5 ms·

I was talking to a guy who was into drug counselling. He laid out some pretty shocking facts, like children as young as 12 take drugs. This made me absolutely c

I was talking to a guy who was into drug counselling. He laid out some pretty shocking facts, like children as young as 12 take drugs. This made me absolutely convinced that we should not legalise drugs, except in the case where there legitimate medical uses. He also said that he got annoyed when the police announced that there was a particularly potent batch of drugs on the streets at the time. His reasoning is that it only encourages drug users. Also, experience of using drugs is no guarantee of safe drugs practise. If anything, it's the contrary. People become complacent in what they think they can handle, which spells trouble. Also, drug purity can vary by region. You won't know about it in advance, but if you take drugs from a less tainted batch then you usually do, then you could well be taking a much higher dosage of the drug than your body is used to. Not good. And finally, the most chilling part of all. He said that if you were to put some heroin on a table and say that this is the purest heroin on the market. You can take it, but knowing you will die. Many would still take it.

ajuc 3y ago
Legalizing drugs can actually reduce number of kids taking drugs. Because you can require shops to ask for ID. Back street dealers won't. I think people often imagine legalizing drugs means there will be heroin ads in TV. But you can legalize them and still regulate them heavily (no ads, only sell to adults, require warnings on the packaging, finance anti-drug campaigns from the sales taxes, etc.). Portugal legalized drugs long ago and their drug problems seemed to get a lot better since.
smabie 3y ago
I would uhhh.. take what he said with a grain of salt
adrianmsmith 3y ago
> He also said that he got annoyed when the police announced that there was a particularly potent batch of drugs on the streets at the time. ... Also, drug purity can vary by region. You won't know about it in advance, but if you take drugs from a less tainted batch then you usually do, then you could well be taking a much higher dosage of the drug than your body is used to. Not good. This would all be improved by legalization and regulation. Nobody dies because a Bud Light is suddenly a lot stronger in one region than another.
- sangnoir 3y ago
  > Nobody dies because a Bud Light is suddenly a lot stronger in one region than another. I'm sure a lot would die if one beer unexpectedly has the potency of 3. A lot of people already drink and drive and they'd be more impaired than usual.
ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
Those all seem like arguments to legalise and regulate drugs. Alcohol is similarly deadly, and we have age related controls to prevent youngsters being able to buy it. There's also regulations to ensure that there's a consistent alcohol percentage (printed on the side) and that the drinks don't contain poisons other than ethanol. Sadly, alcoholics continue to consume alcohol when they've been told multiple times that it will lead to their death and even sometimes after receiving a liver transplant. Alcohol and drugs should be treated as a public health issue and not a nonsensical war.
- laratied 3y ago
  It is just such a boring argument at this point. Society is not better off with thousands of Al Capones and moonshine but less drinking over all. It is such a stupid argument. It is just unbelievable in the US that with having so few borders and neighboring countries to worry about that we don't care that Al Capone has taken over one of them. Exactly the result of how much we like to drink and how much we will pay for drinks. Just the standard bullshit "What about the children" arguments. Not to mention in 2023 that you have to add in a huge amount of straight up poison moonshine or people think they are drinking moonshine but instead are drinking gasoline.
idopmstuff 3y ago
> He laid out some pretty shocking facts, like children as young as 12 take drugs. This made me absolutely convinced that we should not legalise drugs, except in the case where there legitimate medical uses. I don't understand the logic that because children as young as 12 are able to obtain and take drugs, we should keep the drug policies under which that occurs in place. As far as I'm aware, nobody serious is suggesting that 12 year olds should be allowed to buy or use drugs if they're legalized. Given that, the legalization question that matters is how we can do the best job of limiting the damage they do to 12 year olds through a combination of preventing them from acquiring drugs and regulating the drugs themselves, so that if they do get some drugs, those drugs don't contain a bunch of fentanyl. I'm not going to say that legalizing drugs will certainly result in less harm, but I'm not writing it off as impossible, either. But to cite the fact that a bad thing is happening under your current harm mitigation strategy as a reason that we should absolutely keep that harm mitigation strategy seems like fundamentally flawed logic to me.
afpx 3y ago
12? I believe it. In some cultures (like mine), it's almost a rite of passage if you have older siblings or friends, sadly. Also, it's hard to say how much is self-medicating from poor living conditions, health problems, heritable diseases, etc. though. There are some areas of the country where there are many deeply poor people.

