Shouldn't all drugs be legal

[Lindsay]

On 9/6/2020 at 1:11 PM, Consept said:

That's crazy bro, sorry to hear you went through that but thanks for sharing it. Many countries in Europe have the idea that the legalisation includes making the addicts life better, therapy, helping them with work etc, as well as providing clean needles. Do you think this could work? 

Hell yeah! I wish the USA would get it together and reform our outdated systems. It doesn’t seem possible in my life time. So banning those hardcore drugs I agree with. It effects generations not just the addict. As much as I loved my mom, I now wish she was sentenced to prison. At least she would possibly be alive. I don’t know. 
 

Marijuana and Psychedelics  I’m all for legalizing btw. It’s the meth, crack, and heroin I’m terrified of and I wouldn’t  wish that lifestyle even to my worst enemies. 

[Carl-Richard]

16 minutes ago, Lindsay said:

Marijuana and Psychedelics  I’m all for legalizing btw. It’s the meth, crack, and heroin I’m terrified of and I wouldn’t  wish that lifestyle even to my worst enemies. 

Notice the distinction: it's the lifestyle that is the problem; the drug is only a requirement. Either way, whether it's legal or not will not have much of an impact on whether or not somebody picks up that lifestyle. There you can make another distinction: the lifestyle is a symptom of society's dysfunctions, not the cause of those dysfunctions.

[Leo Gura]

On 9/6/2020 at 0:06 PM, Opo said:

Doesn't work. 

Dare program had the opposite results of intended.  

DARE program was not about educating truth about drugs. DARE was a program to demonize drugs and indocrinate abstinence.

It is the difference between sex abstinence programs vs proper sex ed and handing out free condoms and free birth control and free STD tests. And actually teaching how to have high quality, deep sex.

It is insane that we do not teach teens how to have high quality sex! Truly the Dark Ages.

[Opo]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

DARE program was not about educating truth about drugs. DARE was a program to demonize drugs and indocrinate abstinence.

I thought that's what she was suggesting. 

Im all for educating people about drugs. That's probably what stopped me from doing the low consciousness ones. 

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It is the difference between sex abstinence programs vs proper sex ed and handing out free condoms and free birth control and free STD tests. And actually teaching how to have high quality, deep sex.

Would teaching kids how to do psychedelics be on the level of teaching them how to have deep sex? 

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, Opo said:

Would teaching kids how to do psychedelics be on the level of teaching them how to have deep sex?

Not kids, but teens.

African tribes give their teens psychedelics like iboga. So it's not so crazy when properly supervised.

[mandyjw]

Drugs meet a deep human need in life, the need to feel alive. If we have created a society that values safety, respectability, accumulated wealth and material growth, and have neglected the deep spiritual power and connection it's all based on, drugs will be go-to the material bridge to get there. 

People are not conscious of this need. Either they buy in and repress the need, or they rebel and they see drugs as the only way through to get this need met. 

[Forestluv]

17 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Either way, whether it's legal or not will not have much of an impact on whether or not somebody picks up that lifestyle. There you can make another distinction: the lifestyle is a symptom of society's dysfunctions, not the cause of those dysfunctions.

I’m ok with decriminalizing all drugs, yet I think legalization of certain hard drugs goes too far. Allowing legal consumption, marketing, sellIng and profiting off of drugs like methamphetamine wouldn’t be good for society, imo. It’s not just the harmful impact to the individual, there is a huge social harm with meth. I’d be for decriminalizing meth, yet not legalizing it. 

[DrewNows]

33 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

I’m ok with decriminalizing all drugs, yet I think legalization of certain hard drugs goes too far. Allowing legal consumption, marketing, sellIng and profiting off of drugs like methamphetamine wouldn’t be good for society, imo. It’s not just the harmful impact to the individual, there is a huge social harm with meth. I’d be for decriminalizing meth, yet not legalizing it. 

How ironic though rightthe pharmaceutical companies are doing exactly what they were designed to mitigate with the efforts to control legalization in a capitalistic society. The issue seems to be the control science and information perpetuating the cycles of powerlessness and hierarchy/patriarchy producing unwarranted/unlawful divisions of freedom 

I’m not merely demonizing the norms, just sharing a perspective regarding the current normalities set in place 

 

[DrewNows]

@mandyjw the need to feel alive is our connection with all that is, right? Society is built upon a limited or lower dimension of human experience. Everyone is filling the void of emptiness with something whether it’s deemed societally acceptable or not. It’s interesting, someone fills the void with work or drive while another goes for drugs or an art expression 
The issues in looking at one aspect of the human experience, from one perspective, crazy. 

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Forestluv said:

I’m ok with decriminalizing all drugs, yet I think legalization of certain hard drugs goes too far. Allowing legal consumption, marketing, sellIng and profiting off of drugs like methamphetamine wouldn’t be good for society, imo. It’s not just the harmful impact to the individual, there is a huge social harm with meth. I’d be for decriminalizing meth, yet not legalizing it. 

I used to have that view myself, but Hamilton Morris made me reconsider that position (I'm still on the fence though). He essentially doesn't believe in the hard/soft drug dichotomy. I recommend watching his latest Joe Rogan podcast appearance:

 

Edited September 8, 2020 by Carl-Richard

[Forestluv]

14 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I used to have that view myself, but Hamilton Morris made me reconsider that position (I'm still on the fence though). He essentially doesn't believe in the hard/soft drug dichotomy. I recommend watching his latest Joe Rogan podcast appearance:

 

I don't have the time to watch the video right now, yet interested in doing so later and will update with my impressions. Thanks.

