⭐️ Social ⭐️ Debate I had over drug legalization/decriminalization with a meth head (your opinion?)

[Snafu in the Void]

We need more options in the poll, because I believe ALL drugs should be decriminalized (maybe not fent), however under the strict caveat that things like involuntary rehab/medical supervision are administered.

Look at Portland, they decriminalized drugs but did not follow through with what the other successful models have done (Portugal).

Decriminalizing drugs is only half of the solution. It has to be met and supported with medical attention, therapy, and support.... otherwise it would just make the problem of drug addiction invariably worse.

 

[Mycophile]

I can't say whether my druthers on this issue are the correct ones or whether yours are correct and mine not, but what I typically find of people who hold your position seem unaware of the fact that what you seem to want out of drug policy is the least likely outcome.

What, you think the situation is better with drugs being illegal? I can't possibly see how. Either way, bodily autonomy is a must and prison for drug users is cruel and makes no sense.

 

[Mycophile]

This poll sucks. Decriminalization isn't the same as legalization. I think all drugs should be legalized. This doesn't mean there should be no controls, obviously there should be some controls, just controls that aren't so severe that they create black markets, cartels, and skyrocketing prison populations.

I understand the perspective of the person mentioned unflatteringly in your post, the "meth head", but their perspective is obviously distorted by the problems they've had with meth and therefore they are probably not capable of looking at the situation objectively. This is unfortunately pretty common, some people eventually come around to a more balanced perspective but many people with histories of substance use problems do maintain a reactionary anti-drug position for a long time, and 12 Step organizations, sadly, play a large part in sustaining these black and white all or nothing absolutist viewpoints with their equally black and white all or nothing absolutist and thoroughly unscientific conception of addiction and substance use problems.

You wouldn't expect someone who's family member had just been killed or the victim of some other violent crime with an obvious perpetrator to give a rational assessment of the ethics of the death penalty, neither should you expect someone in the midst of an obviously problematic substance addiction to give a rational assessment on drug policy.

Sorry, I guess I should have thought more about it. I understand the points you're making about this guy not being able to think rationally.

 

[gordonliddy]

What, you think the situation is better with drugs being illegal? I can't possibly see how. Either way, bodily autonomy is a must and prison for drug users is cruel and makes no sense.

No, I mean that when people visualize legalization they visualize their legalization. They don't picture the reality of trying to get the mafia, the pharma industry, the government, the regulators, the attorney's, and a dozen other interested parties interested in completely deregulating the whole thing.

If nothing else you're putting the drug testing industry out of a job. Sort of. Well at least you're impacting their profitability, which won't make them very happy. How many millions per year would McKinsey lose if you completely legalized drugs? How many millions owuld lobbyists lose?

Mine isn't the vote that's holding you back. If I got hit by a car tomorrow, you'd still face about seven million people that would want to sue you if you showed any real possibility of unraveling the whole machine.

 

[Mycophile]

No, I mean that when people visualize legalization they visualize their legalization. They don't picture the reality of trying to get the mafia, the pharma industry, the government, the regulators, the attorney's, and a dozen other interested parties interested in completely deregulating the whole thing.

If nothing else you're putting the drug testing industry out of a job. Sort of. Well at least you're impacting their profitability, which won't make them very happy. How many millions per year would McKinsey lose if you completely legalized drugs? How many millions owuld lobbyists lose?

Mine isn't the vote that's holding you back. If I got hit by a car tomorrow, you'd still face about seven million people that would want to sue you if you showed any real possibility of unraveling the whole machine.

Yeah, I have no idea how it would work, I just know that I'm either for legalization or decriminalization of most, and most likely ALL, drugs for people 18 and over when they aren't driving.

 

[Pissed_and_messed]

however under the strict caveat that things like involuntary rehab/medical supervision are administered.

eh, I prefer human rights

 

[skipjames]

why would a drug user want the very same drugs he had a problem with to stay illegal? How could such a person believe these laws would prevent deaths when they haven't generally done so in the past (or have they?) How can any drug user think prison is the solution for anyone suffering from drug problems?

I try my best to see his perspective and from where this guy is coming from. Probably he thinks that jail can work as the ultimate wake up call for the majority of addicts and that the harsher the laws, the less people ae likely to mess around with drugs (Singapore or Indonesia style). Probably HE stopped only when he reached rock bottom. Also, availability is a bitch ( I m a living proof of this, probably I would not be as much into coke as I am at the momemnt if I was not living in South America) and he thinks that decriminalization= more availability = more addicts= more deaths. Anyway is bollocks because hardcore prohibitionist policies can even work and have worked , but usually in places and countries who use the declaration of human rights as toilet paper ( i.e. MAo Zedong s China) . Also, as @Snafu in the Void wa saying, decriminalization is just a part, in Portugal is doing ok, in places like Portland...not so much

 

[Burnt Offerings]

Yup, that's a lot like what I'd suggest.

