Drug thread

[Jorster]

Discussion about drugs!
To start off, I would like to know your guys' opinions on the decriminalization of drugs such as in Singapore, and/or, the flat out legalization of certain ones like Marijuana in Washington and a bunch of other states.

[vh]

edit: i read the op wrong and i thought it said how would drug policy work in your utopia

chemically addictive drugs should be removed from society.

other addictive drugs (not necessarily chemically addictive) should also heavily discouraged, but not completely banned (1000% tax?).  this probably includes marijuana, tobacco, alcohol, nicotine.



for performance enhancing drugs, it really depends on the costs versus benefits. for example, if a mind-enhancing drug really produced provable results, it should be given in controlled doses to scientists, even if they happened to be chemically addictive or harmful. they're not for the manual laborers or athletes though.

[Jorster]

I agree that chemically addictive drugs should be heavily discouraged. However, lesser drugs, Marijuana, alcohol, tobacco, Nicotine should not be banned. I also think that you should not be imprisoned for possessing cocaine or heroin etc in "personal use amounts", just mandatory rehabilitation kind of deal.

[atomic7732]

Decriminalization would probably be a good thing... but encouraging the use isn't the best. I gonna go with a Bla-like stance on drugs and such... they can inherently be dangerous in addition to also being able to impair your thinking and put you in a different state of mind and that sometimes puts you and other people in dangerous situations.

I don't think they should be encouraged or so heavily accepted.

Personally, though, I have no problem if you use them. I'm not sure when I would, because I don't have a ton of contact with them where they can be potentially dangerous.

[Gordon Freeman]

Legalize drugs where they should be legalized.

Is it that hard?

[Bla]

Legalize drugs where they should be legalized.

Is it that hard?

"You should legalize drugs where you should legalize drugs"

Tautology

[gabriel.dac]

i injected three marijuanas the other day

[Stevodoran]

Marijuana gets boring after a while. Performance enhancing drugs shouldn't be used in sports.

Thats pretty much my opinion.

[matty406]

A lot of legal medicines have addictive and mind altering effects too. Basically there's a reason there's a thing called substance abuse.
Narcotics should be used with proper respect to the substance's effects and power. But all people are ever educated about are the bad things that have happened to people while on drugs.

[tuto99]

If a drug causes severe mind-alterations to the point it affects how you perceive your surroundings and such, then it should be illegalized. In the case for alcohol, I don't think it should be banned since it is so widely available. It would really upset the population if it were banned. But other underground drugs that you don't see on countertops, such as cocaine, heroin, etc., should be controlled so that it doesn't become as prevalent as alcohol.

[Gordon Freeman]

"You should legalize drugs where you should legalize drugs"

Tautology

Not necessarily. Essentially, I'm saying that "harmful" drugs should only be used where they're supposed to be, like laboratories and hospitals, not in dark alleyways

[Bla]

Not necessarily. Essentially, I'm saying that "harmful" drugs should only be used where they're supposed to be, like laboratories and hospitals, not in dark alleyways

Sorry but that's not essentially what you wrote. If it's essentially what you meant, fair enough, but you mentioned none of those things in your other post, so to someone who stumbles upon it with their own idea of where it should be legal or illegal, it could mean pretty much anything. If they think it should be legal everywhere, it should be legal everywhere. If they think it should be legal nowhere, it should be legal nowhere, etc. Thus the other post essentially said nothing concrete about where anything should be legalized or illegal.


Anyway, I think it's a long term goal for society to eliminate all alcohol, tobacco, cocaine and other such drugs from being used outside healthcare.

Drugs are in most cases harmful to society. To the extent they can give good results, they should be managed by healthcare workers (just like the drug store drugs) and not freely legalized, but only managed by people who are educated in their effects and know when their benefits outweigh their risks. The problem is that ecstacy, heroin, cocaine, alcohol, tobacco, all negatively affect people's physical and/or mental health, which is costly for society's productivity and health, and ending up getting cancer, dementia, mental illnesses, or literally being unable to release dopamine in the brain, all lead to unhappy lives and problems.

