3 ms·

I agree. I was kind of shocked at the number of people I knew who thought it was bad before suddenly decided it wasn’t anymore and started consuming it after it

I agree. I was kind of shocked at the number of people I knew who thought it was bad before suddenly decided it wasn’t anymore and started consuming it after it was legalized in the states I frequent. Just because something is legal does not make it a good idea to do; by that token just because something is illegal does not necessarily make it bad to do (other than legal problems that is). I think the important thing is that it was legalized. I could care less if it’s healthy or not. Plenty of dangerous and risky things are legal. It’s part of the beauty of being an adult in a free country. I’m kind of tired of governments banning things because they are potentially harmful; it robs us of our agency. Every time a substance is put on schedule 1 it means basically no research will be conducted on the biochemical pathway that it uniquely activates, which means banning substances is ultimately holding back our progression into neuroscience and other biochemical fields. I say legalize all the “drugs” and let people decide for themselves whether or not to be morons. At least then people will know what they are getting.

JDEW 5y ago
You make a lot of valid points but this sentence: > I say legalize all the “drugs” and let people decide for themselves whether or not to be morons. Is probably a bit too spicy. You say the government robs us of agency but you know what else does? Addiction. It’s not bad for a government to put regulations in place for dangerous substances. I do, however, agree with the subtext that it should be _decriminalized_.
- lariati 5y ago
  I don't see the moral argument at this point though with fentanyl. Nothing quite robs one of agency like death. Before fentanyl, I don't think I would be for full legalization. At this point though non-legalization seems immoral.
SuoDuanDao 5y ago
>by that token just because something is illegal does not necessarily make it bad to do Well, yeah. Hiding a Jew in 1940s Germany or a native child in 1960s Canada was totally illegal. Democracy functions when the individual is the moral authority because large groups reliably become sociopathic. I suspect that's baked into our biology to some degree, why would we historically form a very large group absent the kind of existential crisis that might require sociopathic behaviour?
- suifbwish 5y ago
  Agreed. Humans are currently caught in an epic struggle with the very primal instincts that enabled our species to endure as an unbroken genetic line descending from the most basic lifeform on earth to one which is capable of modifying its own genome. I doubt there is anything we couls consider “evil” that is not related to the operation of ancient traits which gave our ancestors evolutionary advantage at the time. Also for anyone who is unaware of what was meant by sheltering native children in Canada: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixties_Scoop https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixties_Scoop

JDEW 5y ago

You make a lot of valid points but this sentence: > I say legalize all the “drugs” and let people decide for themselves whether or not to be morons. Is probably a bit too spicy. You say the government robs us of agency but you know what else does? Addiction. It’s not bad for a government to put regulations in place for dangerous substances. I do, however, agree with the subtext that it should be _decriminalized_.

lariati 5y ago
I don't see the moral argument at this point though with fentanyl. Nothing quite robs one of agency like death. Before fentanyl, I don't think I would be for full legalization. At this point though non-legalization seems immoral.

SuoDuanDao 5y ago

>by that token just because something is illegal does not necessarily make it bad to do Well, yeah. Hiding a Jew in 1940s Germany or a native child in 1960s Canada was totally illegal. Democracy functions when the individual is the moral authority because large groups reliably become sociopathic. I suspect that's baked into our biology to some degree, why would we historically form a very large group absent the kind of existential crisis that might require sociopathic behaviour?

suifbwish 5y ago
Agreed. Humans are currently caught in an epic struggle with the very primal instincts that enabled our species to endure as an unbroken genetic line descending from the most basic lifeform on earth to one which is capable of modifying its own genome. I doubt there is anything we couls consider “evil” that is not related to the operation of ancient traits which gave our ancestors evolutionary advantage at the time. Also for anyone who is unaware of what was meant by sheltering native children in Canada: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixties_Scoop https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixties_Scoop