3 ms·

The following are drugs [0]: * Heroin * Meth * Crack * Cocaine * Cannabis * Cigarettes * Alcohol * Coffee * Sugar There is also fat and salt which whi

The following are drugs [0]: * Heroin * Meth * Crack * Cocaine * Cannabis * Cigarettes * Alcohol * Coffee * Sugar There is also fat and salt which while necessary to life, are also habit-forming in the excess and negatively affect humans. Pray tell where you would like to draw the line of which drugs you would ban for the benefit of society. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug > A drug is any chemical substance that when consumed causes a change in an organism's physiology, including its psychology, if applicable

khazhoux 2y ago
This is not a serious argument. Are you suggesting the distinction between heroin and salt is arbitrary, on the scale of good-vs-bad for humans and society?
- deanCommie 2y ago
  No, I'm saying that the balance between "<substance is so harmful in it's effects that it's beneficial to society to eradicate it outright>" and "<substance is harmful to the individual but in a free society we have body autonomy>" is a spectrum. On one extremes we have substances that people would pretty universally agree which of the buckets they'd put them into. But where in the middle the balance shifts from one to the other is fairly controversial. Heroin decriminilization is controversial. Banning excessively large soda drinks is controversial. Everyone agrees cigarettes and alcohol are harmful, and probably wouldn't be legal if they were invented today but noone seriously suggests criminalizing them. My point with OP that treating all "drugs" so black-and-white is harmful without more nuanced discussion. Do they believe cannabis be illegal but cigarettes legal? I don't know.
aristofun 2y ago
Are you ignorant or malicious? ) Yes, alcohol and cigarettes should be controlled too. They are as bad to society as marijuana etc. And one day we’ll also realize how harmful uncontrolled and excessive sugar in every product is too.
aristofun 2y ago
Jokes aside, the line is much more clear than drug defenders and beneficiaries are trying to frame. Did you know of anyone who sent their life down the toilet due to coffee? At the same time how many people you think are dying every day from diabetes, obesity and lung cancer? Not to mention all people who ruined their lifes because of alcoholism, marijuana etc. What other “nuances” do you need?
- deanCommie 2y ago
  > Not to mention all people who ruined their lifes because of alcoholism, marijuana etc. Thank you for making my point for me. Are we talking about criminalizing alcohol? Should we be? If the line is clear, please draw it. Show me which on this list what you would criminalize, which you would ban (but not criminalize), which you would regulate, and which you would allow completely unregulated. I might actually agree with your list entirely! But most people that call things "drugs" without nuance also include marijuana without any nuance. And either don't include alcohol for cultural/subjective reasons or DO include it, without consequence to the reality of prohibition.
  - aristofun 2y ago
    It is a gradient rather than black/white Higher the severity of the drug -> the more controlled and frowned upon it should be. And more importantly it should be a widespread common knowledge in society that there are no harmless drugs. There are always tradeoffs (even with coffee). And all addictive or destructive drugs should be banned except some narrow exceptions for specific reasons (like psychodelics reasearch in psychaitry etc.). How exactly it is implemented - depends on the specific context. No universal solutions. For example in the middle east gashish and weed were historically much more common than alcohol, so it doesn't make sense (and will not work anyway) to impose severe punishment for it there. While it would definitely benefit western/northern countries to prevent spreading of it and instead allowing alcohol for adults etc.

khazhoux 2y ago

This is not a serious argument. Are you suggesting the distinction between heroin and salt is arbitrary, on the scale of good-vs-bad for humans and society?

deanCommie 2y ago
No, I'm saying that the balance between "<substance is so harmful in it's effects that it's beneficial to society to eradicate it outright>" and "<substance is harmful to the individual but in a free society we have body autonomy>" is a spectrum. On one extremes we have substances that people would pretty universally agree which of the buckets they'd put them into. But where in the middle the balance shifts from one to the other is fairly controversial. Heroin decriminilization is controversial. Banning excessively large soda drinks is controversial. Everyone agrees cigarettes and alcohol are harmful, and probably wouldn't be legal if they were invented today but noone seriously suggests criminalizing them. My point with OP that treating all "drugs" so black-and-white is harmful without more nuanced discussion. Do they believe cannabis be illegal but cigarettes legal? I don't know.

aristofun 2y ago

Are you ignorant or malicious? ) Yes, alcohol and cigarettes should be controlled too. They are as bad to society as marijuana etc. And one day we’ll also realize how harmful uncontrolled and excessive sugar in every product is too.

aristofun 2y ago

Jokes aside, the line is much more clear than drug defenders and beneficiaries are trying to frame. Did you know of anyone who sent their life down the toilet due to coffee? At the same time how many people you think are dying every day from diabetes, obesity and lung cancer? Not to mention all people who ruined their lifes because of alcoholism, marijuana etc. What other “nuances” do you need?

deanCommie 2y ago
> Not to mention all people who ruined their lifes because of alcoholism, marijuana etc. Thank you for making my point for me. Are we talking about criminalizing alcohol? Should we be? If the line is clear, please draw it. Show me which on this list what you would criminalize, which you would ban (but not criminalize), which you would regulate, and which you would allow completely unregulated. I might actually agree with your list entirely! But most people that call things "drugs" without nuance also include marijuana without any nuance. And either don't include alcohol for cultural/subjective reasons or DO include it, without consequence to the reality of prohibition.
- aristofun 2y ago
  It is a gradient rather than black/white Higher the severity of the drug -> the more controlled and frowned upon it should be. And more importantly it should be a widespread common knowledge in society that there are no harmless drugs. There are always tradeoffs (even with coffee). And all addictive or destructive drugs should be banned except some narrow exceptions for specific reasons (like psychodelics reasearch in psychaitry etc.). How exactly it is implemented - depends on the specific context. No universal solutions. For example in the middle east gashish and weed were historically much more common than alcohol, so it doesn't make sense (and will not work anyway) to impose severe punishment for it there. While it would definitely benefit western/northern countries to prevent spreading of it and instead allowing alcohol for adults etc.