7 ms·
"marijuana is currently in the same category as some of the hardest drugs, like heroin and LSD" Drugs should not be illegal period, but "some of the hardest dr
by TaylorAlexander 3y ago
"marijuana is currently in the same category as some of the hardest drugs, like heroin and LSD"
Drugs should not be illegal period, but "some of the hardest drugs, like heroin and LSD" is a very funny (dark) sentence to me.
- coffeebeqn 3y agoYeah what the heck is “hard”. Destructive on the human body? Acid and heroin have about as much in common as beer and psilocybin
- collegeburner 3y agodegree of effect. marijuana and ecstacy are "soft" because, in common recreational doses, they have less radical effects on one's personality and coherence. heroin, acid, and psilocybin all have more significant effects, microdoses aside.
- TaylorAlexander 3y agoI would argue that MDMA in common recreational doses has about the same level of radical effects as psilocybin. Different effects, but similar "level" or intensity of effect. And MDMA is much more dangerous for your body.
- loeg 3y agoOpioids including heroin have moderate effects at moderate doses, much like marijuana or alcohol.
- cyberax 3y agoEase of addiction combined with difficulty of quitting.
- BobaFloutist 3y agoI think it's like one of two criteria: 1. Damaging to your body and highly addictive. This is most opioids, arguably tobacco (which is kind of grandfathered into being legal), meth, cocaine etc. 2. Can cause significant, unpredictable shifts in behavior in otherwise stable people, to the point of endangering themselves or others. This is (also) cocaine and meth, arguably alcohol (also grandfathered in), ecstasy, and why LSD is so highly scheduled. There's probably a world in which there're responsible, safe ways to experiment with LSD, but it's not something you necessarily want your given random guy on the street to be taking, lest he walk or drive into traffic or start swinging a 2x4 at people.
- sv123 3y agoAll while clearly the most dangerous drugs like fentanyl are schedule 2. (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
- collegeburner 3y agothis isn't how things are defined, though. these days, heroin is not necessarily the best opiate against opioids. we have more selective drugs that are better at targeting analgesia over euphoria. fentanyl and more euphoric options are generally used for high levels of pain, not routinely. and so diacetylmorphine has very few medical uses besides treating withdrawal, where methadone is a better option. because it doesn't really have a legit medical use, it's schedule 1. marijuana, lsd, and psilocybin obviously no longer really fit these criteria, but heroin probably does. with all that said, i'm generally against scheduling and think pharmaceutical and recreational drugs should be available over-the-counter.
- rascul 3y ago> because it doesn't really have a legit medical use UK seems to think otherwise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#Medical_uses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#Medical_uses
- collegeburner 3y agosure, that's one alternative opinion. i am one of the biggest fda-haters you'll find but, in a vacuum, this call isn't really wrong. it can theoretically be used medically - but i'd be hard-pressed to think of why a doctor would use it now over other options. perhaps one can give some examples of cases where it was truly the only option.
- connicpu 3y agoI mean Fentanyl should be schedule 2, it has legitimate medical uses. That's why Cocaine and Methamphetamine are also schedule 2. Marijuana should probably be schedule 4 or 5, if not completely de-scheduled and regulated the same way Alcohol is, which is what a lot of recreational legalization states have done.
- revscat 3y agoI used to think this, but now am not as sure. The experience that Portugal and the Pacific Northwest have had has caused me to question this. I legitimately don’t know.
- hinkley 3y agoIt might work if you divert all of the funds to recovery programs. But Oregon did not do that and now they are backpedaling.
- bickfordb 3y agoWe also didn't require you to enter recovery programs.
- TaylorAlexander 3y agoWell, legalizing drugs won't solve other social problems. That takes completely unrelated reforms. But at least people won't end up senselessly put in prison for what they choose to put in their own body.
- binary132 3y agoPeople usually don't get thrown in jail for getting high, they get thrown in jail for things that they do either in order to get high, or because they got high. Am I wrong?
- cthalupa 3y agoBlanket legalization without any supporting infrastructure seems dicey. Portugal had fairly promising results early on when they had funding for all of the assistance programs, etc., but this money ran out and the taxes raised as part of the change did not provide enough funding to support them. The PNW implementations are scattershot messes, so no surprise things are going poorly there. (Though I don't think as poorly of harm reduction practices as many do) I think there are quite a few things we could broadly legalize, like marijuana, lsd, shrooms, dmt, etc., and have little cause for concern. Opioids, amphetamines, cocaine, etc. have enough abuse potential that we do probably need real programs to help people get clean and away from the situation that led them to begin abusing in the first place before we make them broadly legal. Though, at the same time there are legitimate arguments that we would see significant benefits in some areas by legalizing, if only because we could bundle naloxone with opioids and ensure consistent dosages and purity, which would save a lot of lives.
- neodymiumphish 3y agoThat’s because the article is wrong. Scheduling is not based on the dangerousness of the drug. It’s based on the potential for abuse and the medicinal value.
- proc0 3y agoOnly artificially concentrated drugs should be heavily regulated and tracked. Everything that is a plant should be legal like tobacco. The main danger is the dosage of the drug, and using chemicals and other ways to concentrate the active ingredients, which is what makes them so dangerous.
- sneak 3y agoHemlock? If drugs are to be outlawed based on their level of harm to society, tobacco shouldn’t be legal. It kills 7x as many as opioids every day.
- proc0 3y agoThat's just because more people are using. Imagine if just as many used heroine. Additionally, tobacco companies add more than just tobacco, which I believe is the most harmful and addictive part of cigarettes. I'm not saying it should all be banned, but the restrictions should align with how transformed and concentrated the product is.
- Clubber 3y agoAlso, tobacco typically kills after 20-30+ years of use. The people it kills are mostly older people in their 60s. Heroin kills people in the prime of their life. Imagine if nicotine was banned and people had to get it from dealers who make it in liquid form in huge vats in their basement. There would be a lot more dead from nicotine overdose for sure.
- BobaFloutist 3y agoTobacco frankly probably shouldn't be legal.
- proc0 3y agoThat would be like banning sugar. Sugar probably kills more people.