5 ms·

Yeah you're right. Just because I would never touch crystal meth doesn't mean I should therefore stand in the way of people using cannabis recreationally (or ev

by yomly 6y ago

Yeah you're right. Just because I would never touch crystal meth doesn't mean I should therefore stand in the way of people using cannabis recreationally (or even medically). So yeah I guess it comes back to education rather than prohibition...

richthegeek 6y ago
But it is something like a person selling both weed and meth next to each other, without any communication or acknowledgement that one is significantly more likely to cause harm.
- vladvasiliu 6y ago
  Maybe. I propose that it's a question of context. If pot were legal, maybe people would be happy to get high on that at stop there. I think there are two issues at play, both going in the same direction. 1. If buying pot is going to carry the same risk as buying meth, and I can get higher for the same quantity of meth (I assume meth is more potent per unit of volume) it would make some sense for me to try to get meth, or at the very least to be interested when someone offers, especially if I'm not 100% sure when I'll be able to buy more pot. 2. There is also a question of trust. If the government says pot is as bad as meth (both schedule 1, I hear about big police operations taking down pot dealers, etc) they I might believe them. After all, what do I know? I just want to get high. So when I get to try some pot, see that I like it, see many people smoking pot without much harm, I figure I might as well try some meth. Especially given point 1 above.
dpwm 6y ago
Part of the problem is that the education is left to less reputable corners of the web. There is quite a lot of anecdotal evidence of the damage that can be done by abuse of internet porn. I could add to that. But we have those with credentials who have made a good career out of attacking the very notion that porn can be harmful or can be abused. I'm not saying it's shilling, it could just be success by contrarianism, but it's still rather invalidating. If you are in a position where you think porn is doing you harm, it probably is. But one of the first things you find if you go down that path is that information tends to be on the extremes.
ch4s3 6y ago
I would challenge even this framing. Amphetamines were widely used and abused between the 1940s and 1960s without social stigma. They are for sure a problematic class of chemicals, but I think the perception that they are uniquely dangerous is tied up in their present association with societal out groups, classism, and disdain for the rural poor, whereas cannabis has become accepted among the upper class. You could make some arguments about relative health effects, but those just as easily apply to alcohol which we readily accept and consume in polite company.
- michaelt 6y ago
  In addition to classism, one of the consequences of the war on drugs is there's not much trustworthy data on drugs' relative impact. Nobody wants to teach high schoolers there are any safe drugs. So I know people who smoke and drink without obviously destroying their lives. But if you asked me to rank those alongside meth, cocaine and chainsaw juggling for danger I've got nothing but guesswork.
- frazbin 6y ago
  OK I'm gonna challenge you on that. Amphetamine causes (even at low and occasional doses) insomnia, mania, extreme loss of appetite. When used for longer periods, it can cause disordered thinking, delusions, paranoia, invasion of Russia..
  - ch4s3 6y ago
    We already does millions of people in America at least with Adderall which is an amphetamines not molecularly very different from Methamphetamine. It turns out to be mostly safe for most people, whether it good for you or me to use is a different question. Also linking amphetamines to Nazis in order to demonize users is just ridiculous.
- nsxwolf 6y ago
  My mother has had dental problems her whole life because of the 1950s fad of putting little kids on meth to lose weight.

by yomly 6y ago

richthegeek 6y ago

But it is something like a person selling both weed and meth next to each other, without any communication or acknowledgement that one is significantly more likely to cause harm.

vladvasiliu 6y ago
Maybe. I propose that it's a question of context. If pot were legal, maybe people would be happy to get high on that at stop there. I think there are two issues at play, both going in the same direction. 1. If buying pot is going to carry the same risk as buying meth, and I can get higher for the same quantity of meth (I assume meth is more potent per unit of volume) it would make some sense for me to try to get meth, or at the very least to be interested when someone offers, especially if I'm not 100% sure when I'll be able to buy more pot. 2. There is also a question of trust. If the government says pot is as bad as meth (both schedule 1, I hear about big police operations taking down pot dealers, etc) they I might believe them. After all, what do I know? I just want to get high. So when I get to try some pot, see that I like it, see many people smoking pot without much harm, I figure I might as well try some meth. Especially given point 1 above.

dpwm 6y ago

Part of the problem is that the education is left to less reputable corners of the web. There is quite a lot of anecdotal evidence of the damage that can be done by abuse of internet porn. I could add to that. But we have those with credentials who have made a good career out of attacking the very notion that porn can be harmful or can be abused. I'm not saying it's shilling, it could just be success by contrarianism, but it's still rather invalidating. If you are in a position where you think porn is doing you harm, it probably is. But one of the first things you find if you go down that path is that information tends to be on the extremes.

ch4s3 6y ago

I would challenge even this framing. Amphetamines were widely used and abused between the 1940s and 1960s without social stigma. They are for sure a problematic class of chemicals, but I think the perception that they are uniquely dangerous is tied up in their present association with societal out groups, classism, and disdain for the rural poor, whereas cannabis has become accepted among the upper class. You could make some arguments about relative health effects, but those just as easily apply to alcohol which we readily accept and consume in polite company.

michaelt 6y ago
In addition to classism, one of the consequences of the war on drugs is there's not much trustworthy data on drugs' relative impact. Nobody wants to teach high schoolers there are any safe drugs. So I know people who smoke and drink without obviously destroying their lives. But if you asked me to rank those alongside meth, cocaine and chainsaw juggling for danger I've got nothing but guesswork.
frazbin 6y ago
OK I'm gonna challenge you on that. Amphetamine causes (even at low and occasional doses) insomnia, mania, extreme loss of appetite. When used for longer periods, it can cause disordered thinking, delusions, paranoia, invasion of Russia..
- ch4s3 6y ago
  We already does millions of people in America at least with Adderall which is an amphetamines not molecularly very different from Methamphetamine. It turns out to be mostly safe for most people, whether it good for you or me to use is a different question. Also linking amphetamines to Nazis in order to demonize users is just ridiculous.
nsxwolf 6y ago
My mother has had dental problems her whole life because of the 1950s fad of putting little kids on meth to lose weight.