6 ms·

People should be allowed to put whatever they want in their body. The war on drugs is a seismic failure that does nothing but propagate the prison industrial co

People should be allowed to put whatever they want in their body. The war on drugs is a seismic failure that does nothing but propagate the prison industrial complex. The most popular drugs on these sites are marijuana and psychedelics such as LSD and psilocybin mushrooms that are by no means "hard" drugs. Making things illegal, especially drugs, doesn't make them go away. Your just pushing them underground where they aren't regulated.

qwertzlcoatl 13y ago
“If the words ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ don’t include the right to experiment with your own consciousness, then the Declaration of Independence isn’t worth the hemp it was written on.” - Terence McKenna
- Wingman4l7 13y ago
  While an admirable sentiment, it's technically incorrect -- the Declaration of Independence (or at least the copy in the National Archive) was written on parchment paper: http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a8.html#Q145 http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a8.html#Q145
  - qwertzlcoatl 13y ago
    Taken from the source you provided: "It is likely, however, that drafts of the documents were written on paper made from hemp. In that period, most paper was made from hemp or flax and a mixture of recycled rags and cloth." So, technically, the Declaration of Independence was written on hemp. It was then transferred to a more durable platform provided by the Netherlands.
    - Wingman4l7 13y ago
      Technically, we don't know for sure, and technically, I said that the copy in the National Archives was not -- which is technically correct. Technically, it doesn't really matter. I'm sure the founders meant that we should have "the right to experiment with your own consciousness", a sentiment which, FWIW, I wholeheartedly agree with.
tunesmith 13y ago
I realize it's a popular sentiment here, but it's based off of a philosophy that isn't universal and that reasonable people can disagree on. When you consider that some drugs are physically addictive and that some people are more susceptible to the addiction, there's a societal incentive to protect people from the opportunity to become addicted. I get that to some people that is a "nanny state", but I also think that the belief that "every man for himself" scales to a population size of n is overly simplistic.
- icebraining 13y ago
  Allowing people to put whatever they want in their bodies and "every man for himself" is a false dichotomy. The idea is to focus more on helping instead of beating the people who are addicted, which is what criminalization of usage does.
- eatitraw 13y ago
  Why do you equate physical force and prohibition to helping people? Why not start a private fund/charity, which, for example, helps addicts beat their habits? Or maybe distribute accurate information about drugs and drugs-related programs? Coercion isn't the only way to help people. And absence of coercion isn't "every man for himself"
  - sfjailbird 13y ago
    It's clear that drugs are destroying people and communities. Take crack as an example. Do you really think making it freely available, or providing free soup kitchens and mecical aid, would alleviate the misery and destruction it causes to people and communities? Sometimes people need to be protected against themselves, this is particularly true for the less educated (which tends to coincide with the underpriviledged), because they will seriously fuck up their lives (which in turn affects their dependants and communities) unless provided guidance and, yes, certain restrictions.
    - mvanvoorden 13y ago
      Why would anyone still be using (street) crack when the pure and safe alternative is there to use when drugs are no longer illegal? People don't need to be protected against themselves. That's exactly what makes people not being able to care for themselves. Prohibition usually means no awareness is being raised about the risks or effects of a certain drug. We get raised with the idea that drugs are bad and awful, that all of them are highly addictive and super deadly. Except for alcohol of course, please drink as much as you like, it's safe. This scare campaign works for most of us, but not for the lucky few who are curious and try it anyway. Guess what? They find out it's not bad, awful, deadly or addictive at all, but of course most of them are, still ignorant of all the other details of the drugs they used. So this first time drug user tells his friends that drugs aren't so bad at all. Some friends will probably try it as well. If this concerns weed or mdma, this is not really a problem. These are safe to use, hard to overdose, make you a social human being and they are not (physically) addictive, but it might just as easy be cocaine, speed (meth), lsd or shrooms. The first two are addictive, bad for your body and brain and cocaine changes most people into irritating macho men while prolonged use of speed can make one paranoid. The latter two are psychedelics. These can be dangerous if you don't know what you're doing. These drugs open your mind, makes you realize things you never really thought about before and confronts you with unprocessed experiences or trauma's you may have, which can be quite scary, especially if you don't expect it. Imagine your friend had a super duper happy lsd trip and recommends this to his depressed friend. Chances are high that he will go 'bad' resulting in psychosis. On the other hand, he might suddenly see the light and find out how he can get out of his depression. If drugs were legal and awareness about their pro's, cons and dangers is being raised, more people will be encouraged to do some reading before they use something or at least the friend who brings the drugs knows what he's carrying and what the effects are. People only need to be protected for misinformation, by informing them with facts instead of fear, uncertainty and doubt. Informed people make less (stupid) mistakes, and no one should be protected against themselves. If you die because of ignorance in an informed society, it's your own effing fault. Drugs don't destroy people and communities, misinformation and ignorance does.

