Thou art a common idiot, see?
Though I've tasted the fruit
And seen that it's good
I fear it won't suit
you like prison would.
Therapeutic use: yes. These should be controlled substances.
At this point It's a way to funnel money that could go to addiction treatment to the DEA, money going to an unwinnable war to control adults who are going to do what they want.
5% of the global economy in the black market we could take from criminals and turn it towards the social good. Instead of violent cartels that will serve the need no matter what we could have taxed businesses with daily limits. "But ppl will do bad things". Tell me how that's worth the cost of the war on drugs? Shocking position. Please explain it to me how what cartels do is worth your desire to be sanctimonious??
The only thing we have to do to get huge financial and social benefits is give up your frankly childish notion that we should control uncontrollable substances and police adults in something that in most cases harms no one. Police adults who commit crimes on substances extra. Let adults make their own choices otherwise. The war on drugs and anyone still supporting it as a way of doing anything but throwing money in a fire pit are a joke.
Individualism shouldn't be the only lens we look through when considering these problems.
I think debilitating substances that are potentially addictive and don't have social acclimatation (unlike alcohol) are a very high risk. I don't think they should be banned outright if they have useful properties, but I don't think they should just be allowed in society without proper care.
Just looking at it from a "I do what I want to my adult body" completely ignores the condition some of these adults will find themselves in, and the risk they will impose on others as a result. And it also completely ignores how we are all interdependent on each other in a modern economy.
We all require a village of people to function and thrive and defend our rights. Something that potentially harms a large percentage of this village will also harm those in the village who don't partake. And then when your village is helpless, a belligerent neighbouring one comes knocking.
Maybe you think that's an exaggeration, but it's literally what brought down China in the 1800s. It turned from one of the oldest and most grandiose powers on earth into an incapacitated corpse pillaged by western powers.
So you know, being careful with these substances seems just a bit prudent.
Also, the situation in China (if you are talking about the Opium Wars) are not that straight forward "legal opium bad". In fact, opium was legally consumed for centuries all around the globe. China emperors worried about "opium addiction is bad" so they illegalized it multiple times in 1729, 1799, 1814 and 1831. Opium wars started in 1839, but opium smuggling into China due to the prohibition was already rampant since 1729. It will be like saying that all the problems that arised around the Alcohol Prohibition was actually caused by alcohol and absolutely not caused by the prohibition.
It looks that drug problems are always linked and worsened to some form of prohibition than to drug usage itself, but somehow it is the only logical and obvious solution to drug problems.
Alcohol is worse than heroin (and by definition, way worse than opium) in almost every study (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#Adverse_effects). Actually, "harm to others" category (i.e. affects society) is specially bad in alcohol. "Social acclimatation" is not a property of alcohol, any substance can be socially accepted (look at these cocaine ads in the 70's https://www.higherperspectives.com/these-cocaine-ads-from-th...), even opium or heroin.
Can we get DMT, THC, MDMA, Psilocybin, LSD unbanned though?
There is a good reason why I am asking these. I would say anything under nicotine / alcohol line should be legal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Drug_danger_and_dependenc...
The question I have for you is, is anything addicts do to themselves society whomever, worse than what drug cartels do to it? Fuck. No. I'd rather have addicts than international drug cartels with hundreds of billions of $, any day of the week. Not to mention we have tons of addicts NOW. The war on drugs does not solve addicts.
You know what does? Treatment/rehab centers funded by taxes. If only there was some way we could fund them tho.... Crazy to me you lot just ignore the damage the war on drugs does "bc addicts bro". As if we don't have addicts now. So idiotic.
That said, in aggregate, unconstrained drug abuse and addiction can and does have devastating effects on societies as we see today and historically.
I don't know how to resolve this conundrum. I would fear the effect of anyone being able to casually go to a bar and order magic mushroom tea or LSD ice cream or PCP punch as one might order a Mai Tai. While psychoactives aren't known to be addictive, they can lead to deranged, erratic or even destructive behavior.
