2 ms·

"Is there anyone who is completely drug free who supports total legalization? " Weed is decriminalized to the point that it allmost does not matter. And this i

"Is there anyone who is completely drug free who supports total legalization? " Weed is decriminalized to the point that it allmost does not matter. And this is the only drug I do occasionally. (and not at all since some time) And I do support total legalization. Out of the philosophical point of view, that adult people should own their own body and life. And what I do with my body, is my buisness and not anyone else. How can I think of myself as free, when other people regulate what I am allowed to consume? And from movies, literature and some people in real life, I know what coke and heroin does to people, so I have no intentions of consuming them. Same with alcohol btw. But if other people think its beneficial to them - I would try to convince of the big risks not worth the effort. But ultimately I would (and did) it accept as their choice. Even if that means they destroy their life. It is their life, after all. This usually does mean tragedy, I am painfully aware of that - but with the criminalization it means even bigger tragedy.

Geminidog 6y ago
I don't think it's that simple. It's like the freedom to flaunt not wearing a face mask. Your freedom can actually hurt you and society in general. China for example a country without as many freedoms has handled covid way better then the US do in no part to less freedoms. Additionally specifically for the drug thing we already draw lines in legality even for people like you who promote total freedom. Should a 5 year old be allowed to sniff coke and shoot up on heroin just for his freedom? Well he's a kid... and doesn't know any better so he needs to be controlled. Does that same logic apply to adults who don't know any better who walk around without masks? Where is the line drawn? Why do kids have to be restricted but not adults that don't know any better, what affords the child the "privilege" of more restriction? If you legalize heroin and coke you are definitely going to reduce drug related violence and the lacing drugs with impurities but you will increase the amount of addicts and regular users including users who start using at childhood.
- hutzlibu 6y ago
  "Why do kids have to be restricted but not adults " Maturity. But I also want to restrict children as little as possible, so they can learn to deal with freedom and self responsibility as soon as possible. Up to the point, that they fully take responsibility over their body and life. I don't think that this automatically happens at 18 or 21. Some are ready at 14. Some never will. "but you will increase the amount of addicts and regular users including users who start using at childhood. " And this is not a fact and not covered by statistics of ares that did legalisation/decriminalisation. Because avaiability is very high today already with the illegal status. Take away the temptation of the taboo for rebelling teens and you get even lower numbers. And you can more easily help those who still fall for it.
  - Geminidog 6y ago
    >Maturity. But I also want to restrict children as little as possible, so they can learn to deal with freedom and self responsibility as soon as possible. See maturity is a vague term this is where the controversy lies because adults can be immature too. What is the logic that gives immature kids this "privilege" over an immature adult. >Because avaiability is very high today already with the illegal status. Take away the temptation of the taboo for rebelling teens and you get even lower numbers. And you can more easily help those who still fall for it. This is not a fact either. In fact it's very convoluted logic. Something that is illegal is used more over something that is legal because of rebellion? It's so against common sense. I decriminalize murder, murder goes down. I decriminalize theft, theft goes down. I decriminalize corruption, corruption goes down. None of those statements make sense. But suddenly this one does: I decriminalize drugs, drug use goes down. Seems not just illogical but delusional. A convenient excuse to promote a personal agenda.
    - hutzlibu 6y ago
      "See maturity is a vague term this is where the controversy lies because adults can be immature too" It is, but it is still legally clearly defined who is consent and who is not, because of insanity etc. (the problems of this process is a seperate issue) "This is not a fact either. " It is a fact that usage went down with decriminalisation. The other part was a explanation. You are free to disagree with that explanation and offer your own. And the other part: murder and theft is directly hurting others. Drug taking is at most directly hurting yourself. But feel free to discuss your personal agenda of war on drugs with someone else.
      - Geminidog 6y ago
        >It is a fact that usage went down with decriminalisation. Saying something doesn't make it a fact. You need to cite a source. >It is, but it is still legally clearly defined who is consent and who is not, because of insanity etc. (the problems of this process is a seperate issue) Durr. No. It's not clear. Many countries have legal definitions of adult but many countries also have treatment and government rehabilitation plans in place for adults who act "immature" this includes crime and drug use. It is not clear at what age range does a human suddenly deserve zero treatment and enforcement. >But feel free to discuss your personal agenda of war on drugs with someone else. Likely your personal clarity comes from the fact that you're a drug user yourself. You have a personal agenda. I have no agenda. If you want to shoot yourself with heroin and make it legal I honestly can care less. But what I came here to discuss is whether decriminalization is an effective deterrent or not. I may think it's right or wrong to implement something but I personally don't care whether it's implemented in actuality because it doesn't effect me personally at all. I am possibly the most unbiased person here because I have no foot in the game. If you don't have a personal agenda then I'm wrong. But tell me, do you use drugs yourself? Likely you do... >Drug taking is at most directly hurting yourself. This is my entire argument. We protect kids from hurting themselves because they are immature. The question is why can't we protect adults from hurting themselves because they are immature. That is the controversy.

