3 ms·
So how do you suggest "not starting in the first place"? How would you implement that if not prohibition? Keeping in mind that the parent comment made a concret
by tchaffee 4y ago
So how do you suggest "not starting in the first place"? How would you implement that if not prohibition? Keeping in mind that the parent comment made a concrete suggestion on what could replace prohibition.
If prohibition didn't do anything then we should surely drop it. And then?
- starkd 4y agoWell, policies that introduce a little bit of friction into the choice to do drugs would be a good start. Mostly, education that warns against the harms. But, your comment seems to indicate you are more interested in legal ways you can use them than recognizing the lives that have been damaged.
- tchaffee 4y agoThen you've completely misread my comments. Where did you get the idea that I'm interested in anything other than what actually works in reducing harm? Can you quote me? Pumping money into education about the pros and cons of recreational drug use would likely do a lot to reduce abuse and addiction. However only talking about the harms was already tried and was a failure. Most kids will at least try alcohol or marijuana or vaping nicotine and if you've already lied by omission about the pros they won't trust you anymore. But if you can manage to educate in an unbiased and scientific way that would likely lead to fewer lives damaged. Worth a try at least.
- starkd 4y agoYes, more education that is honest about the effects, good and bad, would be the best approach. But that involves a cultural shift where celebrities, teachers and parents all recognize the dangers and preach/remind young people how bad it is. I was not saying you were more interested in doing drugs, but your language just seemed to weight users' interests equally with harm reduction. That is just my instinct though. Sorry, if I am mistaken.