I suspect the key is to create healthy social norms and conventions around each drug and make sure those are communicated to consumers. On the other hand, if one is not free to be wrong, then one is not actually free. So, I still dunno.
The key point, is that at no point when I was being educated about tobacco did I feel like I was being lied to and I had to check it out for myself, which is very different from how marijuana is treated in health education in the US. Reefer madness and whatnot.
I ask again, a cost greater than the impotent war on drugs and the cartel violence? I say of course not. I'd rather have some addicts in rehab centers than drug cartels with 5% of the global economy, and frankly I question the judgement of anyone who can't do that math.
1. Who said unconstrained. I sure as hell didn't. I literally said taxed (licensed) facility that has daily limits.... So...shadow boxing.
2. No one said they didn't. Shadow boxing again. For the fifth time in this thread, I ask any of you engineers, please, just briefly try to remember your sociology elective.
Do you think drug cartels and the racist war on drugs (minorities get locked up for longer for same crimes) have a higher or lower cost to society than measured licensed legal use that funds treatment centers and clean injection sites would have?
I think its about time we accept this as part of our humanity and act like grown ups, not this childish banning which clearly does much more harm than good. There are endless states between ban and having it thrown at everybody for free.
It seems like you and I mostly agree. I mean nothing patronizing when I ask: do you know what inalienable means? It's a great word. I believe the right to do drugs is inalienable: a government does not have the moral authority to tell you not to if that's what you want to do. A law that forbids it is illegitimate. Illegal, even.
> Who said unconstrained
Me. I did. Believe it or not, my perspective was once even far more... radically laissez-faire, so to speak: stick to the principles of each according to their conscience and let the chips fall where they may. Anything less is an unconscionable and illegitimate encroachment on personal freedom. Society would adjust.
Talk about "shadow-boxing". With respect, that's you. You are shadow boxing.
To the rest of your comment, yeah I recognize we mostly agree thus I'm not even replying to you directly, I'm defending against all the other people in this thread who go "but dur addicts bad" and can't think past that when it comes to drug policy who may be reading by adding context to your comment from my pov. Sorry about that too.
It's not about being libertarian, it's more utilitarian for me. Prohibition is horrible for everyone but the ultra wealthy and dangerously criminal. I threw out every argument against prohibition kinda all together in my anger at the silliness from engineers on a forum I respect.
There's the math, it's cheaper to sell them taxed drugs and use that money to help addicts than unsuccessful policing, it's more moral than allowing cartels to operate, more humane, etc. There's no argument against it other than being moral police. Prohibition does not do anything other than filter money to waste on cartels and law enforcement.
My perspective on public drug policy has become more nuanced over the years, in that I have come to recognize that those who fear legalization have actual, legitimate points that need to be addressed. For me, that was kind of a huge shift.
But, yes, clearly, charging taxes on drugs to monitor quality and mitigate the social effects of drug use is far more efficient use of our resources than the endless escalation of violence and corruption we have now.
Tobacco and Alcohol have similar issues, but we don't have to make the addictive substance problem even worse than it is today. Drugs like Heroin have supersized versions of Alcohol and Tobacco's problem traits.
In other words, I think I'll be there to participate in the revolution against this Benevolent Dictator! :)
The real thrust of my original comment was any harm legalized drugs would do is less than what the war on drugs/cartels do. And frankly you have to be an idiot to suggest some addicts AND the cartels are worse than just the addicts.
In my opinion, it's actually hard to say that "just the addicts" is better than the "cartels plus the addicts". I think the opioid crisis gives us an idea of how "just the addicts" would look like and, I have to say, it doesn't look good. So many deaths that the life expectancy for males in the US actually dropped as a result.
