4 ms·

Drug war continues to be an enormous amount of waste and human suffering for no clear public benefit The only "scandal" here is that an adult can't go buy adde

• seper8 2y ago
  Adderall in a grocery store? Why not add a Xanax isle...
  • _8j50 2y ago
    Ok, why not?
    • manuelmoreale 2y ago
      For obvious reasons related to public health and the general incapacity of human beings to regulate themselves.
      • throwthrowuknow 2y ago
        I assume you’ve ridden in a car or sat in a dark theatre.
        • manuelmoreale 2y ago
          Yes and the point you’re trying to make is? That as a society we allow some things that might be risky and not others? Isn’t that obvious? We try to find a balance. Or are you suggesting that since we allow people to drive cars we should also give people easy access to all drugs?
          • throwthrowuknow 2y ago
            Since you missed it, the vast majority of people can regulate their behaviour just fine and we deal with people who don’t without banning activities except for special medical exceptions.
            • manuelmoreale 2y ago
              The vast majority of people grew up in a society with regulations. You telling me you’d be happy to let people drive a car without a drivers license? How about a plane? Should we just trust people to not drive if they’re not capable? I certainly don’t want to live in that world.
              • iwontberude 2y ago
                We already live in that world because of International Driver's Permit, no offense intended to any holder of such a permit.
            • dwaltrip 2y ago
              Uh, laws exist?
        • _8j50 2y ago
          Those are private properties or privileged activities. Eating poison, in your private home being regulated means your home is not truly yours and you have no liberty.
          • manuelmoreale 2y ago
            I’m not sure about the others in this discussion but I’m certainly not saying you shouldn’t be able to eat poison at home. I’m saying as a society we should want to try avoid selling poison freely if we know a non negligible number of people would, in fact, eat it at home and die as a result. And again, I’m not arguing for criminalizing the people who do get poison and eat it. I’m not arguing for criminalizing anyone actually. I’m arguing for sensible checks in place. Which is what we’re already doing with things like drivers licenses and medical prescriptions.
            • _8j50 2y ago
              So long as those people are adults who are functional (can care for themselves), it isn't society's business to protect them from self-harm. Your sensible checks are violations of liberty. A person's right and authority over themselves being infringed is a loss of liberty. Society gets involved when their actions affect non-consenting members of society.
      • advael 2y ago
        Nonsense. Humans do fine at regulating themselves the vast overwhelming majority of the time, and edge cases worth intervening on generally involve more than one human
        • manuelmoreale 2y ago
          Again, “humans do fine” it’s in the context of societies with already regulations in place. Do you have an example of a society with no regulations where humans do indeed “do fine”?
          • advael 2y ago
            In the context of drug legalization? Yes. The USA prior to 1970 We didn't have these "epidemics" of drug deaths to a greater degree than we have now. Why is that?
            • manuelmoreale 2y ago
              So you telling me that before the 1970s you could buy and use any type of drugs freely, no prescription required?
              • advael 2y ago
                For many substances we consider "obviously" illegal now, yes. Most famously, Coca-Cola used to use cocaine instead of the caffeine it currently has. Even for the "prescription-only" enforcement level, this used to be the purview of the FDA and the people subject to enforcement were the ones operating pharmacies, not their customers, or people who got stuff through side channels. Maybe cops still used the excuse of drug intoxication to deal with people more harshly, but they couldn't stop and search someone merely on the suspicion that they had contraband Drug enforcement should work like industry regulation and consumer protections, not operate on individuals as criminal penalties
                • manuelmoreale 2y ago
      • advael 2y ago
        "Obvious" is a concept that only makes sense when there is significant shared context. When it is applied to the idea that is directly in dispute, it is about as compelling an argument as "because I said so"
        • manuelmoreale 2y ago
          Don’t you think it’s obvious why we want regulation around consumptions of things that can genuinely bad for the population? The shared context here is population health.
          • advael 2y ago
            Perhaps that seems obvious to you. I don't view it as obvious that anyone's individual health decisions should ever be made and enforced by the state. It is obvious to me that trying to "regulate" these choices through a prohibition framework is not only ineffective, but does massive harm. However, since we're arguing about that very question, I don't feel it sufficient to merely say "it's obvious" and leave it at that. The Volstead act didn't save us from the evils of alcohol, but it did put a lot of people in jail, strengthen organized crime, and create a reactionary push for more draconian police powers. The difference now is that the Controlled Substances Act and its international equivalents are backed by more technologically powerful governments, and cover more substances. Even in the early 20th century, prohibition policies created powerful criminal cartels and draconian police states. The controlled substances act has created both in spades, and the downstream consequences are so vast that they have arguably defined the society we live in, with its mass-incarceration, constant surveillance, and at least in the US, an incredibly punishing, byzantine, and costly healthcare system
            • manuelmoreale 2y ago
              I’m not going to comment on the second part because I don’t live in the US and I have no idea what the situation is in your corner of the world on that front. As for the first part, you said you don’t agree about the state having a say in your health but the original problem was related to selling all sorts of drugs openly. Do we both agree that at some point some limitation has to be put in place otherwise some people would just abuse such a system? Or do you think we should just let people do whatever and then the role of a society is to help those who end up abusing those drugs? Because it’s happening already, people are already abusing all sorts of drugs even with some restrictions in place. And mind you, I’m not arguing for criminalization. I’m just arguing for adding at least some regulation like requiring a prescription. I see that as a good middle ground. But maybe it’s just me being raised here that makes me see things differently than you, that’s always a possibility.
