4 ms·

The proposed change is not about legalization of these drugs. They will remain illegal. It simply allows federal states to pass laws and regulations governing p

by tfourb 3y ago

The proposed change is not about legalization of these drugs. They will remain illegal. It simply allows federal states to pass laws and regulations governing publicly accessible (and presumably free of charge) test facilities where consumers of certain illegal drugs can test them for unwanted ingredients. The idea is that this will limit the number of accidental overdoses and poisonings and put pressure on the black market to reduce potentially harmful and undesirable ingredients. It is a public health measure and I don't see a real downside to it.

DrThunder 3y ago
It's the same idea. You're allowing addicts to continue being addicts while claiming testing centers using up tax dollars are a fix. They're not. IF they're allowing this they are not enforcing anything that will stop dealers. This is just as ridiculous the safe shoot up spaces that only ruin the area they're in and make it unlivable for anyone but addicts who just die from overdoses anyway. Allowing someone to live slightly longer without helping them overcome the addiction isn't compassionate, it's lazy enabling of the addiction. It's something politicians use to get votes and pat themselves on the back.
- tfourb 3y ago
  This is such a nihilistic, fucked-up view of the world. Is this proposed policy the silver bullet to stop addiction and drug abuse? No, clearly not. Will it help alleviate some suffering? Almost certainly so. Just to point out some of the more obvious rebuttals to your "arguments": - not all drug users are addicts. Not even heroin is instantly addictive. Recreational, non-addicted users of illegal drugs benefit extremely from "drug checks," as does the public health system which would have to deal with accidental overdoses and poisonings otherwise. - Not all drug addicts have dysfunctional lives. Plenty of people live decades with their addiction while also holding down jobs, having families, etc. Is that ideal? No, most certainly not in most cases. Would "drug checks" lower the risk of these drug users? Yes. - Not all drug addicts that experience dysfunctional lives as a consequence of their drug use will die from overdosing. In fact, drug checks would make that more unlikely. - Drug check facilities would be a venue for drug users to get into contact with the public health care system and to find ways out of their addiction. Again, it will not resolve the problems associated with the misuse of drugs, which has existed literally forever (even animals get purposely drunk on fermenting fruits). But that is neither the point of the proposed policy and you have so far contributed nothing to this discussion.
  - DrThunder 3y ago
    Yeah my view of wanting them to get OFF THE DRUGS is nihilistic. Not your view that enabling their horrible habit by making it easier for them with no therapy to correct it. Are you high?
    - tfourb 3y ago
      Haven't been in a long time. And as I've written above, drug checks are part of a public health approach that makes it easier to treat addiction, including by offering opportunities to engage in therapy.

by tfourb 3y ago

DrThunder 3y ago

It's the same idea. You're allowing addicts to continue being addicts while claiming testing centers using up tax dollars are a fix. They're not. IF they're allowing this they are not enforcing anything that will stop dealers. This is just as ridiculous the safe shoot up spaces that only ruin the area they're in and make it unlivable for anyone but addicts who just die from overdoses anyway. Allowing someone to live slightly longer without helping them overcome the addiction isn't compassionate, it's lazy enabling of the addiction. It's something politicians use to get votes and pat themselves on the back.

tfourb 3y ago
This is such a nihilistic, fucked-up view of the world. Is this proposed policy the silver bullet to stop addiction and drug abuse? No, clearly not. Will it help alleviate some suffering? Almost certainly so. Just to point out some of the more obvious rebuttals to your "arguments": - not all drug users are addicts. Not even heroin is instantly addictive. Recreational, non-addicted users of illegal drugs benefit extremely from "drug checks," as does the public health system which would have to deal with accidental overdoses and poisonings otherwise. - Not all drug addicts have dysfunctional lives. Plenty of people live decades with their addiction while also holding down jobs, having families, etc. Is that ideal? No, most certainly not in most cases. Would "drug checks" lower the risk of these drug users? Yes. - Not all drug addicts that experience dysfunctional lives as a consequence of their drug use will die from overdosing. In fact, drug checks would make that more unlikely. - Drug check facilities would be a venue for drug users to get into contact with the public health care system and to find ways out of their addiction. Again, it will not resolve the problems associated with the misuse of drugs, which has existed literally forever (even animals get purposely drunk on fermenting fruits). But that is neither the point of the proposed policy and you have so far contributed nothing to this discussion.
- DrThunder 3y ago
  Yeah my view of wanting them to get OFF THE DRUGS is nihilistic. Not your view that enabling their horrible habit by making it easier for them with no therapy to correct it. Are you high?
  - tfourb 3y ago
    Haven't been in a long time. And as I've written above, drug checks are part of a public health approach that makes it easier to treat addiction, including by offering opportunities to engage in therapy.