/use and prison sentences. It doesn't solve a problem worth solving. > Prohibiting trafficking in some items is outside of the scope of my comment Hurrah, I believe we agree good sir.
  - int_19h 9y ago
    > I cannot possess something that I did not manufacture myself if I did not procure it from someone who did. You can, e.g. by taking possession inadvertently. But setting that aside, I suppose I could clarify it to possession/use/procurement - but excluding distribution. So, buying something like that shouldn't be illegal, but selling it might be (and the buyer could be subpoenaed to testify etc). In any case, the distinction is clearly important from legal perspective - it's why our drug laws (and gun laws etc) all talk about possession and transfer separately.

int_19h 9y ago

> There are more than one party involved here. There is only one party involved in possession and use, by definition of those terms. > you think I should be able to purchase any drug, re-engineer it myself and consume it? I'm not selling it... Purchase - depends on the drug. Prohibiting trafficking in some items is outside of the scope of my comment, and I can see some cases where it might be warranted. But if you somehow obtained some drug, and decided to tweak it and consume it? Sure, you should be able to. Most certainly, if you do it and survive, we shouldn't lock you up because you might have hurt yourself - that's evidently pointless.

tertius 9y ago
We agree mostly. I don't think that the public should be able to get a device which they can, using rudimentary skills, turn into a proverbial nuclear weapon. I.e. buy cheap drug, make it better, die. > There is only one party involved in possession and use, by definition of those terms. I cannot possess something that I did not manufacture myself if I did not procure it from someone who did. They are a party. My point is that there are parties who engineer for profit without limits. Though I agree with you on possession/use and prison sentences. It doesn't solve a problem worth solving. > Prohibiting trafficking in some items is outside of the scope of my comment Hurrah, I believe we agree good sir.
- int_19h 9y ago
  > I cannot possess something that I did not manufacture myself if I did not procure it from someone who did. You can, e.g. by taking possession inadvertently. But setting that aside, I suppose I could clarify it to possession/use/procurement - but excluding distribution. So, buying something like that shouldn't be illegal, but selling it might be (and the buyer could be subpoenaed to testify etc). In any case, the distinction is clearly important from legal perspective - it's why our drug laws (and gun laws etc) all talk about possession and transfer separately.