7 ms·

Disagree completely. There are irreversible psychological effects from opioid and amphetamine abuse, especially from a neurotoxic amphetamines like meth. Such n

Disagree completely. There are irreversible psychological effects from opioid and amphetamine abuse, especially from a neurotoxic amphetamines like meth. Such neurotoxicity or long-term damage potential isn't seen on things like methylphenidate, vyvanse, modafinil or kratom. Not all drugs are the same.

sneak 6y ago
> There are irreversible psychological effects from opioid and amphetamine abuse This is not relevant to whether or not they should be legal. The prohibition on drug use is a moral issue. If we aren't free to cause deliberate harm to our own bodies, the one thing to which we can be sure we have a clear and unambiguous title, what else can we possibly own or control in life? Sawing off my own hand with a circular saw is legal. Why isn't poisoning my own brain?
- TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
  Part of the purpose of law is to protect society. Damage to many individuals damages society overall.
  - loveistheanswer 6y ago
    Is there any compelling evidence that drug or alcohol prohibitions have done an effective job at protecting society? What about the evidence that it has done the opposite, by artifically inflating the price of drugs thereby enriching criminals, gangs, and cartels? In Mexico, we have seen how this can lead to the cartels becoming more powerful than the government.
  - sneak 6y ago
    > Part of the purpose of law is to protect society. What makes you feel this way?
  - yellowapple 6y ago
    Throwing people in jail for daring to medicate themselves damages society far more severely.
- malux85 6y ago
  Because by poisoning your brain you go into an addictive cycle and are very likely to harm others via crime and or violence in order to get more. As a society we have to control all negative behaviours - including drug addicts that are willing to harm innocents in order to get their next fix.
  - sneak 6y ago
    > Because by poisoning your brain you go into an addictive cycle and are very likely to harm others via crime and or violence in order to get more. We already have laws that criminalize violence and theft, and those apply just fine to drug users who engage in violence or theft. The only possible use for drug laws that apply to all drug users, including ones that do not engage in the (again, already illegal) violence and theft is to criminalize nonviolent drug use. That's morally unjustifiable.
    - malux85 6y ago
      Hmmm, I never thought about it that way, I think you're right.
- mcovalt 6y ago
  > Sawing off my own hand with a circular saw is legal. Why isn't poisoning my own brain? If it was incredibly addictive and loved ones were dying (literally) to saw off their hands, then I'd want to make it illegal.
  - loveistheanswer 6y ago
    So do you think tobacco and alcohol should be made illegal?
    - mcovalt 6y ago
      My point is that sawing off your hand is a false equivalency. tobacco ≠ meth ≠ alcohol ≠ weed ≠ sawing off hands. We are very derailed from the original conversation. No, I don’t think tobacco and alcohol should be illegal. I do think addictively sawing off your hand should be illegal.
      - loveistheanswer 6y ago
        >No, I don’t think tobacco and alcohol should be illegal. I do think addictively sawing off your hand should be illegal. Why should addictively amputating your hand be illegal, but addictively killing yourself by destroying your lungs, heart, or liver not be illegal?
        thatcat 6y ago
        Sawing off your hand doesn't have a profitable business model and lobby group.
    - Rebelgecko 6y ago
      I think it's reasonable to compare tobacco + alcohol to marijuana, but from an outside perspective drugs like fentanyl seem to be in a whole different ballpark.
      - nate_meurer 6y ago
nate_meurer 6y ago
Alcohol is also a neurotoxin, especially in the amounts consumed by alcoholics. Alchohol is also quite a bit more toxic to the liver than amphetamines. Tobacco smoke is highly toxic to every tissue in your body. So to be logically consistent, I'm sure you also think alcohol and tobacco should be illegal, right?
Clubber 6y ago
>There are irreversible psychological effects from opioid and amphetamine abuse, especially from a neurotoxic amphetamines like meth. I won't disagree with that, but making drugs illegal doesn't curb use. The cost of getting arrested is less than the cost of breaking the addiction. So in essence, you get all that you described, plus a criminal record, legal costs, etc, which lead to no future, which leads to more drug use. The fallacy is making something illegal actually prevents that thing, or even reduces it.
imtringued 6y ago
I am not an expert but wouldn't this just mean that the safe dose is very low? It's entirely possible that what is considered a normal dose today is actually an overdose that merely didn't kill the user.
- TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
  I recommend you compare the wikipedia pages of both amphetamine and methamphetamine. Meth is directly neurotoxic, even at "normal" doses of 10mg, while amphetamine is actually neuroprotective until you use really big doses. Vyvanse is basically amphetamine hooked to a protein that has to be metabolized before it has psychological effects, so lowers its abuse potential. I'm 100% in favor of amphetamine legalization, but we've got to be smart about it and not allow toxic forms of it to be available. Pure meth should not be legal, nor should pure fentanyl or cocaine(methylphenidate would be a good alternative with a better safety profile)
Proven 6y ago
wut? who are you to tell me what damage i can or cannot do to my body?

sneak 6y ago

> There are irreversible psychological effects from opioid and amphetamine abuse This is not relevant to whether or not they should be legal. The prohibition on drug use is a moral issue. If we aren't free to cause deliberate harm to our own bodies, the one thing to which we can be sure we have a clear and unambiguous title, what else can we possibly own or control in life? Sawing off my own hand with a circular saw is legal. Why isn't poisoning my own brain?

TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
Part of the purpose of law is to protect society. Damage to many individuals damages society overall.
- loveistheanswer 6y ago
  Is there any compelling evidence that drug or alcohol prohibitions have done an effective job at protecting society? What about the evidence that it has done the opposite, by artifically inflating the price of drugs thereby enriching criminals, gangs, and cartels? In Mexico, we have seen how this can lead to the cartels becoming more powerful than the government.
- sneak 6y ago
  > Part of the purpose of law is to protect society. What makes you feel this way?
- yellowapple 6y ago
  Throwing people in jail for daring to medicate themselves damages society far more severely.
malux85 6y ago
Because by poisoning your brain you go into an addictive cycle and are very likely to harm others via crime and or violence in order to get more. As a society we have to control all negative behaviours - including drug addicts that are willing to harm innocents in order to get their next fix.
- sneak 6y ago
  > Because by poisoning your brain you go into an addictive cycle and are very likely to harm others via crime and or violence in order to get more. We already have laws that criminalize violence and theft, and those apply just fine to drug users who engage in violence or theft. The only possible use for drug laws that apply to all drug users, including ones that do not engage in the (again, already illegal) violence and theft is to criminalize nonviolent drug use. That's morally unjustifiable.
  - malux85 6y ago
    Hmmm, I never thought about it that way, I think you're right.
mcovalt 6y ago
> Sawing off my own hand with a circular saw is legal. Why isn't poisoning my own brain? If it was incredibly addictive and loved ones were dying (literally) to saw off their hands, then I'd want to make it illegal.
- loveistheanswer 6y ago
  So do you think tobacco and alcohol should be made illegal?
  - mcovalt 6y ago
    My point is that sawing off your hand is a false equivalency. tobacco ≠ meth ≠ alcohol ≠ weed ≠ sawing off hands. We are very derailed from the original conversation. No, I don’t think tobacco and alcohol should be illegal. I do think addictively sawing off your hand should be illegal.
    - loveistheanswer 6y ago
      >No, I don’t think tobacco and alcohol should be illegal. I do think addictively sawing off your hand should be illegal. Why should addictively amputating your hand be illegal, but addictively killing yourself by destroying your lungs, heart, or liver not be illegal?
      - thatcat 6y ago
        Sawing off your hand doesn't have a profitable business model and lobby group.
  - Rebelgecko 6y ago
    I think it's reasonable to compare tobacco + alcohol to marijuana, but from an outside perspective drugs like fentanyl seem to be in a whole different ballpark.
    - nate_meurer 6y ago

nate_meurer 6y ago

Alcohol is also a neurotoxin, especially in the amounts consumed by alcoholics. Alchohol is also quite a bit more toxic to the liver than amphetamines. Tobacco smoke is highly toxic to every tissue in your body. So to be logically consistent, I'm sure you also think alcohol and tobacco should be illegal, right?

Clubber 6y ago

>There are irreversible psychological effects from opioid and amphetamine abuse, especially from a neurotoxic amphetamines like meth. I won't disagree with that, but making drugs illegal doesn't curb use. The cost of getting arrested is less than the cost of breaking the addiction. So in essence, you get all that you described, plus a criminal record, legal costs, etc, which lead to no future, which leads to more drug use. The fallacy is making something illegal actually prevents that thing, or even reduces it.

imtringued 6y ago

I am not an expert but wouldn't this just mean that the safe dose is very low? It's entirely possible that what is considered a normal dose today is actually an overdose that merely didn't kill the user.

TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
I recommend you compare the wikipedia pages of both amphetamine and methamphetamine. Meth is directly neurotoxic, even at "normal" doses of 10mg, while amphetamine is actually neuroprotective until you use really big doses. Vyvanse is basically amphetamine hooked to a protein that has to be metabolized before it has psychological effects, so lowers its abuse potential. I'm 100% in favor of amphetamine legalization, but we've got to be smart about it and not allow toxic forms of it to be available. Pure meth should not be legal, nor should pure fentanyl or cocaine(methylphenidate would be a good alternative with a better safety profile)

Proven 6y ago

wut? who are you to tell me what damage i can or cannot do to my body?