But a true "just the addicts" scenario would have Oxycontin being sold by multiple vendors competing in potency and price and selling their wares at Wal Mart. How would the US look like if literally anyone could walk in a nearby store and buy Oxycontin practically at will?
>Oxycontin being sold by multiple vendors competing in potency and price and selling their wares at Wal Mart
Again, from my very first comment on this thread I've never suggested limitless legal use. Daily limits, licensed taxed sellers only, could even have a licensing system. For the harder stuff could make counseling a requirement or something.
>How would the US look like if literally anyone could walk in a nearby store and buy Oxycontin practically at will?
More addicts than now is the answer you're looking for, and I'd agree if all we did was legalize drugs. but seriously consider my side for a minute. I do not want to stop at legalizing.
Consider the benefit of nearly limitless funding for rehab and counseling and other sociologically sound ways to reduce addiction. 5% of global trade $ wise cartels are responsible for. All that money turned to rehab. And you think we'd end up with MORE addicts?
I am seriously struggling to see how that even sounds logical to you.
Not to mention as a socialist I'd argue the real root cause of addiction is an alienation from our labor and the fruits of our labor. Ie: fix poverty, fix most fixable addiction.
I see your argument and admit the possibility that you are right. I just want to point out that you are not only struggling to see how it sounds logic to me, you are struggling to see how this sounds logical to a vast number of people, including policymakers. The fact that very few countries in the world adopt a liberal view on any and all drugs should tell you that even if there is truth to what you are proposing, implementation will likely be very, very slow and difficult.
I don't struggle to understand them. They're just machiavellian. Policy makers are bought by the capitalists, sorry, the lobbyists who benefit from billions in funding to the DEA and border control and prisons - and so they are not looking for the solution that helps constituents, they're looking for what enriches them personally thru super PAC donations or LE budgets.
It's the educated voters' positions, looking at the wealth of evidence showing prohibition is a failure at best, and a moral show put on for the puritanical more realistically, that baffles me.
People like you falling for something there's pretty much infinite evidence refuting the value of. Has the war on drugs helped ANYTHING? Anyone??? Stopped anything? It's never been easier to get drugs.
On the other hand, there's plenty of evidence that shows treatment centers safe injection sites and further, reductions in poverty do more to reduce addiction than moral policing.
It's most analogous to abortion policy. Abortion isn't reduced by banning it, it's reduced by better sex ed and access to contraceptives.
So counter intuitively to the simple minded, it may seem as if "pro choice" advocates don't also want to reduce the number of abortions. When in fact, they just use reason to solve the issue rather than a fkin harry potter book written 2k years ago they take as absolute truth.
>implementation will likely be very, very slow and difficult
Agreed, but the quicker we dispel the anti scientific notion that cartels + addicts > addicts... The quicker we may see progress.
I did time for shake I didn't even know was in my car, if I wasn't wealthy and white I would probably still be in jail rather than law school. So this is personal to me. Sorry for getting so heated
I am assuming there is hardly anyone on the planet who thinks the public is able to make its own informed decisions about radioactive materials. So it's odd how instead of arguing the merits and costs of criminalization/decriminalization there is this argument that anyone who wants to limit drug use is an ignorant, corrupt puritan and that restriction has been generally a failure. There is a nuclear black market too and the spread of nuclear weapons has still happened. Does anyone think we should shut down IAEA because of its failures?
Self powered devices, vs some psychedelic trip?
Do I really think international 12 digit valued drug cartels are a worse outcome for society than allowing adults to buy the substances at a taxed store where the money goes to pay for addict treatment and rehabilitation??? You can't be serious. Don't you? If you don't I'll call you a blind man and useful idiot.
People here do not read my comment because I advocate for something that hurts their little sanctimonious puritanical brains. Would swear you lot are Mr mackey. Nothing more material than "drugs r bad mkay. Addicts bad mkay." Stick to STEM i guess. Sociology isn't for you.
>How about prohibition of possessing and manufacturing radioactive materials?
