4 ms·

This is not a slippery slope. The only proper response to people who don't want drugs is: "Then don't do drugs"

by castis 8y ago

AlexB138 8y ago
That's not really the proper response, since it doesn't address their actual argument. People arguing against drug legalization don't want other people doing drugs. The argument against them is around personal freedom and an adult's right to do what they want with their own body. They'll generally respond with concerns about societal impact. Those concerns are, in my opinion, valid and are where discussions can be had to actually come to a resolution.
- _Schizotypy 8y ago
  Then maybe we should be concerned about the societal impact of alcohol. Oh, we already tried that? whoops
  - AlexB138 8y ago
    I'm not sure what your argument is. The "Oh, we already tried that? whoops" seems like you just wanted to say something snarky. We have plenty of laws in place around regulating the societal impact of alcohol. Minors can't drink, you can't drive under the influence, there's very strict limits on drinking in public in many places. These are all things in place to address societal concerns. Those boundaries are likely very different for a drug that detaches you from reality, and discussions around that are where concerns can be met and middle ground can be found.
    - _Schizotypy 8y ago
      I think you're delusional if you're under the impression that ethanol doesn't "detach you from reality" but yes, psychoactive substances should be made legal and controlled in a similar fashion where one would need to be of a certain age to legally purchase them. I don't understand how people think "oh well kids would just be high on meth all the time!" when that thought process in itself, is the one detached from reality.
      - AlexB138 8y ago
        You're arguing against points I'm not making, and equating the ability of alcohol and psychedelic drugs to detach you from reality is willful ignorance. This is the kind of argument that hurts the cause you're arguing in favor of.
        _Schizotypy 8y ago
        Tell me then at what dose an NMDA antagonist, of any variety you can choose, detaches one from reality? I'd love to hear your take on the effect of anti-glutamatergics on consciousness.
YetAnotherNick 8y ago
Are you fine if depressed/lonely/traumatized people are being targeted with highly addictive drugs that could kill them? You can say that it's their choice but you need right mind for the choice. Are you fine if your child has easy access to drugs and it being 'cool' to have drugs?
- eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
  Seriously? That already is happening. Look at the opioid crisis and fentanyl. This is about not taking a clear public HEALTH issue into a criminal justice one. Why do so many Americans think we can jail or kill our way out of every single problem?
  - YetAnotherNick 8y ago
    Yes I specifically told the things that is currently happening and I am not fine with it. I am not saying that mushrooms should be banned, just saying I criticize legalizing everything just because you have choice to not do drugs.
    - eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
      Do you support the return of prohibition of alcohol, then, but keeping it "decriminalized"? I think a lot of this fear that legalizing drugs will lead to a bunch of non-drug users suddenly becoming drug addicts is simply hysteria. People use illegal drugs to self-medicate some other problem; healthy people are not suddenly going to want to be crack users. A lot of the hysteria in Colorado prior to marijuana legalization was that youth consumption rates would increase. The opposite happened: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/11/following-marijuana-legalization-teen-drug-use-is-down-in-colorado/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/11/follo...
- tiles 8y ago
  OxyContin is an example of targeting vulnerable with highly addictive drugs that can kill you. Corporations are far more effective at this than a local mushroom dealer.

This is not a slippery slope. The only proper response to people who don't want drugs is: "Then don't do drugs"

by castis 8y ago

This is not a slippery slope. The only proper response to people who don't want drugs is: "Then don't do drugs"

That's not really the proper response, since it doesn't address their actual argument. People arguing against drug legalization don't want other people doing drugs. The argument against them is around personal freedom and an adult's right to do what they want with their own body. They'll generally respond with concerns about societal impact. Those concerns are, in my opinion, valid and are where discussions can be had to actually come to a resolution.

_Schizotypy 8y ago
Then maybe we should be concerned about the societal impact of alcohol. Oh, we already tried that? whoops
- AlexB138 8y ago
  I'm not sure what your argument is. The "Oh, we already tried that? whoops" seems like you just wanted to say something snarky. We have plenty of laws in place around regulating the societal impact of alcohol. Minors can't drink, you can't drive under the influence, there's very strict limits on drinking in public in many places. These are all things in place to address societal concerns. Those boundaries are likely very different for a drug that detaches you from reality, and discussions around that are where concerns can be met and middle ground can be found.
  - _Schizotypy 8y ago
    I think you're delusional if you're under the impression that ethanol doesn't "detach you from reality" but yes, psychoactive substances should be made legal and controlled in a similar fashion where one would need to be of a certain age to legally purchase them. I don't understand how people think "oh well kids would just be high on meth all the time!" when that thought process in itself, is the one detached from reality.
    - AlexB138 8y ago
      You're arguing against points I'm not making, and equating the ability of alcohol and psychedelic drugs to detach you from reality is willful ignorance. This is the kind of argument that hurts the cause you're arguing in favor of.
      - _Schizotypy 8y ago
        Tell me then at what dose an NMDA antagonist, of any variety you can choose, detaches one from reality? I'd love to hear your take on the effect of anti-glutamatergics on consciousness.

YetAnotherNick 8y ago

Are you fine if depressed/lonely/traumatized people are being targeted with highly addictive drugs that could kill them? You can say that it's their choice but you need right mind for the choice. Are you fine if your child has easy access to drugs and it being 'cool' to have drugs?

eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
Seriously? That already is happening. Look at the opioid crisis and fentanyl. This is about not taking a clear public HEALTH issue into a criminal justice one. Why do so many Americans think we can jail or kill our way out of every single problem?
- YetAnotherNick 8y ago
  Yes I specifically told the things that is currently happening and I am not fine with it. I am not saying that mushrooms should be banned, just saying I criticize legalizing everything just because you have choice to not do drugs.
  - eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
    Do you support the return of prohibition of alcohol, then, but keeping it "decriminalized"? I think a lot of this fear that legalizing drugs will lead to a bunch of non-drug users suddenly becoming drug addicts is simply hysteria. People use illegal drugs to self-medicate some other problem; healthy people are not suddenly going to want to be crack users. A lot of the hysteria in Colorado prior to marijuana legalization was that youth consumption rates would increase. The opposite happened: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/11/following-marijuana-legalization-teen-drug-use-is-down-in-colorado/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/11/follo...
tiles 8y ago
OxyContin is an example of targeting vulnerable with highly addictive drugs that can kill you. Corporations are far more effective at this than a local mushroom dealer.