3 ms·
The idea that the government should regulate what I choose to put in my own body is preposterous to begin with. The abolishment of the FDA seems like a pretty
by pharrington 16y ago
The idea that the government should regulate what I choose to put in my own body is preposterous to begin with.
The abolishment of the FDA seems like a pretty drastic measure by any standard.
However effective drug legislation really -is not about this at all-. As you alluded to in your second point, it should be part of the broader system of minimizing the damage to society. Drugs are harmful -to society- when the criminal element is the sole distributor, when quality and dosages are completely uncontrollable, and price and availability of the addictive ish are unpredictable. Thus it seems the only way to quell the social damage of drug use of for the government to not only decriminalize everything, but to also ensure drugs are given away by community centers with specialized staff.
- Zak 16y agoit should be part of the broader system of minimizing the damage to society That's certainly one thing it should be about. Whether it is appropriate for the government to decide what substances people are permitted to introduce in to their own bodies is an important question though. Thus it seems the only way to quell the social damage of drug use of for the government to not only decriminalize everything, but to also ensure drugs are given away by community centers with specialized staff. Alcohol was pretty unsafe during prohibition, often containing methanol, a toxin which can blind or kill. Legalizing it meant that anyone producing and selling impure, mislabeled or adulterated alcohol could be sued or jailed. The same could be done with other drugs.
- d2viant 16y agoIt's a good point you make about alcohol, but I think the difference is that the "pure/regulated" alcoholic being sold can be consumed in a safe manner without any physical harm. I don't think a "pure" version of hardcore drugs are safe under any scenario. It's not simply a matter of them being laced with something that makes them dangerous.
- idm 16y ago> alcoholic being sold can be consumed in a safe manner without any physical harm > I don't think a "pure" version of hardcore drugs are safe under any scenario. One of these statements is wrong, and one is right. Which is which?
- pyre 16y agoActually a lot of drugs can be full of other toxic substances that are cheaper than the drug itself. One that you tend to hear a lot about is Ecstasy. I don't know how common it is, but I remember hearing that sometimes it could be full of stuff like rat poison, so if you wanted to score some you wanted to have a dealer you trusted, not just some random guy at a rave.
- d2viant 16y agoCompletely agree, but my point is that even if you score it from a trusted dealer -- the so-called "pure" ecstasy you're getting is still dangerous to your body and mental state, even in the absence of additives.
- Zak 16y agoMDMA does have known harmful effects. So does ethanol, and from what I can tell, ethanol is more dangerous. What would be your argument for maintaining a ban on MDMA and not banning ethanol[0], or do you believe ethanol should be banned as well? [0] For human consumption
- pmichaud 16y agoMDMA is not harmful by any reasonable definition. It's possible for overuse to cause problems, it's possible for certain people with specific preexisting conditions to have problems. That's true for asprin as well. You can't OD on MDMA. You can OD on water.
- mike_esspe 16y agoOne reverse example. LSD is mostly safe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysergic_acid_diethylamide#Possible_risks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysergic_acid_diethylamide#Poss... Alcohol is mostly toxic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_alcohol#Alcohol-related_deaths http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_alcohol#Al...