3 ms·

Seriously, people on a technical forum arguing for prohibition with the wealth of evidence showing it's a well intended failure at best, a farcical show to plac

by mptest 3y ago

Seriously, people on a technical forum arguing for prohibition with the wealth of evidence showing it's a well intended failure at best, a farcical show to placate and win votes from ignorant sanctimonious puritans at worst? Tragic. At this point It's a way to funnel money that could go to addiction treatment to the DEA, money going to an unwinnable war to control adults who are going to do what they want. 5% of the global economy in the black market we could take from criminals and turn it towards the social good. Instead of violent cartels that will serve the need no matter what we could have taxed businesses with daily limits. "But ppl will do bad things". Tell me how that's worth the cost of the war on drugs? Shocking position. Please explain it to me how what cartels do is worth your desire to be sanctimonious?? The only thing we have to do to get huge financial and social benefits is give up your frankly childish notion that we should control uncontrollable substances and police adults in something that in most cases harms no one. Police adults who commit crimes on substances extra. Let adults make their own choices otherwise. The war on drugs and anyone still supporting it as a way of doing anything but throwing money in a fire pit are a joke.

onetimeusename 3y ago
Do you really feel that way? How about prohibition of possessing and manufacturing radioactive materials? Think of all the research consenting adults could be doing and all the medical uses but a bunch of anti-science puritans are keeping them from doing it.(sarcasm) I am assuming there is hardly anyone on the planet who thinks the public is able to make its own informed decisions about radioactive materials. So it's odd how instead of arguing the merits and costs of criminalization/decriminalization there is this argument that anyone who wants to limit drug use is an ignorant, corrupt puritan and that restriction has been generally a failure. There is a nuclear black market too and the spread of nuclear weapons has still happened. Does anyone think we should shut down IAEA because of its failures?
- superb_dev 3y ago
  That is a huge false equivalency. Radioactive material has no use to the average person and has immensely more safety issues than psychedelics
  - AYBABTME 3y ago
    I personally more easily envision personal uses of radioactive materials than psychedelics. Self powered devices, vs some psychedelic trip?
    - callalex 3y ago
      Explain how a person who makes a mistake with mushrooms can render a neighborhood uninhabitable for generations?
      - AYBABTME 3y ago
        You got a point, I didn't look at it this way.
- doktrin 3y ago
  I agree more with you than the GP, but reaching for the nuclear comparison is ineffective here. You might as well cite weaponised smallpox and the infinity gauntlet while you’re at it.
- mptest 3y ago
  >Do you really feel that way Do I really think international 12 digit valued drug cartels are a worse outcome for society than allowing adults to buy the substances at a taxed store where the money goes to pay for addict treatment and rehabilitation??? You can't be serious. Don't you? If you don't I'll call you a blind man and useful idiot. People here do not read my comment because I advocate for something that hurts their little sanctimonious puritanical brains. Would swear you lot are Mr mackey. Nothing more material than "drugs r bad mkay. Addicts bad mkay." Stick to STEM i guess. Sociology isn't for you. >How about prohibition of possessing and manufacturing radioactive materials? Yeah, radioactivity that harms everyone around the material is def the same as me getting high in my house after work and playing a video game. Definitely arguing in good faith innit. The drug discussion makes people like you so damn silly and childish it's crazy
  - onetimeusename 3y ago
    > Yeah, radioactivity that harms everyone around the material But that's not true. It can be handled safely and radioactivity can be used for medical treatments! Besides there is radioactivity in lots of things. I swear you people are so anti-science and propagandized about radiation, you're afraid of radiation lurking around every corner. It even occurs naturally from the sky! Are you going to ban the sky? Since banning nuclear armament has clearly failed people like you are really just enabling state actors who traffic nuclear materials.
    - mptest 3y ago
      >It can be handled safely and radioactivity can be used for medical treatments! Besides there is radioactivity in lots of things I'm describing a subsection of radioactivity in that sentence, not the entire scientific notion of radioactivity as dangerous.... I don't know the laws on radioactive materials well enough to speak to specifics about if too much is banned in the name of safety.
      - onetimeusename 3y ago
        I was being facetious again. My point all along is that everyone is ok with banning certain things, it's just a question of which things do we ban and why. I haven't seen convincing research that making psychedelics is 100% beneficial. It seems like it's on the margin and could be either way. The reasons I am not convinced are that 1) research that said it's harmless couldn't isolate psychedelics because psychedelics users were highly likely to use other drugs that have known side effects so they used models that attempted to isolate it and the result is not convincing. 2) Clinical trials had a clinical setting which is not the same as allowing the public to use them without supervision. 3) There's some studies that show a marginally higher likelihood to have health consequences for psychedelics users. 4) Arguments pro freedom are odd because most people don't believe in total freedom. If it were me I would just let the law sunset in five to 10 years with a clause if the experiment worked out then vote to make it permanent.
rendall 3y ago