I think the main focus of punishment should be on stopping those who produce and/or sell drugs. The ones who are already addicted to them, even if they might've been stupid to start (though some also often do it as a result of living very unhappy lives they can't cope with), they should get help to stop using it (mandatory rehabilitation) rather than be punished. Fear of punishment is hardly going to deter someone getting severe symptoms from heroine addiction from trying to take more. To stop people from getting interested in drugs in the first place I think information programs and social policy are better ways than fear of punishment.

A lot of legal medicines have addictive and mind altering effects too. Basically there's a reason there's a thing called substance abuse.
Narcotics should be used with proper respect to the substance's effects and power. But all people are ever educated about are the bad things that have happened to people while on drugs.

Most legal medicines aren't universally legal either (at least not here), you need to be diagnozed with depression or some other problems to get antidepressive medicine. Even if they can have positive effects, they also have negative ones, and most people lack insight in when various chemical substances are good or bad for you. That's why the choice should be left over to those who are educated in their effects, imo.

[matty406]

A lot of legal medicines have addictive and mind altering effects too. Basically there's a reason there's a thing called substance abuse.
Narcotics should be used with proper respect to the substance's effects and power. But all people are ever educated about are the bad things that have happened to people while on drugs.

Most legal medicines aren't universally legal either (at least not here), you need to be diagnozed with depression or some other problems to get antidepressive medicine. Even if they can have positive effects, they also have negative ones, and most people lack insight in when various chemical substances are good or bad for you. That's why the choice should be left over to those who are educated in their effects, imo.

That's what I mean about the education part, why have a select few people who've probably never tried drugs have all the knowledge and control over what people can consume? Why not educate people in the effects properly so they can make their own choices?
Either way, narcotics will still get into circulation, Ketamine is used in hospitals as a painkiller but it still a popular party drug (And highly dangerous too). People also exploit loopholes to create substances that aren't technically the banned drug, but supposedly create the same effects, I'm talking about the 'legal highs' here which are a synthetic side effect of prohibition, and many many times more dangerous than the illegal cannabis can ever be.
Well anyways, anything I have to say after this will probably be the same stuff I've said already; education of both sides and self-control is what I'm getting at.

[Bla]

That's what I mean about the education part, why have a select few people who've probably never tried drugs have all the knowledge and control over what people can consume? Why not educate people in the effects properly so they can make their own choices?

In school we were taught drugs could make you feel happy and cause hallucinations that might at the very least feel interesting. I don't know what the situation is for other schools but I don't see any evidence that people are only told about the bad effects.

But maybe the reason why there's so much focus on the bad effects is because the problems caused by drugs are really a lot bigger than the problems they solve in most cases. And letting people make their own choices is a bad idea if they make the wrong choice. Such as choosing heroine is good for them, going on to try heroine, and then becoming addicted and robbing and stealing regularly in order to be able to keep up their use. When people make such choices it causes problems for those around them and society, so society has an interest in making sure people don't choose that. I trust those who have studied pharmacology for years and been graded on it more than I trust a large sample of the population who have had a few courses on heroine and other drugs, and I think it's better to let them manage things like medicine and drugs and judge who should use them and how.

Either way, narcotics will still get into circulation, Ketamine is used in hospitals as a painkiller but it still a popular party drug (And highly dangerous too).

And? Fires will eventually happen too, so should it be legal to set buildings on fire? I don't deny drugs can get into circulation, I'm just stating that I think it's definitely the goal to prevent it, not to ignore it or legalize it, and how I think we should minimize the problem. I realize we probably won't get rid of all drugs in the near future, but the fact that the problem is hard or unrealistic to get rid of doesn't mean we should give up or ignore it.

People also exploit loopholes to create substances that aren't technically the banned drug, but supposedly create the same effects, I'm talking about the 'legal highs' here which are a synthetic side effect of prohibition, and many many times more dangerous than the illegal cannabis can ever be.

