3 ms·

I tend to think it's more about addiction, and less about the drugs, or perhaps the consequences of said drug addiction.

eurasiantiger 5y ago
The negative consequences of substance dependence are largely legal and social, and both are a product of prohibition. Even negative health consequences can be seen coming from prohibition itself: drugs of unknown potency and purity, etc.
- Epiphany21 5y ago
  I don't see why this was downvoted; you're right, even if the idea you're conveying is an old one. This is an inherent problem with blanket substance prohibition. Here would be my proposal: I'm sure there are already research labs around the US and other developed nations that produce and test all kinds of illicit substances. They could fund themselves and even bring in extra tax dollars for the state by allowing members of the public who are over 21 to show ID, sign waivers, then order a small amount of whatever drug they want for research or recreation. Time limits between purchases could be imposed as well to discourage addicts, e.g. one order every two weeks. The drugs from these labs would have to meet certain purity and dosage standards, leading to fewer accidental deaths and injuries. Dangerous substances could also be distributed in containers with a label or pamphlet attached that details proper handling and storage, which would be a huge step up from the empty M&M bag or cigarette box I've seen people receive their drugs in.
  - eurasiantiger 5y ago
    Those limitations wouldn’t really work: addicts would just start ordering max amounts of all different drugs and then trade to get more of their favorite. How about we let anyone buy as much as they want for their personal use and just let them go about their lives as long as they don’t endanger anyone else’s. And note: I’m only suggesting the above because nothing else works; worse, most current approaches only create more issues and cost more taxpayer money. For a recent example, meth is so heavily enforced that actually medically functional decongestants are no longer available OTC, only sham pills. Yet, meth use has not diminished in the slightest, vice versa. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg (sorry, I’ll show myself out). In other words, all people, especially those with allergies, suffer more because of general prohibition than without it.

eurasiantiger 5y ago

The negative consequences of substance dependence are largely legal and social, and both are a product of prohibition. Even negative health consequences can be seen coming from prohibition itself: drugs of unknown potency and purity, etc.

Epiphany21 5y ago
I don't see why this was downvoted; you're right, even if the idea you're conveying is an old one. This is an inherent problem with blanket substance prohibition. Here would be my proposal: I'm sure there are already research labs around the US and other developed nations that produce and test all kinds of illicit substances. They could fund themselves and even bring in extra tax dollars for the state by allowing members of the public who are over 21 to show ID, sign waivers, then order a small amount of whatever drug they want for research or recreation. Time limits between purchases could be imposed as well to discourage addicts, e.g. one order every two weeks. The drugs from these labs would have to meet certain purity and dosage standards, leading to fewer accidental deaths and injuries. Dangerous substances could also be distributed in containers with a label or pamphlet attached that details proper handling and storage, which would be a huge step up from the empty M&M bag or cigarette box I've seen people receive their drugs in.
- eurasiantiger 5y ago
  Those limitations wouldn’t really work: addicts would just start ordering max amounts of all different drugs and then trade to get more of their favorite. How about we let anyone buy as much as they want for their personal use and just let them go about their lives as long as they don’t endanger anyone else’s. And note: I’m only suggesting the above because nothing else works; worse, most current approaches only create more issues and cost more taxpayer money. For a recent example, meth is so heavily enforced that actually medically functional decongestants are no longer available OTC, only sham pills. Yet, meth use has not diminished in the slightest, vice versa. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg (sorry, I’ll show myself out). In other words, all people, especially those with allergies, suffer more because of general prohibition than without it.