      • _8j50 2y ago
        So we are properties regulated by the state, even though the state is made up of laypersons?
        • manuelmoreale 2y ago
          No we aren’t? No idea what you’re even trying to say.
          • _8j50 2y ago
            If we aren't regulated then anti-drug laws shouldn't exist. A government made up of it's people cannot regulate it's people by virtue of having a superior self control or wisdom. How can there be liberty without this?
  • backspace_ 2y ago
    Why not a pharmacy?
  • advael 2y ago
    Absolutely. People should be able to buy and use products they want, and have some reasonable assurances they're getting what the packaging says they're getting, and they can access adequate information to make an informed decision about it. The drug war impedes all these things for no benefit
• _8j50 2y ago
  Some free society we live in. The feds are just looking out for their real employers: the oligarchs and their companies.
• wobfan 2y ago
  if they need it, they can go to a doctor, who'll prescribe it to them. there's a reason to limit drugs that have an enormous dependency potential that a lot of humans cannot deal with, obviously. currently this is the way, and even through this way adderall and other drugs like opiates are getting in the hand of vulnerable people way too often - so getting rid of the restrictions isn't the way to go. if there wouldn't be and limits, these people would not suddenly think "ohhh so this is my responsibility now? okay, i just quit then." but "oh so this is available for like a dollar in walmart? i'll get it, i'm a bit down today and can't focus". and guess what, there will never be a day where they'll be able to focus without it anymore.
  • throwthrowuknow 2y ago
    If doctors are to play a role in this process shouldn’t it be in treating or helping that small group who has a problem? You’re making the same argument that alcohol and tobacco prohibitionists do. I can also make the same argument to ban this website or tiktok or all social media or all of the internet.
  • advael 2y ago
    Sure, and tons of people think they can't sleep without melatonin, wake up without caffeine, handle pollen without zirtec, handle stress without nicotine, relax without alcohol, etc Doctors can give good advice about all these things. They don't legally get to make the decision for you. Doctors are also stretched thin, and making them responsible for making the vast overwhelming majority of personal decisions about what drugs someone can use is a huge part of that. Also, sending cops after people clearly isn't making addicts stop wanting drugs, as you point out, nor is it helping those addicts. It is, however, creating a vastly powerful police state with a constant justification for surveillance, more and more every time someone sees a drug problem and somehow nonsensically thinks despite trying this for 50 years the answer is still more enforcement Nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs anyone takes. It's incredibly habit-forming, often the standard against which psychopharmacological analysis compares addictiveness of other drugs. Withdrawal symptoms hit quickly, and include extreme cravings, brain fog, and irritability. Still, you only see the kind of desperation and violence around it you see with other drugs in places where it's not readily available, like prisons and warzones. Sure, people struggle with addiction. I have. I no longer use nicotine, despite finding it a very useful drug, and the process of quitting was greatly aided by being able to ask my doctor and various people around me for support and advice. I still will tell people close to me if I'm thinking of buying a vape, and often they'll help talk me out of it. Stigma and fear of legal reprisal prevents many addicts from seeking help from these avenues when the drug is illegal The carceral approach to drugs does zero good and lots of harm to regular citizens, both in individual and systemic ways. It is entirely for the profit of police, prisons, and pharmaceutical companies
• bitlax 2y ago
  > Drug war continues to be an enormous amount of waste and human suffering for no clear public benefit I know this has been the line for years, but now that we've taken our foot off the gas we have grocery stores, maternity wards, and highways that smell like pot and we have a astronomical number of fentanyl poisonings.
  • indigo0086 2y ago
    Most drugs affected by fentanyl are illegal drugs, the government overprescribing has been around before the "legalize it". I believe its up to the consumer to discern whether a drug is for them. A drug user that's not desperate to get it by any means necessary will be less likely to encounter poor illegal drug production quality assurance. I don't believe legalizing it will reduce drug use, but it will mostly enable a Marley of safer drug production as far as immediate harmful effects. I'm not convinced legalizing drugs is long term beneficial to human mental health, but it would have the coeffect of people thinking Kore purely about what it is to be free and responsible
    • bitlax 2y ago
      This is difficult to read.
  • tapoxi 2y ago
    Grocery stores that smell like pot?!?! Good heavens, these people should be in prison!
    • datavirtue 2y ago
      The parking lot of every Walmart smells like a long beach swap meet.
    • bitlax 2y ago
      Wow you'd throw them in prison? Seems a bit much. I'd probably recommend one of a thousand other mechanisms of enforcement. At any rate, glad you conceded the other points. We found common ground and agree that the drug war was doing some good. I don't think I'll be eating any food that you've cooked though. I can't imagine what would happen if I sent you to the store for a ripe pineapple.
• seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  Aderall isn't allowed in many other countries at all, like the EU and Japan. Do they all get this wrong?
  • advael 2y ago
    Absolutely. It's actually hard to disentangle drug enforcement regimes in their current form from pressure exerted by the US, but even if they arrived at doing government overreach independently I would consider it government overreach. Also disparities in what substances are considered dangerous is evidence against this all being grounded in reality, not for it