But, can you explain the logic of a former meth head and hard drug user arguing for drugs to stay illegal? Like, doesn't it kind of surprise you to see someone who was into drugs now arguing that he and others should be thrown in prison for what he was doing? It just doesn't make sense to me. I know he must have been traumatized by seeing deaths around him, but the drug laws just don't work. I can't see how someone like that could argue that we just need more prison time for drug users to solve the problem.

You can occasionally see people who hold such views on this very website. Mostly people who have done drugs, became a fuck up, and now wanna just dispel the youngsters from making the same lifestyle choices they made (conveniently forgetting how “effective” such warnings/junkie sob-stories were when they were just starting out).

Part of the problem stems from an inability to differentiate the potentially harmful effects of drugs, in an of themselves, from the social/political/legal context that modern drug use exists in. People emphasize the lethal influence of fentanyl but fail to correctly identify “cause” and “effect” in this situation; little attention is paid to what led to the situation or what kind of incentives led to its popularity, all of which tie back into prohibition in one way or another. People will see a poor crack addict and will tut tut and go, oh what a terrible drug, look at how it ruined that person’s life! Was it really that though? Was the person thrown into a cage for years, constantly put under surveillance (either in an official capacity, via probation/parole, or unofficially through an enhanced police presence in certain neighborhoods under the pretense of “interdiction”), had difficulty finding gainful employment due to a drug conviction, had difficulty obtaining quality mental healthcare? Is the criminal element that the individual is forced to associate themselves with to attain, is that the result of some sort of intrinsic element of the drug itself, or is it the result of human-created systems, unjust, ignorant & counterproductive systems imo?

It’s an amazing perversion of the facts that the advocates of prohibition constantly employ, using examples directly related to the system of prohibition to illustrate the “drugs bad” point

 

[Burnt Offerings]

I try my best to see his perspective and from where this guy is coming from. Probably he thinks that jail can work as the ultimate wake up call for the majority of addicts and that the harsher the laws, the less people ae likely to mess around with drugs (Singapore or Indonesia style). Probably HE stopped only when he reached rock bottom. Also, availability is a bitch ( I m a living proof of this, probably I would not be as much into coke as I am at the momemnt if I was not living in South America) and he thinks that decriminalization= more availability = more addicts= more deaths. Anyway is bollocks because hardcore prohibitionist policies can even work and have worked , but usually in places and countries who use the declaration of human rights as toilet paper ( i.e. MAo Zedong s China) . Also, as @Snafu in the Void wa saying, decriminalization is just a part, in Portugal is doing ok, in places like Portland...not so much

The guy who does that video is a turd who seeks to use the most vulnerable members of society with only the most thin and transparent attempt at making it seem like it isn’t just raw exploitation of the most vile kind. Even the title/thumbnail of the video is bullshit, “all drugs” are not “legal” in Portland.

 

[skipjames]

The guy who does that video is a turd who seeks to use the most vulnerable members of society with only the most thin and transparent attempt at making it seem like it isn’t just raw exploitation of the most vile kind. Even the title/thumbnail of the video is bullshit, “all drugs” are not “legal” in Portland.

yeah, the title is a total clic bait but please tell me more, is the Portland situation not as bad as in this video? Dunno- don t care about the youtuber but the social worker seemed legit ....

 

[brokedownpalace10]

OK. It's complicated. So, let's try to figure what we do know.
Drugs like Marijuana and psychedelics shouldn't have been illegal in the first place, so set them aside.

Now, let's pick a darn addicting drug like Heroin for our "go for what you know" exercise.

1. An addict should be able to easily purchase a pure and dependable supply of Heroin. It's his life and he can choose addiction if he wants as long as he(she) is hurting nobody else. That's a no brainer for harm reduction to both society and the addict.

but

2. Heroin should not be easily purchased by anybody at the corner convenience store. That would result in many people becoming addicts where it wasn't actually their informed choice.

so

Those are good data points to start with. We can likely agree on them. so now, what's a mother to do?

 

[Vastness]

involuntary rehab

This idea seems kinda morally abhorrent and unlikely to work, no? Surely it's a non-negotiable part of becoming rehabilitated that you WANT it, for yourself, otherwise it's just indoctrination. Or actually maybe it's just prison.

