Harm reduction is better than fearmongering and imprisonment.
>People can get burned badly by a contaminated or adulterated supply.
It's almost like it isn't worth the risk.
That's not the kind of fearmongering I'm talking about. I'm talking about withholding information about drugs, talking only about the risks they pose and all the reasons why nobody should ever take them. The "war on drugs" isn't just about telling people about the very real risks of drugs, it's about convincing people that these risks are all drugs are, and that if they want to take them, they are on their own and will face criminal charges or imprisonment. That is trying to scare people so much about drugs that they avoid them purely on the basis that they are scary and risky and illegal.
While this works on a lot of people, it does not work on everyone, and those that want to try a substance anyway are left completely on their own. They do not have a safe supply, they do not have reliable sources of information about the substance they plan to take, they do not have instructions or help to take it in a way that is safe.
It's not a good justification to say that this is okay because nobody should be taking these substances in the first place. You can't just prevent all drug use. Plus, some people legitimately have brain chemistries that would benefit from things like psychedelic trips or microdosing, even outside of a clinical environment under the supervision of a medical professional. There is little reason to make it difficult for them to take a substance like LSD safely and responsibly if it is a substance that can be used that way.
To be clear, I'm not talking about junkies or drug addicts here. There are communities of people who seek mind-altering experiences as a form of curiosity and adventure, and not as a coping mechanism to escape reality or generate endless pleasure. It can be a recreational activity that doesn't deserve the stigma that it has gotten.
> It's almost like it isn't worth the risk.
The problem is that risk is artificially created. That risk does not have to exist. People could have access to safe, regulated supplies of drugs, just like pharmacies have access to safe regulated supplies of potentially life-altering medication for things like ADHD. Just like you can buy cough medicine from the store and not be afraid that it has fentanyl in it and that you could get sick and die from touching the package. (Fentanyl isn't anything like that by the way, that's such ridiculous exaggeration on the part of the media.)
And yet, I've never wtinessed a pro-drug speaker attach the caveat that any given street drug will damage neural architecture in a manner that makes it more difficult to function long-term.
>isn't just about telling people about the very real risks of drugs, it's about convincing people that these risks are all drugs are
In the wide world of warning labels, what other example can you give where the warning includes subjective benefits that users advertise?
The world does not have to cater to the psychology and perceptions of addicts that use substances that unquestionably lead to disaster on a consistent basis, anymore than it is morally compelled to advertise the benefits of anything else that it warns against for the good of society and the individual.
>That is trying to scare people so much about drugs that they avoid them purely on the basis that they are scary and risky and illegal.
Yes
>those that want to try a substance anyway are left completely on their own. They do not have a safe supply, they do not have reliable sources of information about the substance they plan to take, they do not have instructions or help to take it in a way that is safe.
Sounds like a good advertisement to not take street drugs.
> It can be a recreational activity that doesn't deserve the stigma that it has gotten.
No
>People could have access to safe,
Nothing is safe that damages neural architecture, at minimum.
> just like pharmacies have access to safe regulated supplies of potentially life-altering medication for things like ADHD.
Its not just like that. In people with true ADHD, meds make them feel more "sober "than without. Thee isn't a street drug in existence that does the same for anyone, aside from someone with ADHD taking a clinical dose of street methamphetamine. But that is already available via prescription.
People do have issues. They should get them prescribed for, especially if considering a regimen of street drugs as an alternative treatment plan.
>Fentanyl isn't anything like that by the way,
reposted without comment
That's because you can't just make that assumption about every "street drug". I believe Desoxyn is still sometimes prescribed to help overeating disorders by reducing hunger.
Most of the danger comes when you abuse them recreationally, taking more than you are supposed to, more often than you are supposed to. According to at least one study, meth can actually be neuroprotective at lower doses [0] - but it can also get extremely neurotoxic at higher doses [1].
Of course, another huge chunk of the danger comes with the fact that when sourcing illegal substances, you're not guaranteed the supply will be pure or even that it will be what you ordered in the first place. Reagent test kits [2] are a very helpful harm-reduction measure here, I just wish that they were cheaper.
[0]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25724762/
[1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3870191/
[2]: https://dancesafe.org/shop/
> Nothing is safe that damages neural architecture, at minimum.
Almost anything can damage neural architecture. In fact, you can damage it without any "street drugs" at all. Trauma, neglect, bad routine, bad hygiene, bad diet etc. can all cause certain degrees of neurodegeneration. Some people just don't know any better (like me) or are in situations where they can't prevent it (like abuse victims).
This is a completely normal and expected side effect of neuroplasticity, and almost all substances (even the ones that doctors prescribe that aren't "street drugs") have the capability to negatively affect cognitive development. There's a reason why the term "maladaptive" exists.
IOW, by "safe" I didn't mean that a substance would be unquestionably safe to use. I mean that it would be safe to trust that you are getting a pure and unadulterated product, because production would be regulated just like legal OTC medicines are today.
Nothing is perfectly safe, even standing up too fast can be dangerous for some people. Some people even die from rolling out of bed in their sleep. Requiring perfect safety is unrealistic - obviously, usage of each drug has to be considered rationally.
Prescriptions are usually how this is done, don't get me wrong! Hell, I even talked to my doctor about magic mushrooms and he said that microdosing psilocybin should be OK for me, even though he's not allowed to prescribe it since pharmacies don't provide it here. YMMV, of course.
> In people with true ADHD, meds make them feel more "sober "than without.
This sounds like it's almost a No True Scotsman fallacy. Even if "true" ADHD were a thing, a diagnosis of ADHD can still be caused by all sorts of underlying conditions. Someone using stimulants to treat ADHD will still be different than someone who simply doesn't have ADHD and doesn't use stimulants, because stimulants have extra side effects that don't have to do with treating ADHD.
You have to weigh the positive effects against the negative effects and only then see if the tradeoff is worth it. There are very few, if any, "miracle drugs". Even drugs that can be miracles, can only work that way under very specific circumstances, for very specific brain chemistries.
> reposted without comment
Fentanyl will not instantly kill you just from touching an imperceptibly small amount. It is extremely potent, but it's not just going to diffuse through your skin when dry. It can get to you if you accidentally lick it or rub your eye or something afterwards with it still on your hands, but it's not just going to kill you on contact or based on proximity.