Geminidog 6y ago

I don't think it's that simple. It's like the freedom to flaunt not wearing a face mask. Your freedom can actually hurt you and society in general. China for example a country without as many freedoms has handled covid way better then the US do in no part to less freedoms. Additionally specifically for the drug thing we already draw lines in legality even for people like you who promote total freedom. Should a 5 year old be allowed to sniff coke and shoot up on heroin just for his freedom? Well he's a kid... and doesn't know any better so he needs to be controlled. Does that same logic apply to adults who don't know any better who walk around without masks? Where is the line drawn? Why do kids have to be restricted but not adults that don't know any better, what affords the child the "privilege" of more restriction? If you legalize heroin and coke you are definitely going to reduce drug related violence and the lacing drugs with impurities but you will increase the amount of addicts and regular users including users who start using at childhood.

hutzlibu 6y ago
"Why do kids have to be restricted but not adults " Maturity. But I also want to restrict children as little as possible, so they can learn to deal with freedom and self responsibility as soon as possible. Up to the point, that they fully take responsibility over their body and life. I don't think that this automatically happens at 18 or 21. Some are ready at 14. Some never will. "but you will increase the amount of addicts and regular users including users who start using at childhood. " And this is not a fact and not covered by statistics of ares that did legalisation/decriminalisation. Because avaiability is very high today already with the illegal status. Take away the temptation of the taboo for rebelling teens and you get even lower numbers. And you can more easily help those who still fall for it.
- Geminidog 6y ago
  >Maturity. But I also want to restrict children as little as possible, so they can learn to deal with freedom and self responsibility as soon as possible. See maturity is a vague term this is where the controversy lies because adults can be immature too. What is the logic that gives immature kids this "privilege" over an immature adult. >Because avaiability is very high today already with the illegal status. Take away the temptation of the taboo for rebelling teens and you get even lower numbers. And you can more easily help those who still fall for it. This is not a fact either. In fact it's very convoluted logic. Something that is illegal is used more over something that is legal because of rebellion? It's so against common sense. I decriminalize murder, murder goes down. I decriminalize theft, theft goes down. I decriminalize corruption, corruption goes down. None of those statements make sense. But suddenly this one does: I decriminalize drugs, drug use goes down. Seems not just illogical but delusional. A convenient excuse to promote a personal agenda.
  - hutzlibu 6y ago
    "See maturity is a vague term this is where the controversy lies because adults can be immature too" It is, but it is still legally clearly defined who is consent and who is not, because of insanity etc. (the problems of this process is a seperate issue) "This is not a fact either. " It is a fact that usage went down with decriminalisation. The other part was a explanation. You are free to disagree with that explanation and offer your own. And the other part: murder and theft is directly hurting others. Drug taking is at most directly hurting yourself. But feel free to discuss your personal agenda of war on drugs with someone else.
    - Geminidog 6y ago
      >It is a fact that usage went down with decriminalisation. Saying something doesn't make it a fact. You need to cite a source. >It is, but it is still legally clearly defined who is consent and who is not, because of insanity etc. (the problems of this process is a seperate issue) Durr. No. It's not clear. Many countries have legal definitions of adult but many countries also have treatment and government rehabilitation plans in place for adults who act "immature" this includes crime and drug use. It is not clear at what age range does a human suddenly deserve zero treatment and enforcement. >But feel free to discuss your personal agenda of war on drugs with someone else. Likely your personal clarity comes from the fact that you're a drug user yourself. You have a personal agenda. I have no agenda. If you want to shoot yourself with heroin and make it legal I honestly can care less. But what I came here to discuss is whether decriminalization is an effective deterrent or not. I may think it's right or wrong to implement something but I personally don't care whether it's implemented in actuality because it doesn't effect me personally at all. I am possibly the most unbiased person here because I have no foot in the game. If you don't have a personal agenda then I'm wrong. But tell me, do you use drugs yourself? Likely you do... >Drug taking is at most directly hurting yourself. This is my entire argument. We protect kids from hurting themselves because they are immature. The question is why can't we protect adults from hurting themselves because they are immature. That is the controversy.