 

[Pickledlemons]

OK. It's complicated. So, let's try to figure what we do know.
Drugs like Marijuana and psychedelics shouldn't have been illegal in the first place, so set them aside.

Now, let's pick a darn addicting drug like Heroin for our "go for what you know" exercise.

1. An addict should be able to easily purchase a pure and dependable supply of Heroin. It's his life and he can choose addiction if he wants as long as he(she) is hurting nobody else. That's a no brainer for harm reduction to both society and the addict.

but

2. Heroin should not be easily purchased by anybody at the corner convenience store. That would result in many people becoming addicts where it wasn't actually their informed choice.

so

Those are good data points to start with. We can likely agree on them. so now, what's a mother to do?

I don't agree to that. People don't generally set out to be heroin addicts out of nowhere. Usually they're in a bad place in their lives and fall under somebody else's bad influence.... What does it matter if that person gets it from the street corner or from the pharmacy, other than, its safer from the pharmacy? Its already easy to get, and its dangerous. Making it legal and hard to get just means the illegal and easy to get dangerous drugs remain pervasive. And the safer drugs remain the domain of people who learned how to deal with some complicated bureaucratic bullshit. If the purpose here is to make drugs safer and take money away from criminals, then we need to provide a better service than the criminals. And the criminals aren't putting up arbitrary roadblocks.

 

[Pissed_and_messed]

My take on this was that it shouldn't be diberately hard to achieve drugs, but it is important that it is not too easy for, say, dry addict, find themselves buying hard drugs from store because it was also their grocery store that is only one in many kilometers reach from the persons apartment.

I could be cheering for some drugs other than alcohol and coffee being available from grocery store, but I don't intend to go into too detail, it is futile because I know shit.

 

[Pissed_and_messed]

I also want producing and selling being semi-legal to any adult (this is kinda just anarchists dream which is of course perceived as a threat from the governments side, which will use all their power to get the industry under the regulations which will benefit the elite most). But the more dangerous drug and the more wide the circle being, the less legal it would be. Selling fentanyl as heroin to anyone asking would be of course punishable, if not for other reason, for scamming the innocent users in dangerous manner (that is of course often interpreted as physical abuse in law anyway, and this scenario composition is pretty circumlocationary and dumb).

There could be heavily raised tax percent for most drugs. Ofc If you could get prescription for some stuff, it was different tax percent then, and probably from pharmacy rather than drug store. Also for reasons expressed in previous comment.

I am open to changing my mind about details, which I told I won't go into, but went anyway. And bigger picture too, but that requires some argumentation power.

 

[brokedownpalace10]

I don't agree to that. People don't generally set out to be heroin addicts out of nowhere. Usually they're in a bad place in their lives and fall under somebody else's bad influence.... What does it matter if that person gets it from the street corner or from the pharmacy, other than, its safer from the pharmacy? Its already easy to get, and its dangerous. Making it legal and hard to get just means the illegal and easy to get dangerous drugs remain pervasive. And the safer drugs remain the domain of people who learned how to deal with some complicated bureaucratic bullshit. If the purpose here is to make drugs safer and take money away from criminals, then we need to provide a better service than the criminals. And the criminals aren't putting up arbitrary roadblocks.

I didn't say anything about a pharmacy and I specifically said that "An addict should be able to easily purchase a pure and dependable supply of Heroin".
I said that the corner convenience store was a bit too easy. Trying to do no brainers here as a starting point for discussion.
So, what's the right balance here? Do you think it should be sold in convenience stores with billboard advertising? You're entitled to think that and that's a place to start a discussion.

I also want producing and selling being semi-legal to any adult (this is kinda just anarchists dream which is of course perceived as a threat from the governments side, which will use all their power to get the industry under the regulations which will benefit the elite most). But the more dangerous drug and the more wide the circle being, the less legal it would be. Selling fentanyl as heroin to anyone asking would be of course punishable, if not for other reason, for scamming the innocent users in dangerous manner (that is of course often interpreted as physical abuse in law anyway, and this scenario composition is pretty circumlocationary and dumb).

There could be heavily raised tax percent for most drugs. Ofc If you could get prescription for some stuff, it was different tax percent then, and probably from pharmacy rather than drug store. Also for reasons expressed in previous comment.

I am open to changing my mind about details, which I told I won't go into, but went anyway. And bigger picture too, but that requires some argumentation power.

I think that producing whatever drug should be legal for sure. I also agree that the powers that be won't want that so as to increase their profit. We are seeing that with homegrow in my state right now.
Selling it? No. If you make a mistake in production then it's only you consuming. Personal freedom, personal responsibility.