While cannabis itself isn't very toxic - far less than alcohol and nicotine - the smoke from it has similar toxins to tobacco smoke (though in different quantities). The fact that some curious people try loopholes and end up in trouble might be worth it in order to prevent a less harmful drug (cannabis) from being used on the same scale as tobacco and alcohol. Harm to society isn't just harm to individual, but harm to individual multiplied by how many are harmed. Though I do see the arguments for legalizing cannabis and I definitely think the typical alcohol and tobacco stances are hypocritical from people who are also against cannabis.

[Jorster]

My opinions on drugs mostly go like this:
Weed should be legal if Tobacco/Alcohol are legal.
Shrooms/LSD/Peyote/Other hallucinogens should be legal because they are no worse than the above.
Cocaine/Heroin/Meth should be decriminalized but not legalized.
Other nasty shit like Krokodil should be illegal

[Jorster]

I also think we should stop scare-mongering elementary school kids with programs like DARE which only speak about the negative side of aforementioned drugs, instead of unbiasedly speaking about both the good and the bad

[blotz]

lmao i havn't heard one single good thing about drugs last year. will see if theres any this year
#bias

[Bla]

Permanent brain damage, mental illnesses, being unable to release dopamine, risk of death, serious physical and mental reactions to addiction are some of the risks of drugs like heroine... The positive side, feeling nice for a while... I don't really get the "both sides" argument. It makes perfect sense there's vastly more focus on the negative consequences for the simple reason they far outweigh the positive ones.

A bit like I don't think we really need a lengthy discussion of the pros and cons of train surfing either.

[Jorster]

It's true that there are more downsides to things like Heroin, Crack cocaine, etc, but I still think that cultivating nothing but fear for drugs is not a good way to go about it. I think that we should educate people about it, and allow them to make their own decisions about whether or not it's worth it, instead of just blanket statementing "Drugs are bad".

[atomic7732]

once again what if they make the wrong choice

[Gordon Freeman]

...and allow them to make their own decisions about whether or not it's worth it,

But it's not their own decision. Doing such drugs can put other people at risk, too.

[Jorster]

There is no wrong choice. There's a positive and a negative decision.

When have drugs like weed ever killed anyone, or ruined their life?

[Gordon Freeman]

People with low income can become addicted and eventually homeless if they spend too much on drugs.

[Jorster]

I said weed. No one has ever died from weed use, and it's not as expensive as other worse drugs

[Gordon Freeman]

Well sorry. I don't invest in the drug market so I wouldn't know

[Jorster]

Research before you claim something, bruh

[Bla]

There is no wrong choice. There's a positive and a negative decision.

I don't agree. If you can see choices lead to better or worse outcomes in terms of people being better off, healthier, more productive and more or less happy, you can say there are wrong choices. Wrong choices are choices such as killing innocent people, which we know causes unhappiness and fear and leaves society in a worse condition. Drugs similarly can harm people and therefore are a moral question, and since e.g. heroine does significantly more harm than good, you can say taking heroine is a wrong choice, unless you've analyzed the situation, such as doctors at a hospital giving drugs like morphine to relieve pain, judging it to be more important than their serious addictive conseqences and other unhealthy effects. I don't agree with moral relativism.

When have drugs like weed ever killed anyone, or ruined their life?

When has theft ever killed anyone? For something to be wrong, it's not necessary that it kills. All that's necessary is that it leaves people off in a worse condition.
With that said I'm not all that sure about weed, so I don't intend to judge whether weed should be outlawed or legal here, just going with the arguments, which apply to most drugs as well as tobacco and alcohol.
Instead I think the interesting question is
"Have drugs like weed statistically helped people more than they have harmed them?"
I don't have the answer to that. But for heroine, cocaine, tobacco and alcohol, my answer is a loud no.

[Jorster]

That is a valid point.
I think that it largely depends on the person.

[atomic7732]

There is no wrong choice. There's a positive and a negative decision.

When have drugs like weed ever killed anyone, or ruined their life?

When has alcohol killed anyone?

I mean it's okay if you're responsible (such as not drinking and driving) but with impaired judgement and not everyone is very responsible or has quite the common sense, things that don't have to be super harmful can become very harmful.

[Jorster]

Alcohol and weed are in different playing fields as far as I'm concerned. There's a reason alcoholism has a name, while "weedism" isn't.