Legalize it All?

[Valystria]

No one should be imprisoned for a choice they make with their own bodies.

All recreational drugs should be legalized. Criminalizing these drugs only creates a black market and promotes gang violence as well as other kinds of crime.

I really still cannot see the appeal of their being free choice to exploit your fellow man via needle slavery

You realize the vast majority of users are moderate in their use?

If you're going to be consistent with your reasoning of wanting to punish sellers, you'll need to be in favor of punishing alcohol sellers and cigarette sellers too.

[Threlizdun]

No one should be imprisoned for a choice they make with their own bodies.

All recreational drugs should be legalized. Criminalizing these drugs only creates a black market and promotes gang violence as well as other kinds of crime.

I really still cannot see the appeal of their being free choice to exploit your fellow man via needle slavery

I can't see the appeal of throwing someone in a cage because they feel the need to shoot up. Addicts need help, not imprisonment. Help can only come in a legal setting. You are not going to be getting enough people seeking treatment if they are fearing the legal consequences of revealing their drug use. Even if it is decriminalized, there are still the potential economic threats of losing your job if your employer learns about your use. There is also the simple fact that people are going to do this no matter whether or not it is legal, and if people are going to do it, I at least want there to be some guarantee that what they are putting in their bodies is what they were told they would be putting in their body, and that they do not have to resort to buying in potentially dangerous positions and funding cartels. Drug legalization is not about wanting people to use drugs; it is about accepting the reality of drug use and working to minimize its harm.

[Herrebrugh]

Telling people what they can and can't put in their own bodies seems highly paternalistic to me.

If the state should have any role in this, it's one of giving information and potential rehabilitation.

[Gim]

Telling people what they can and can't put in their own bodies seems highly paternalistic to me.

If the state should have any role in this, it's one of giving information and potential rehabilitation.

Well, now I come to think of it, that should exactly be the role of the state. Well, at least, I know, personally, I wouldn't put them into my body, just as I don't put alcohol in my body.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Telling people what they can and can't put in their own bodies seems highly paternalistic to me.

If the state should have any role in this, it's one of giving information and potential rehabilitation.

Well, now I come to think of it, that should exactly be the role of the state. Well, at least, I know, personally, I wouldn't put them into my body, just as I don't put alcohol in my body.

You're only 17, you've still got plenty of chances ahead.

[Gim]

Well, now I come to think of it, that should exactly be the role of the state. Well, at least, I know, personally, I wouldn't put them into my body, just as I don't put alcohol in my body.

You're only 17, you've still got plenty of chances ahead.

Yeah, after I am eligible to drink(19 is the legal age in my area.), of course.

[Herrebrugh]

You're only 17, you've still got plenty of chances ahead.

Yeah, after I am eligible to drink(19 is the legal age in my area.), of course.

The only intoxicated state I've been in was caused by alcohol.

I'm way too sweet for much else

[Chestaan]

The thing is, illegal drugs are harmful. There is no doubt about that.

Not to anyone who doesn't use them. There's no doubt about that. In fact, many of them of very beneficial to those that take them.

Some are harmful to others and other's are not. Heroin addiction, for example, comes with several social costs such as increased risk of crime and increased health costs.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Not to anyone who doesn't use them. There's no doubt about that. In fact, many of them of very beneficial to those that take them.

Some are harmful to others and other's are not. Heroin addiction, for example, comes with several social costs such as increased risk of crime and increased health costs.

Not with lower rates of use it doesn't.

[Chestaan]

Some are harmful to others and other's are not. Heroin addiction, for example, comes with several social costs such as increased risk of crime and increased health costs.

Not with lower rates of use it doesn't.

But not everyone uses it at lower rates. This isn't an argument in favour of prohibition though, as both alcohol and tobacco have heavy social costs but are not banned, simply taxed quite heavily.

[Valystria]

Telling people what they can and can't put in their own bodies seems highly paternalistic to me.

It's paternalism to an extreme.