ajuc 3y ago

Legalizing drugs can actually reduce number of kids taking drugs. Because you can require shops to ask for ID. Back street dealers won't. I think people often imagine legalizing drugs means there will be heroin ads in TV. But you can legalize them and still regulate them heavily (no ads, only sell to adults, require warnings on the packaging, finance anti-drug campaigns from the sales taxes, etc.). Portugal legalized drugs long ago and their drug problems seemed to get a lot better since.

smabie 3y ago

I would uhhh.. take what he said with a grain of salt

adrianmsmith 3y ago

> He also said that he got annoyed when the police announced that there was a particularly potent batch of drugs on the streets at the time. ... Also, drug purity can vary by region. You won't know about it in advance, but if you take drugs from a less tainted batch then you usually do, then you could well be taking a much higher dosage of the drug than your body is used to. Not good. This would all be improved by legalization and regulation. Nobody dies because a Bud Light is suddenly a lot stronger in one region than another.

sangnoir 3y ago
> Nobody dies because a Bud Light is suddenly a lot stronger in one region than another. I'm sure a lot would die if one beer unexpectedly has the potency of 3. A lot of people already drink and drive and they'd be more impaired than usual.

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago

Those all seem like arguments to legalise and regulate drugs. Alcohol is similarly deadly, and we have age related controls to prevent youngsters being able to buy it. There's also regulations to ensure that there's a consistent alcohol percentage (printed on the side) and that the drinks don't contain poisons other than ethanol. Sadly, alcoholics continue to consume alcohol when they've been told multiple times that it will lead to their death and even sometimes after receiving a liver transplant. Alcohol and drugs should be treated as a public health issue and not a nonsensical war.

laratied 3y ago
It is just such a boring argument at this point. Society is not better off with thousands of Al Capones and moonshine but less drinking over all. It is such a stupid argument. It is just unbelievable in the US that with having so few borders and neighboring countries to worry about that we don't care that Al Capone has taken over one of them. Exactly the result of how much we like to drink and how much we will pay for drinks. Just the standard bullshit "What about the children" arguments. Not to mention in 2023 that you have to add in a huge amount of straight up poison moonshine or people think they are drinking moonshine but instead are drinking gasoline.

idopmstuff 3y ago

> He laid out some pretty shocking facts, like children as young as 12 take drugs. This made me absolutely convinced that we should not legalise drugs, except in the case where there legitimate medical uses. I don't understand the logic that because children as young as 12 are able to obtain and take drugs, we should keep the drug policies under which that occurs in place. As far as I'm aware, nobody serious is suggesting that 12 year olds should be allowed to buy or use drugs if they're legalized. Given that, the legalization question that matters is how we can do the best job of limiting the damage they do to 12 year olds through a combination of preventing them from acquiring drugs and regulating the drugs themselves, so that if they do get some drugs, those drugs don't contain a bunch of fentanyl. I'm not going to say that legalizing drugs will certainly result in less harm, but I'm not writing it off as impossible, either. But to cite the fact that a bad thing is happening under your current harm mitigation strategy as a reason that we should absolutely keep that harm mitigation strategy seems like fundamentally flawed logic to me.

afpx 3y ago

12? I believe it. In some cultures (like mine), it's almost a rite of passage if you have older siblings or friends, sadly. Also, it's hard to say how much is self-medicating from poor living conditions, health problems, heritable diseases, etc. though. There are some areas of the country where there are many deeply poor people.