3 ms·

Drugs are absolutely not victimless, except perhaps for caffeine.

by cubefox 5mo ago

deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
bit-anarchist 5mo ago
But they are.
- cubefox 5mo ago
  False. There is plenty of empirical data on the destructive effects of many drugs.
  - bit-anarchist 5mo ago
    That's still not proof of victimhood. Only that's imprudent to consume drugs. Also, due to politization of the topic, part of the data is distorted to help sell the war on drugs, which had a much more destructive effect overall, aside from failing in its main goal.
    - cubefox 5mo ago
      The ""war"" on drugs seems to be pretty successful in some countries where illegal drug usage is quite low compared to others.
      - bit-anarchist 5mo ago
        Certainly not on the US, or any country where the criminalization is in full force.
        cubefox 5mo ago
        > Certainly not on the US We don't know how much higher the drug usage would be if all drugs were legalized. > or any country where the criminalization is in full force. That's an extremely general statement which is almost certainly wrong.
        bit-anarchist 5mo ago
        > We don't know how much higher the drug usage would be if all drugs were legalized. Given what we know about the prohibition era and insights about the success in the fight against drug abuse, it's a pretty safe bet. > That's an extremely general statement which is almost certainly wrong. Is it? Even the most successful countries, like Japan and Singapore, seem to have low drug usage despite of criminalization, not because of. Even then, the data is murky, because criminalization of usage incentivizes low self-reporting.
dgellow 5mo ago
The only victim to weed are people getting jailed for it. Same for shrooms
- cubefox 5mo ago
  Weed isn't harmless. For example, it can probably lead to long-term brain damage. It is also toxic for the lungs, although less so than tobacco, which is usually consumed in greater quantities.
  - dgellow 5mo ago
    Sure, but that’s not different from other things reserved to adults in life. And we don’t label those consumers as victims… it’s stretching the definition of victim to a point where it loses its value
    - cubefox 5mo ago
      Considering that there are a) many drugs that are substantially more dangerous than marijuana and that b) addiction does create users which are not in full control of their actions anymore, the term "drug victim" does make sense.

Drugs are absolutely not victimless, except perhaps for caffeine.

by cubefox 5mo ago

Drugs are absolutely not victimless, except perhaps for caffeine.

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

bit-anarchist 5mo ago

But they are.

cubefox 5mo ago
False. There is plenty of empirical data on the destructive effects of many drugs.
- bit-anarchist 5mo ago
  That's still not proof of victimhood. Only that's imprudent to consume drugs. Also, due to politization of the topic, part of the data is distorted to help sell the war on drugs, which had a much more destructive effect overall, aside from failing in its main goal.
  - cubefox 5mo ago
    The ""war"" on drugs seems to be pretty successful in some countries where illegal drug usage is quite low compared to others.
    - bit-anarchist 5mo ago
      Certainly not on the US, or any country where the criminalization is in full force.
      - cubefox 5mo ago
        > Certainly not on the US We don't know how much higher the drug usage would be if all drugs were legalized. > or any country where the criminalization is in full force. That's an extremely general statement which is almost certainly wrong.
        bit-anarchist 5mo ago
        > We don't know how much higher the drug usage would be if all drugs were legalized. Given what we know about the prohibition era and insights about the success in the fight against drug abuse, it's a pretty safe bet. > That's an extremely general statement which is almost certainly wrong. Is it? Even the most successful countries, like Japan and Singapore, seem to have low drug usage despite of criminalization, not because of. Even then, the data is murky, because criminalization of usage incentivizes low self-reporting.

dgellow 5mo ago

The only victim to weed are people getting jailed for it. Same for shrooms

cubefox 5mo ago
Weed isn't harmless. For example, it can probably lead to long-term brain damage. It is also toxic for the lungs, although less so than tobacco, which is usually consumed in greater quantities.
- dgellow 5mo ago
  Sure, but that’s not different from other things reserved to adults in life. And we don’t label those consumers as victims… it’s stretching the definition of victim to a point where it loses its value
  - cubefox 5mo ago
    Considering that there are a) many drugs that are substantially more dangerous than marijuana and that b) addiction does create users which are not in full control of their actions anymore, the term "drug victim" does make sense.