It's somewhat ironic that these policies are said to be for the good of the individual and society when it accomplishes anything but that. Surely it's far more harmful to society and the individual to kidnap people and lock them away in cages for the supposedly heinous transgression of personal drug use. As if imprisonment for personal drug use isn't sufficiently over-the-top, branding these social deviants with the mark of shame known as a criminal record to ensure that even after release they continue to be stigmatized and punished.

"How dare you use the drugs you prefer! It's only okay to use MY drugs of choice, alcohol and cigarettes."

Not to anyone who doesn't use them. There's no doubt about that. In fact, many of them of very beneficial to those that take them.

Some are harmful to others and other's are not. Heroin addiction, for example, comes with several social costs such as increased risk of crime and increased health costs.

Except it doesn't. Heroin dependency doesn't inherently cause crime.

Health costs? There aren't any. Long-term heroin usage amounts to being harmless in itself.

Not with lower rates of use it doesn't.

But not everyone uses it at lower rates. This isn't an argument in favour of prohibition though, as both alcohol and tobacco have heavy social costs but are not banned, simply taxed quite heavily.

And I'd certainly hope those paternalistic sin taxes aren't applied to other drugs too upon legalization.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Not with lower rates of use it doesn't.

But not everyone uses it at lower rates. This isn't an argument in favour of prohibition though, as both alcohol and tobacco have heavy social costs but are not banned, simply taxed quite heavily.

Decriminalization of heroin halved rates of use in Portugal.

Ending alcohol prohibition lowered the numbers of bars and drinkers.

[Valystria]

Pruss, what's your stance on sin taxation of drugs?

I feel it's commonly overlooked that the sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco have heavy social costs to low-income users, and that the reasoning applied for it is extremely arbitrary.

If the rationale for sin taxes on alcohol and cigarettes is that it's a health expense to society, then why isn't this being applied to so many other personal activities. Oh you like to eat unhealthy food? Sin tax. You're wanting to play sports like boxing that have very high injury rates? Sin tax.

It's a double standard.

[Uxupox]

Telling people what they can and can't put in their own bodies seems highly paternalistic to me.

It's paternalism to an extreme.

It's somewhat ironic that these policies are said to be for the good of the individual and society when it accomplishes anything but that. Surely it's far more harmful to society and the individual to kidnap people and lock them away in cages for the supposedly heinous transgression of personal drug use. As if imprisonment for personal drug use isn't sufficiently over-the-top, branding these social deviants with the mark of shame known as a criminal record to ensure that even after release they continue to be stigmatized and punished.

"How dare you use the drugs you prefer! It's only okay to use MY drugs of choice, alcohol and cigarettes."

Some are harmful to others and other's are not. Heroin addiction, for example, comes with several social costs such as increased risk of crime and increased health costs.

Except it doesn't. Heroin dependency doesn't inherently cause crime.

Health costs? There aren't any. Long-term heroin usage amounts to being harmless in itself.

But not everyone uses it at lower rates. This isn't an argument in favour of prohibition though, as both alcohol and tobacco have heavy social costs but are not banned, simply taxed quite heavily.

And I'd certainly hope those paternalistic sin taxes aren't applied to other drugs too upon legalization.

A false statement.

[Valystria]

It's paternalism to an extreme.

It's somewhat ironic that these policies are said to be for the good of the individual and society when it accomplishes anything but that. Surely it's far more harmful to society and the individual to kidnap people and lock them away in cages for the supposedly heinous transgression of personal drug use. As if imprisonment for personal drug use isn't sufficiently over-the-top, branding these social deviants with the mark of shame known as a criminal record to ensure that even after release they continue to be stigmatized and punished.

"How dare you use the drugs you prefer! It's only okay to use MY drugs of choice, alcohol and cigarettes."


Except it doesn't. Heroin dependency doesn't inherently cause crime.

Health costs? There aren't any. Long-term heroin usage amounts to being harmless in itself.


And I'd certainly hope those paternalistic sin taxes aren't applied to other drugs too upon legalization.