I believe it is an inalienable right that individuals use or abuse any drug according to their own inclinations. When I become Benevolent World Dictator, this will be explicitly stated in the Constitution. That said, in aggregate, unconstrained drug abuse and addiction can and does have devastating effects on societies as we see today and historically. I don't know how to resolve this conundrum. I would fear the effect of anyone being able to casually go to a bar and order magic mushroom tea or LSD ice cream or PCP punch as one might order a Mai Tai. While psychoactives aren't known to be addictive, they can lead to deranged, erratic or even destructive behavior. I suspect the key is to create healthy social norms and conventions around each drug and make sure those are communicated to consumers. On the other hand, if one is not free to be wrong, then one is not actually free. So, I still dunno.
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  I think the US got it right on tobacco. You can still purchase tobacco if you really want to, but we have gotten consumption down to a much more manageable level than most other rich countries, and without any sort of particular egregious rights violations. The key point, is that at no point when I was being educated about tobacco did I feel like I was being lied to and I had to check it out for myself, which is very different from how marijuana is treated in health education in the US. Reefer madness and whatnot.
- tfourb 3y ago
  There is a wide spectrum between completely illegal and absolute free access and while I would Position most drugs on the liberal side of the spectrum, there are good reasons to manage access in some ways, I.e. age limits, legal settings for consumption, etc. and of course I think a low cost/free and universal health system is a prerequisite to manage the fallout of drug consumption, no matter of legal or illegal.
- glimshe 3y ago
  It's tempting to argue in favor of personal freedom here, but two special characteristics of certain drugs make them different from pretty much anything else: 1) users often heavily affect people around them, and 2) these drugs change people's brain chemistry in such drastic ways that the people who exercise their freedom to start consuming end up losing their freedom to stop consuming. Tobacco and Alcohol have similar issues, but we don't have to make the addictive substance problem even worse than it is today. Drugs like Heroin have supersized versions of Alcohol and Tobacco's problem traits. In other words, I think I'll be there to participate in the revolution against this Benevolent Dictator! :)
AYBABTME 3y ago
Opium didn't do much good to China. Opioids aren't doing much goods to the US. An individual's freedoms can lead to macro phenomenons that negatively impact everyone's freedoms and outcomes. Individualism shouldn't be the only lens we look through when considering these problems. I think debilitating substances that are potentially addictive and don't have social acclimatation (unlike alcohol) are a very high risk. I don't think they should be banned outright if they have useful properties, but I don't think they should just be allowed in society without proper care. Just looking at it from a "I do what I want to my adult body" completely ignores the condition some of these adults will find themselves in, and the risk they will impose on others as a result. And it also completely ignores how we are all interdependent on each other in a modern economy. We all require a village of people to function and thrive and defend our rights. Something that potentially harms a large percentage of this village will also harm those in the village who don't partake. And then when your village is helpless, a belligerent neighbouring one comes knocking. Maybe you think that's an exaggeration, but it's literally what brought down China in the 1800s. It turned from one of the oldest and most grandiose powers on earth into an incapacitated corpse pillaged by western powers. So you know, being careful with these substances seems just a bit prudent.
- datadeft 3y ago
  Ok, lets not unban heroin. Can we get DMT, THC, MDMA, Psilocybin, LSD unbanned though? There is a good reason why I am asking these. I would say anything under nicotine / alcohol line should be legal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Drug_danger_and_dependence-small.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Drug_danger_and_dependenc...
- otherme123 3y ago
  Last time I checked, opioids were illegal in the US. Why are you talking like opiates are legal, so the current situation is evidence that legalization is bad? If anything, the current situation with opiates in the US shows ilegalization is not doing much good to the US. Also, the situation in China (if you are talking about the Opium Wars) are not that straight forward "legal opium bad". In fact, opium was legally consumed for centuries all around the globe. China emperors worried about "opium addiction is bad" so they illegalized it multiple times in 1729, 1799, 1814 and 1831. Opium wars started in 1839, but opium smuggling into China due to the prohibition was already rampant since 1729. It will be like saying that all the problems that arised around the Alcohol Prohibition was actually caused by alcohol and absolutely not caused by the prohibition. It looks that drug problems are always linked and worsened to some form of prohibition than to drug usage itself, but somehow it is the only logical and obvious solution to drug problems. Alcohol is worse than heroin (and by definition, way worse than opium) in almost every study (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#Adverse_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#Adverse_effects). Actually, "harm to others" category (i.e. affects society) is specially bad in alcohol. "Social acclimatation" is not a property of alcohol, any substance can be socially accepted (look at these cocaine ads in the 70's https://www.higherperspectives.com/these-cocaine-ads-from-the-1970s-show-how-much-our-world-has-changed-1429983023.html https://www.higherperspectives.com/these-cocaine-ads-from-th...), even opium or heroin.