qwertzlcoatl 13y ago

“If the words ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ don’t include the right to experiment with your own consciousness, then the Declaration of Independence isn’t worth the hemp it was written on.” - Terence McKenna

Wingman4l7 13y ago
While an admirable sentiment, it's technically incorrect -- the Declaration of Independence (or at least the copy in the National Archive) was written on parchment paper: http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a8.html#Q145 http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a8.html#Q145
- qwertzlcoatl 13y ago
  Taken from the source you provided: "It is likely, however, that drafts of the documents were written on paper made from hemp. In that period, most paper was made from hemp or flax and a mixture of recycled rags and cloth." So, technically, the Declaration of Independence was written on hemp. It was then transferred to a more durable platform provided by the Netherlands.
  - Wingman4l7 13y ago
    Technically, we don't know for sure, and technically, I said that the copy in the National Archives was not -- which is technically correct. Technically, it doesn't really matter. I'm sure the founders meant that we should have "the right to experiment with your own consciousness", a sentiment which, FWIW, I wholeheartedly agree with.

tunesmith 13y ago

I realize it's a popular sentiment here, but it's based off of a philosophy that isn't universal and that reasonable people can disagree on. When you consider that some drugs are physically addictive and that some people are more susceptible to the addiction, there's a societal incentive to protect people from the opportunity to become addicted. I get that to some people that is a "nanny state", but I also think that the belief that "every man for himself" scales to a population size of n is overly simplistic.

icebraining 13y ago
Allowing people to put whatever they want in their bodies and "every man for himself" is a false dichotomy. The idea is to focus more on helping instead of beating the people who are addicted, which is what criminalization of usage does.
eatitraw 13y ago
Why do you equate physical force and prohibition to helping people? Why not start a private fund/charity, which, for example, helps addicts beat their habits? Or maybe distribute accurate information about drugs and drugs-related programs? Coercion isn't the only way to help people. And absence of coercion isn't "every man for himself"
- sfjailbird 13y ago
  It's clear that drugs are destroying people and communities. Take crack as an example. Do you really think making it freely available, or providing free soup kitchens and mecical aid, would alleviate the misery and destruction it causes to people and communities? Sometimes people need to be protected against themselves, this is particularly true for the less educated (which tends to coincide with the underpriviledged), because they will seriously fuck up their lives (which in turn affects their dependants and communities) unless provided guidance and, yes, certain restrictions.
  - mvanvoorden 13y ago
    Why would anyone still be using (street) crack when the pure and safe alternative is there to use when drugs are no longer illegal? People don't need to be protected against themselves. That's exactly what makes people not being able to care for themselves. Prohibition usually means no awareness is being raised about the risks or effects of a certain drug. We get raised with the idea that drugs are bad and awful, that all of them are highly addictive and super deadly. Except for alcohol of course, please drink as much as you like, it's safe. This scare campaign works for most of us, but not for the lucky few who are curious and try it anyway. Guess what? They find out it's not bad, awful, deadly or addictive at all, but of course most of them are, still ignorant of all the other details of the drugs they used. So this first time drug user tells his friends that drugs aren't so bad at all. Some friends will probably try it as well. If this concerns weed or mdma, this is not really a problem. These are safe to use, hard to overdose, make you a social human being and they are not (physically) addictive, but it might just as easy be cocaine, speed (meth), lsd or shrooms. The first two are addictive, bad for your body and brain and cocaine changes most people into irritating macho men while prolonged use of speed can make one paranoid. The latter two are psychedelics. These can be dangerous if you don't know what you're doing. These drugs open your mind, makes you realize things you never really thought about before and confronts you with unprocessed experiences or trauma's you may have, which can be quite scary, especially if you don't expect it. Imagine your friend had a super duper happy lsd trip and recommends this to his depressed friend. Chances are high that he will go 'bad' resulting in psychosis. On the other hand, he might suddenly see the light and find out how he can get out of his depression. If drugs were legal and awareness about their pro's, cons and dangers is being raised, more people will be encouraged to do some reading before they use something or at least the friend who brings the drugs knows what he's carrying and what the effects are. People only need to be protected for misinformation, by informing them with facts instead of fear, uncertainty and doubt. Informed people make less (stupid) mistakes, and no one should be protected against themselves. If you die because of ignorance in an informed society, it's your own effing fault. Drugs don't destroy people and communities, misinformation and ignorance does.