A false statement.

And as your article says, the harm from heroin is from withdrawal.

What your article didn't mention is that the same brain changes happen from drug addictions in general. That's caused by the addiction itself rather than being from heroin or other drugs.

So no, it wasn't a false statement at all to say long-term heroin use amounts to being harmless.

[Uxupox]

A false statement.

And as your article says, the harm from heroin is from withdrawal.

What your article didn't mention is that the same brain changes happen from drug addictions in general. That's caused by the addiction itself rather than being from heroin or other drugs.

So no, it wasn't a false statement at all to say long-term heroin use amounts to being harmless.

Your body naturally becomes more resistant to normal consumption ratio in which case its gonna make consume a lot more for the same high you got the first time around. The longer you consume the greater potential of harm you will bring to yourself if you consuming it. You can't just say I'm gonna stop consuming the drug because it's potency as an addictive source. You will get your fix no matter who you fuck up or how you get your money to pay for that fix because that's the important thing which is getting that fix.

[Valystria]

And as your article says, the harm from heroin is from withdrawal.

What your article didn't mention is that the same brain changes happen from drug addictions in general. That's caused by the addiction itself rather than being from heroin or other drugs.

So no, it wasn't a false statement at all to say long-term heroin use amounts to being harmless.

Your body naturally becomes more resistant to normal consumption ratio in which case its gonna make consume a lot more for the same high you got the first time around. The longer you consume the greater potential of harm you will bring to yourself if you consuming it. You can't just say I'm gonna stop consuming the drug because it's potency as an addictive source. You will get your fix no matter who you fuck up or how you get your money to pay for that fix because that's the important thing which is getting that fix.

You're basing all that purely on your personal conjecture. As mentioned, long-term heroin usage in itself isn't harmful.

It is possible to to simply stop using a drug one is dependant upon. Many do. Others do so by using a substitute to mitigate withdrawal.

And lastly, great job stereotyping heroin users as all being fiends incapable of quitting and that they are prone to violence.

[Ostroeuropa]

And as your article says, the harm from heroin is from withdrawal.

What your article didn't mention is that the same brain changes happen from drug addictions in general. That's caused by the addiction itself rather than being from heroin or other drugs.

So no, it wasn't a false statement at all to say long-term heroin use amounts to being harmless.

Your body naturally becomes more resistant to normal consumption ratio in which case its gonna make consume a lot more for the same high you got the first time around. The longer you consume the greater potential of harm you will bring to yourself if you consuming it. You can't just say I'm gonna stop consuming the drug because it's potency as an addictive source. You will get your fix no matter who you fuck up or how you get your money to pay for that fix because that's the important thing which is getting that fix.

Not in all cases.
Many drug users manage to moderate and control use over the course of their lives. Some even manage to do so despite occasional binge usage.
It's a matter of discipline, sticking to rules, and having an eye on the future.
The majority of drug users are functional citizens.
Even the majority of drug addicts are functional.
There are borderline cases in which a person becomes non-functional usually occur due to the person also having extreme factors in their life other than the drugs. (Poverty, Crime, Mental Illness, Domestic Abuse, etc.)

As an example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park

Which stuff to distract you from the drugs or not having a shit life, you'll be able to quit the vast majority of the time.
That study was done with Opiates, so don't give me a "But heroin is different."

Forcibly addicting rats to Opiates, then seperating the rats into two housing units; one with abundance of toys, space, and food, and one with fuck all that was small, and letting the rats choose Opiate Water, or Plain water, showed that the "Poor" rats went for the Opiates, and the "Rich" ones went for the plain water.

it's clear that the strongest producer of drug addiction isn't drug use, but poverty.
If you give so much of a shit about drug addicts, how about increasing welfare.

[Christiaanistan]

Never non medicinal drugs are the filth of this earth, There's a reason the United States destroyed cannabis a long time ago.