 

[Snafu in the Void]

This idea seems kinda morally abhorrent and unlikely to work, no? Surely it's a non-negotiable part of becoming rehabilitated that you WANT it, for yourself, otherwise it's just indoctrination. Or actually maybe it's just prison.

It's not a perfect solution, but it's a solution. Many addicts in this country want to go to rehab, but can't, because it costs thousands of dollars.

I was thinking it would only apply to addicts with "problematic behavior", such as breaking other laws to support their habit.

Compared to jail, rehab is cheaper for the state, the taxpayers, and the person. Having drug possession felonies are very costly in several ways.

But legalizing drugs in the US will never work when healthcare is so unobtainable to the addicts who need it most.

 

[Jen X]

I would add fentanyl as well. In my country they are starting to add fentanyl patches to the safe supply( it's hydromorph and morphine now). Pharma fentanyl is so much safer then street crap.

I think we should be able to take whatever we want. Who's some guy in parliament to tell me what i can and cannot consume. We can go to war but can't take an oxy. Ridiculous imo

 

[foodcrisis]

i kind of wonder if drugs are illegal cause there's not really enough resources for everyone to have them, so they just make them illegal for those with the personalities to go out and break the law to get high.

i feel like the person the OP is having the debate with really isn't thinking fairly, just because drugs don't work for them, they think it's better that no one else can have them. it reminds me of that i like drinking alcohol and taking cough syrup, but i don't because it's unhealthy. if they legalized drugs and made them so they were purchased in pharmacies or maybe through doctors, people could easily ween themselves off and on drugs so it wouldn't be as bad, and they could end their prescriptions with the doctors so they can't get them anyore. it could become the norm in society to only get certain drugs through doctors for people like the person the OP is having the debate with.

i feel like legalizing shrooms would be best. make them avaliable in grocery stores for the price it costs to buy gourmet mushrooms. let people grow them and donate mushroom donations to homeless shelters. from what i understand you can't get a free food card with out an address, so homeless people wouldn't be able to get shrooms with out donations. if they were being donated to homeless shelters it's going to give people that would be on the streets the incentive to just stay in the shelter if they want to take shrooms like once a week or whatever. like shrooms are also the equivilent to food that people are going to eat, so unless you want to kill the homeless which isn't going to be a popular opinion, let them get a special meal of shrooms once a week. what the hell. i know if i end up homeless, i'd be able to get by mentally with having fun tripping once a week, even if i couldn't have weed which i'm now addicted to. i'd just feel like at least people are giving me something, with out anything, i feel like i'm gonna start resenting certain people whose jobs i don't think really mean as much to the economy as people think... i don't know. i feel like people would just think it was more fair if shrooms were legal if they were explained to how much resources it actually costs to grow drugs. there's not really enough room on the planet to have all these people and grow all these drugs and food as far as i understand anyways.

this reminds me of when i was in olympia washington a place in the US where shrooms grow wild. my girlfriend and i were trying to get some more weed from these kids that were probably homeless. they were telling us that they didn't really smoke weed cause it wasn't around for them cause they had no money, but every once and a while people come around with free shrooms. we told these two kids how we had an 1/8th and we showed it to them, thinking they'd be less suspicious we were cops.. we ended up giving the kids like a small half gram and some lavender to roll a joint and they actually appreciated it. i feel like they could've just robbed us for all our weed. i feel like when people get a little, they are going to be more civil than those completely with out. at least getting shrooms sometimes you feel like someone is thinking of you.

I feel like a lot of drug users that would normally stay away from shrooms and go with harder drugs because they think they don't mentally have what it takes for psychedelics are going to be more open to shrooms and just be like "what the hell maybe this will be fun it's legal". maybe it would get people off harder drugs or make them just care less about having them.. like legal shrooms would def keep me caring less about my main addiction weed.

 

[Skorpio]

Yup, that's a lot like what I'd suggest.

But, can you explain the logic of a former meth head and hard drug user arguing for drugs to stay illegal? Like, doesn't it kind of surprise you to see someone who was into drugs now arguing that he and others should be thrown in prison for what he was doing? It just doesn't make sense to me. I know he must have been traumatized by seeing deaths around him, but the drug laws just don't work. I can't see how someone like that could argue that we just need more prison time for drug users to solve the problem.

I have definately struggled more with drugs you can buy legally (nitrous, kratom, poppy seeds) than illegal ones. Being able to cop them anywhere makes it very easy to restart a habit on a particularly shitty day. I could see taking this concept to its extreme leading to the views of your sparring partner.