Yeah, radioactivity that harms everyone around the material is def the same as me getting high in my house after work and playing a video game. Definitely arguing in good faith innit. The drug discussion makes people like you so damn silly and childish it's crazy
But that's not true. It can be handled safely and radioactivity can be used for medical treatments! Besides there is radioactivity in lots of things. I swear you people are so anti-science and propagandized about radiation, you're afraid of radiation lurking around every corner. It even occurs naturally from the sky! Are you going to ban the sky? Since banning nuclear armament has clearly failed people like you are really just enabling state actors who traffic nuclear materials.
I'm describing a subsection of radioactivity in that sentence, not the entire scientific notion of radioactivity as dangerous....
I don't know the laws on radioactive materials well enough to speak to specifics about if too much is banned in the name of safety.
I haven't seen convincing research that making psychedelics is 100% beneficial. It seems like it's on the margin and could be either way. The reasons I am not convinced are that 1) research that said it's harmless couldn't isolate psychedelics because psychedelics users were highly likely to use other drugs that have known side effects so they used models that attempted to isolate it and the result is not convincing. 2) Clinical trials had a clinical setting which is not the same as allowing the public to use them without supervision. 3) There's some studies that show a marginally higher likelihood to have health consequences for psychedelics users. 4) Arguments pro freedom are odd because most people don't believe in total freedom.
If it were me I would just let the law sunset in five to 10 years with a clause if the experiment worked out then vote to make it permanent.
It just means you are not throwing people in jail for personal possession. Whatever you think about mushrooms, jail is certainly more harmful than the mushrooms themselves.
The health system has a shortage of mental health and drug treatment spaces and practitioners, and what exists often isn't affordable to those who need it. At the same time, we don't pay for those things in prison either, and it's also expensive to have a bunch of disruptive, unhinged prisoners constantly needing to be contained after damaging stuff when they have an episode or whatever.
Bail and sentencing reform was often kicked off by conservatives initially, because a low-tax state cannot afford the very expensive cost of locking up every single drug user. California has been sued multiple times over the fact that its prison system is chronically overcrowded, and lost at the Supreme Court level: https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2011/crim/overcrowding_080511.asp.... But there is no appetite to pay more to open new prisons, which are nearly impossible to site even if there was funding (do you want to live next to a prison?)
The important thing is that no one is charged criminally for possession.
We should decriminalize those, too.
How about antibiotics? Codeine?
Some drugs have very little risk when used improperly, and some can fuck you up for life. The average person isn't really equipped to make that kind of judgment for themselves, they need a medical expert in the chain who knows how much is safe and whether it's an appropriate treatment.
That's why we have OTC drugs and prescription drugs. Some drugs just are not safe to use without guidance.
People should absolutely consult medical experts before using most medications. I will consistently say that that does not mean they should be restricted from purchasing arbitrary medications.
(Antibiotics are a potentially interesting case that may require some additional complexity, precisely because they're a commons, and taking them incorrectly or even taking them correctly can affect people other than yourself. That doesn't apply to anything that only affects yourself.)
But you cannot only rely on storing medicines up high and using adult-resistant caps to protect your adults. Also, it is just not possible to watch adults every second. So, other strategies need to be put in place to prevent your adults from gaining access to medicines.
Linking money to rights so directly grates with my idealistic sensibilities, but my realist sensibilities are against policies that would exacerbate the homeless situation.
Many people in the open-air drug encampments are there because they aren't getting real help. Your proposed plan would do nothing to help those that might just be assisted by the new perspective psychedelic therapy can give. It would only let the rich keep living the untouchable life they already live.
This seems to be the case for most things across human existence. Did something change recently?
A model which on the margin (not totally) allows decisions about value allocation to be made by people who generate value seems to follow homeostatic principles which are evolutionarily fitting for a relatively peaceful time.