by mptest 3y ago

onetimeusename 3y ago

Do you really feel that way? How about prohibition of possessing and manufacturing radioactive materials? Think of all the research consenting adults could be doing and all the medical uses but a bunch of anti-science puritans are keeping them from doing it.(sarcasm) I am assuming there is hardly anyone on the planet who thinks the public is able to make its own informed decisions about radioactive materials. So it's odd how instead of arguing the merits and costs of criminalization/decriminalization there is this argument that anyone who wants to limit drug use is an ignorant, corrupt puritan and that restriction has been generally a failure. There is a nuclear black market too and the spread of nuclear weapons has still happened. Does anyone think we should shut down IAEA because of its failures?

superb_dev 3y ago
That is a huge false equivalency. Radioactive material has no use to the average person and has immensely more safety issues than psychedelics
- AYBABTME 3y ago
  I personally more easily envision personal uses of radioactive materials than psychedelics. Self powered devices, vs some psychedelic trip?
  - callalex 3y ago
    Explain how a person who makes a mistake with mushrooms can render a neighborhood uninhabitable for generations?
    - AYBABTME 3y ago
      You got a point, I didn't look at it this way.
doktrin 3y ago
I agree more with you than the GP, but reaching for the nuclear comparison is ineffective here. You might as well cite weaponised smallpox and the infinity gauntlet while you’re at it.
mptest 3y ago
>Do you really feel that way Do I really think international 12 digit valued drug cartels are a worse outcome for society than allowing adults to buy the substances at a taxed store where the money goes to pay for addict treatment and rehabilitation??? You can't be serious. Don't you? If you don't I'll call you a blind man and useful idiot. People here do not read my comment because I advocate for something that hurts their little sanctimonious puritanical brains. Would swear you lot are Mr mackey. Nothing more material than "drugs r bad mkay. Addicts bad mkay." Stick to STEM i guess. Sociology isn't for you. >How about prohibition of possessing and manufacturing radioactive materials? Yeah, radioactivity that harms everyone around the material is def the same as me getting high in my house after work and playing a video game. Definitely arguing in good faith innit. The drug discussion makes people like you so damn silly and childish it's crazy
- onetimeusename 3y ago
  > Yeah, radioactivity that harms everyone around the material But that's not true. It can be handled safely and radioactivity can be used for medical treatments! Besides there is radioactivity in lots of things. I swear you people are so anti-science and propagandized about radiation, you're afraid of radiation lurking around every corner. It even occurs naturally from the sky! Are you going to ban the sky? Since banning nuclear armament has clearly failed people like you are really just enabling state actors who traffic nuclear materials.
  - mptest 3y ago
    >It can be handled safely and radioactivity can be used for medical treatments! Besides there is radioactivity in lots of things I'm describing a subsection of radioactivity in that sentence, not the entire scientific notion of radioactivity as dangerous.... I don't know the laws on radioactive materials well enough to speak to specifics about if too much is banned in the name of safety.
    - onetimeusename 3y ago
      I was being facetious again. My point all along is that everyone is ok with banning certain things, it's just a question of which things do we ban and why. I haven't seen convincing research that making psychedelics is 100% beneficial. It seems like it's on the margin and could be either way. The reasons I am not convinced are that 1) research that said it's harmless couldn't isolate psychedelics because psychedelics users were highly likely to use other drugs that have known side effects so they used models that attempted to isolate it and the result is not convincing. 2) Clinical trials had a clinical setting which is not the same as allowing the public to use them without supervision. 3) There's some studies that show a marginally higher likelihood to have health consequences for psychedelics users. 4) Arguments pro freedom are odd because most people don't believe in total freedom. If it were me I would just let the law sunset in five to 10 years with a clause if the experiment worked out then vote to make it permanent.