So you have no idea how easy it is to obtain pot if you really want the stuff. I hereby certify you, officially, as a hopelessly sheltered child. Regardless of your age, your perception of the actual efficacy of the law is juvenile, and your belief that legality equates to harmlessness, or that illegality equates to harm, demonstrates that you put the brakes of your development at around twelve.

You ought to know that methylphinidate, the active agent in such drugs as Ritalin or Concerta, has a mechanism that is superficially similar to that of cocaine. Cocaine is, however, inferior due to it not being as selective and due to it causing greater detriment to cognitive plasticity, although even methylphenidate can undermine cognitive plasticity to an extent. The drugs have a different balance of risk and benefit.

Furthermore, the primary reason we stopped using barbiturates very often in medicine is that benzodiazepines are safer and more effective balanced with the risks, but even benzos have risk attached to them.

And you can damage your liver by taking too much Tylenol or Nyquil due to the acetomeniphen.

And you can abuse children's Benadryl.

The widespread ignorance, regarding these drugs, is actually dangerous. There is no substitute for learning an in-depth understanding of what these drugs do and how they work. There is no excuse for ignorance.

[Valystria]

it's clear that the strongest producer of drug addiction isn't drug use, but poverty.
If you give so much of a shit about drug addicts, how about increasing welfare.

And how about legalizing drugs instead of punishing users.

[Ostroeuropa]

Never non medicinal drugs are the filth of this earth, There's a reason the United States destroyed cannabis a long time ago.

So you have no idea how easy it is to obtain pot if you really want the stuff. I hereby certify you, officially, as a hopelessly sheltered child. Regardless of your age, your perception of the actual efficacy of the law is juvenile, and your belief that legality equates to harmlessness, or that illegality equates to harm, demonstrates that you put the brakes of your development at around twelve.

You ought to know that methylphinidate, the active agent in such drugs as Ritalin or Concerta, has a mechanism that is superficially similar to that of cocaine. Cocaine is, however, inferior due to it not being as selective and due to it causing greater detriment to cognitive plasticity, although even methylphenidate can undermine cognitive plasticity to an extent. The drugs have a different balance of risk and benefit.

Furthermore, the primary reason we stopped using barbiturates very often in medicine is that benzodiazepines are safer and more effective balanced with the risks, but even benzos have risk attached to them.

And you can damage your liver by taking too much Tylenol or Nyquil due to the acetomeniphen.

And you can abuse children's Benadryl.

The widespread ignorance, regarding these drugs, is actually dangerous. There is no substitute for learning an in-depth understanding of what these drugs do and how they work. There is no excuse for ignorance.

It isn't just pot that is absurdly easy to obtain.
(And there, we're talking "I'm in a city i've never been to in my life, I know nobody, have 50 bucks, and it's just me and a friend. We have 6 hours to find some pot. Can we do it? Abso-fucking-lutely.")

It's all drugs. It's absurd. It's easier than alcohol.

it's clear that the strongest producer of drug addiction isn't drug use, but poverty.
If you give so much of a shit about drug addicts, how about increasing welfare.

And how about legalizing drugs instead of punishing users.

It is a little fucking stupid that we grab drug users and literally put them in the situation that we've scientifically proven leads to drug addiction.
(Small box, no toys, access to drugs. -> prison.)

Like, that's probably the most ridiculously backward policy i've seen in a long time.

[Korhal IVV]

Don't waste your money on this recreational drug garbage, it will only make your problems worse.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Don't waste your money on this recreational drug garbage, it will only make your problems worse.

Except that's not true, maybe you should get educated on the subject before you come and start posting stupid shit.

[Korhal IVV]

Don't waste your money on this recreational drug garbage, it will only make your problems worse.

Except that's not true, maybe you should get educated on the subject before you come and start posting stupid ****.

People just waste their money on that. Then they get heart problems and stuff. Better get a counselor instead of wasting my money of crack that is only temporary illusionary euphoria.

[Ostroeuropa]

Except that's not true, maybe you should get educated on the subject before you come and start posting stupid ****.

People just waste their money on that.

Is watching a movie also a waste?