[Forestluv]

52 minutes ago, DrewNows said:

How ironic though rightthe pharmaceutical companies are doing exactly what they were designed to mitigate with the efforts to control legalization in a capitalistic society. The issue seems to be the control science and information perpetuating the cycles of powerlessness and hierarchy/patriarchy producing unwarranted/unlawful divisions of freedom 

I acknowledge there are dangers in capitalists and scientists gaining toxic control of deciding what counts as true and healthy. There can be selfish biases and conflicts of interest. As you suggest, pharmaceuticals have a strong conflict of interest due to profit making desires. That is why I think higher order independent regulatory agencies are needed.

Of course there will be grey areas, yet I think I am pointing to a clearer case. I think most people would agree that companies should not be marketing methamphetamine to people to try to get them addicted to maximize their profits. This is what happened in the opioid crisis and most people agreed it was wrong 

If we had a device that gave someone 10 minutes of pleasure and then the device broke their bones and set 20 homes on fire, I don't think it should be legal for companies to market that device and profit off of it. 

[mandyjw]

@DrewNows

yeah, you can only inspire and empower someone to make better choices, you can't shame them for it. It's like telling someone who doesn't know how to cook and doesn't have any pans or a stove that they are fat and to just fucking stop eating fast food already. You can'y inspire or empower if you're not OK with where they are and you need them to be something different for you. The inspiration and empowerment comes from within them. Complete love and acceptance of how things are is radical change itself. 

Edited September 8, 2020 by mandyjw

[DrewNows]

1 hour ago, Forestluv said:

Of course there will be grey areas, yet I think I am pointing to a clearer case. I think most people would agree that companies should not be marketing methamphetamine to people to try to get them addicted to maximize their profits. This is what happened in the opioid crisis and most people agreed it was wrong 

Yeah. It can also be seen as good for exploiting the vulnerability of current value systems in place. 

1 hour ago, Forestluv said:

If we had a device that gave someone 10 minutes of pleasure and then the device broke their bones and set 20 homes on fire, I don't think it should be legal for companies to market that device and profit off of it. 

Right, it doesn’t sound very appealing however, who’d agree to that unless not given all the facts/info? 

im pointing to the bigger picture issues and getting to the bottom of how and why these dysfunctional services are in demand  

like this quote, “those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed by the masses” -Plato 

@mandyjw that hits the nail on the head. Planting seeds in others/ourselves  

lately I’ve realized doing the counter intuitive can even be partaking in a “bad” activity like eating shit, if it’s going to release judgment of such behaviors  

crazy how radical it can become ?

it’s like we think we know what we want out of things or life then find out that was never really it ?

Edited September 8, 2020 by DrewNows

[mandyjw]

@DrewNows Yep, shame never gets anyone anywhere. People continually shame others for being racist and wonder why that doesn't work and racism still exists. I think we need to start shaming people for shaming people. I'm sure that will do it. 

[DrewNows]

@mandyjw Here’s a shirt idea: “claim the shame” ? 

actually it would be a powerful movement 

Edited September 8, 2020 by DrewNows

[Roy]

Absolutely every substance that exists should be legal to possess and use. Choosing to put something in your body shouldn't land you behind bars and be branded a criminal for life, that's absurd.

All the resources need to be redirected to proper (not propaganda) education to encourage people not to use them, and programs to help with addiction to help those who fall through and end up struggling with usage.

Has prohibition or banning worked for anything, ever?

Edited September 8, 2020 by Roy

[DrewNows]

9 minutes ago, Roy said:

Absolutely every substance that exists should be legal to possess and use. Choosing to put something in your body shouldn't land you behind bars and be branded a criminal for life, that's absurd.

All the resources need to be redirected to proper (not propaganda) education to encourage people not to use them, and programs to help with addiction to help those who fall through and end up struggling with usage.

Has prohibition or banning worked for anything, ever?

?? ??

”I don’t like drugs, I am drugs” 

[Roy]

9 minutes ago, DrewNows said:

?? ??

”I don’t like drugs, I am drugs” 

 

[Forestluv]

27 minutes ago, Roy said:

Absolutely every substance that exists should be legal to possess and use. Choosing to put something in your body shouldn't land you behind bars and be branded a criminal for life, that's absurd.

Legalization and decriminalization are distinct. It sounds like you are making an argument for decriminalization more than legalization.

I’m curious of the limits of your view. . . If there was a substance that gave the user 20min. of bliss, yet also caused the user to lose self control and kill people, would you say as a society we should allow that substance to be sold, bought and used?

To me, it seem to boil down to a libertarian argument. 

36 minutes ago, Roy said:

All the resources need to be redirected to proper (not propaganda) education to encourage people not to use them, and programs to help with addiction to help those who fall through and end up struggling with usage.

That is helpful, yet the reality is that it would be insufficient due to the current conscious level of society. 

Harm is not restricted to the individual - certain substances like meth expand beyond the user and causes societal harm. A substance can be made illegal to market, sell and use - yet a user would not be charged as a criminal. They would be sent to a program to help them with their problems and addiction. The idea is that making the drug illegal, without criminality, would help reduce harm caused to society.