rendall 3y ago

I believe it is an inalienable right that individuals use or abuse any drug according to their own inclinations. When I become Benevolent World Dictator, this will be explicitly stated in the Constitution. That said, in aggregate, unconstrained drug abuse and addiction can and does have devastating effects on societies as we see today and historically. I don't know how to resolve this conundrum. I would fear the effect of anyone being able to casually go to a bar and order magic mushroom tea or LSD ice cream or PCP punch as one might order a Mai Tai. While psychoactives aren't known to be addictive, they can lead to deranged, erratic or even destructive behavior. I suspect the key is to create healthy social norms and conventions around each drug and make sure those are communicated to consumers. On the other hand, if one is not free to be wrong, then one is not actually free. So, I still dunno.

bobthepanda 3y ago
I think the US got it right on tobacco. You can still purchase tobacco if you really want to, but we have gotten consumption down to a much more manageable level than most other rich countries, and without any sort of particular egregious rights violations. The key point, is that at no point when I was being educated about tobacco did I feel like I was being lied to and I had to check it out for myself, which is very different from how marijuana is treated in health education in the US. Reefer madness and whatnot.
tfourb 3y ago
There is a wide spectrum between completely illegal and absolute free access and while I would Position most drugs on the liberal side of the spectrum, there are good reasons to manage access in some ways, I.e. age limits, legal settings for consumption, etc. and of course I think a low cost/free and universal health system is a prerequisite to manage the fallout of drug consumption, no matter of legal or illegal.
glimshe 3y ago
It's tempting to argue in favor of personal freedom here, but two special characteristics of certain drugs make them different from pretty much anything else: 1) users often heavily affect people around them, and 2) these drugs change people's brain chemistry in such drastic ways that the people who exercise their freedom to start consuming end up losing their freedom to stop consuming. Tobacco and Alcohol have similar issues, but we don't have to make the addictive substance problem even worse than it is today. Drugs like Heroin have supersized versions of Alcohol and Tobacco's problem traits. In other words, I think I'll be there to participate in the revolution against this Benevolent Dictator! :)

AYBABTME 3y ago

Opium didn't do much good to China. Opioids aren't doing much goods to the US. An individual's freedoms can lead to macro phenomenons that negatively impact everyone's freedoms and outcomes. Individualism shouldn't be the only lens we look through when considering these problems. I think debilitating substances that are potentially addictive and don't have social acclimatation (unlike alcohol) are a very high risk. I don't think they should be banned outright if they have useful properties, but I don't think they should just be allowed in society without proper care. Just looking at it from a "I do what I want to my adult body" completely ignores the condition some of these adults will find themselves in, and the risk they will impose on others as a result. And it also completely ignores how we are all interdependent on each other in a modern economy. We all require a village of people to function and thrive and defend our rights. Something that potentially harms a large percentage of this village will also harm those in the village who don't partake. And then when your village is helpless, a belligerent neighbouring one comes knocking. Maybe you think that's an exaggeration, but it's literally what brought down China in the 1800s. It turned from one of the oldest and most grandiose powers on earth into an incapacitated corpse pillaged by western powers. So you know, being careful with these substances seems just a bit prudent.

datadeft 3y ago
Ok, lets not unban heroin. Can we get DMT, THC, MDMA, Psilocybin, LSD unbanned though? There is a good reason why I am asking these. I would say anything under nicotine / alcohol line should be legal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Drug_danger_and_dependence-small.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Drug_danger_and_dependenc...
otherme123 3y ago
Last time I checked, opioids were illegal in the US. Why are you talking like opiates are legal, so the current situation is evidence that legalization is bad? If anything, the current situation with opiates in the US shows ilegalization is not doing much good to the US. Also, the situation in China (if you are talking about the Opium Wars) are not that straight forward "legal opium bad". In fact, opium was legally consumed for centuries all around the globe. China emperors worried about "opium addiction is bad" so they illegalized it multiple times in 1729, 1799, 1814 and 1831. Opium wars started in 1839, but opium smuggling into China due to the prohibition was already rampant since 1729. It will be like saying that all the problems that arised around the Alcohol Prohibition was actually caused by alcohol and absolutely not caused by the prohibition. It looks that drug problems are always linked and worsened to some form of prohibition than to drug usage itself, but somehow it is the only logical and obvious solution to drug problems. Alcohol is worse than heroin (and by definition, way worse than opium) in almost every study (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#Adverse_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#Adverse_effects). Actually, "harm to others" category (i.e. affects society) is specially bad in alcohol. "Social acclimatation" is not a property of alcohol, any substance can be socially accepted (look at these cocaine ads in the 70's https://www.higherperspectives.com/these-cocaine-ads-from-the-1970s-show-how-much-our-world-has-changed-1429983023.html https://www.higherperspectives.com/these-cocaine-ads-from-th...), even opium or heroin.