One may quibble that this equilibrium is largely limited toward English speaking nations and European peninsula, and that even there exist edge cases on the high and low ends. Thats focusing on the empty end of a glass that is generally getting fuller over time.
I don't believe this to be the case in most instances. Value agglomerates due to preferential attachment, and greater a capital accumulation the less effort is needed to increase it.
relatively peaceful
Compared to what, historical nadirs? Substituting economic conflict for kinetic warfare has had only limited success and had drastic atomizing effects upon society. I don't regard this as a great improvement over the historic methods, which were more pragmatic than you suggest and where excess could be tempered by replacement. The elevation of property rights over virtually all other considerations has been a net negative in my view.
a glass that is generally getting fuller over time
Sure, if you look at naive measures like GDP growth or the like. Capital proponents recoil fromt he idea of factoring in all externalities, viz environmental impact. There's a reason insurers are scrambling to get out of many markets. I used to believe in the cis cornucopian version of capitalism, but have come to think it's much closer to zero-sum than proponents care to admit, preferring to take refuge in idealistic accounting than frankly appraise reality.
> I don't believe this to be the case in most instances.
Seems like a potentially objective thing to determine. My impression is that the largest non-govt money flows are in the consumer economy which reflects the decisions of working people. Is that not the case? Are people not earning money for work and spending it? Does that not represent the largest portion of value created and passed along?
>> relatively peaceful
This phrase is recognition that warlordism was probably evolutionarily suited for those historic nadirs as opposed to today excluding certain regions.
Zero-Sum vs Ubiquitous Abundance
I totally agree about economic mis measures. My thought is that we are approaching an age of ubiquitous abundance without the necessary psycho-cultural supports in order to not treat it as a zero-sun moment. Despite material well being, there doesn’t seem to be much realization of how awesome life is. It’s a philosophical tragedy.
Not only insensitive but also very simplistic and wrong point of view. A lot of drug abuse is basically people trying to self-medicate psychological issues, trying to have a escape from oppressive life conditions, or trying to fit in with a crowd due to loneliness and self esteem.
Considering how much of our work is destroying people’s jobs or making their lives a bit more miserable we should at least try to be a bit less judgmental.
Hey, voting is great, helpful and powerful, but letting The Common Idiot vote is a slippery slope
For the record, yes ideally we should have better education, especially around drugs and how to use them
At the same time, anyone can buy a knife or scissors or plenty of toxic chemicals, and do a ton of harm (way more than with any psychedelics), how do you propose we regulate those?
I could see this go either way. There are people who are, somehow, simply unaware of risks and not very interested in learning more. I'd expect at least some effect.
Do you have any source for the claim?
Refusing to explain, or cite, or accusing others of bad faith, those are conversation stoppers.
It is not that anything not proven beyond all doubt has to fall back to assuming a null. There is such a thing as probabilistic arguments, statistics, and bayesian-ish reasoning
Sometimes, people have reasons for making negative statements. It helps to show arguments, instead of immediately launching into bad faith accusations.
Talk about wasting a lot of energy!
The more you take say LSD or mushrooms the less effect they have on you (and this effect is the only reason to take them), and quickly you reach the state when normal dosage basically doesn't work. Also the experience is mentally so taxing the last thing users want after coming down from the trip is to start another one. They are so profound that some processing of experiences is required.
It staggers me how even quite a few regular HN users are clueless about trivial basics of drugs. No wonder politicians can push literally any fearmongering bullshit lies to common population even these days, and they will swallow it all without even questioning it.
I don't think psychedelics should be illegal, but I don't think we should be encouraging folks to do them until we understand them more completely.
California's gun laws makes it the 3rd-lowest state in gun deaths per capita
[0] https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/gun-deaths-...
Obviously there's some amount of risk with these drugs and you don't want them to be widespread and consumed daily (like alcohol, which is also nasty). But you need such laws for medical institutions (of all sizes) to be able to touch the drugs. No one is being negligent here.