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

[chippermonk]

I have never, in my 64 years on this planet, ever met someone who chooses not to do drugs because they are illegal

My comment isn't about whether I think drugs should be decriminalized or not. However, I do think some people are deterred by the legality issue. In my own case, it wasn't illegality per se that deterred me, but rather that for many years I had a job with random drug testing and I didn't want to get fired. It was a job that fell under Federal transportation workers laws. I used once in awhile but was very cautious about when.
It is a similar situation now with weed for many people even though it is legal, because of drug testing, including at my old job. My brother just quit smoking because he wants to get a new job. I can imagine that even if drugs were decriminalized, that there would always be employers who would random test and refuse to employ users.

 

[brokedownpalace10]

Many alcoholics, including myself, find quitting a lot harder due to the fact that you see it everywhere. So, another no brainer to set finer parameters would be that newly legalized drugs would have to be obtained from some kind of nondescript building and there is no advertising. Possibly a portion of profits from the riskier drugs goes to education as to the dangers.

 

[deficiT]

Legalize all drugs (but prohibit marketing), have govt-licensed facilities sell the drugs in measured, pure doses at a price point designed to make the black market unable to compete economically & relegate the unofficial drug trade to a niche, boutique status similar to the modern-day position of moonshine in comparison to the commercial liquor industry

This. All drug use and possession should be decriminalized and there needs to be a safe supply. Fentanyl is even safe if used properly and not just whipped together by some dope boy on the street.

Also your first mistake was getting into an argument with a meth head on Reddit. Didn't read the rest of the thread because the answer was the first reply. But I did add an option to the poll

 

[chippermonk]

Many alcoholics, including myself, find quitting a lot harder due to the fact that you see it everywhere. So, another no brainer to set finer parameters would be that newly legalized drugs would have to be obtained from some kind of nondescript building and there is no advertising. Possibly a portion of profits from the riskier drugs goes to education as to the dangers.

I remember when I visited my Grandma in Iowa many years ago, all liquor was sold through official State stores: painted bland white, no advertising or neon sign, closed at lunchtime (so no drinking on your lunch break). Probably closed on Sundays. I think things may have changed since then, though.

 

[jasperkent]

My comment isn't about whether I think drugs should be decriminalized or not. However, I do think some people are deterred by the legality issue. In my own case, it wasn't illegality per se that deterred me, but rather that for many years I had a job with random drug testing and I didn't want to get fired. It was a job that fell under Federal transportation workers laws. I used once in awhile but was very cautious about when.
It is a similar situation now with weed for many people even though it is legal, because of drug testing, including at my old job. My brother just quit smoking because he wants to get a new job. I can imagine that even if drugs were decriminalized, that there would always be employers who would random test and refuse to employ users.

True.
But these days a lot of companies, including the one I work for, don't test for cannabis in particular. This is partly because of changing laws but also because weed can be detected long after intoxication has worn off. I think we'll see more of this in the future.

 

[Pickledlemons]

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.

Sorry, maybe I went a little overboard there. I hadn't slept in a couple nights ( and not drug related for once) I don't actually think they should be sold in literal corner stores.

I was imagining something like, you get it from a pharmacy, the pharmacist takes you into a 'consultation room,' maybe asks you a few questions (primarily for reporting purposes), gives you some info on rehab if you're interested, give you some info on safe practices, give you some info on risks and how to reduce them and maybe some narcan ( This should be free of charge imo, only saves the state in the long run, here anyway, where its all paid for by the state)

And you walk out of there in 5 - 15 minutes and pay a fee. Which I imagine to be, probably a little high at first only because legit companies and or government entities (however which way its done) are gonna need some time to set up supply lines that allow affordable & high quality consistent products at the same time. But getting to the point of undercutting criminals in quality, price and accessibility is mandatory in my opinion.

I just don't want anybody who really needs them to be denied. Perhaps the old, the mentally ill, the pregnant/breastfeeding etc, get some extra time spent on their specific risks. I just don't want anybody to be turned down... except perhaps under 18 without parental consent - but even that would would present problems, like them just using somebody they know to buy it for them. No matter who we exclude, that just leaves the door open for criminals to still have a market, I'm not sure on all of the answers myself, I just see all the ways its gone wrong in the past.

I mean we already have dedicated places to buy alcohol, weed, cigarettes, coffee, kratom/kava. I imagine something like the way those are handled.

And no, I don't think billboards are a wise choice, for obvious reasons. Where I live, weed cant be sold with any advertising of any kind. They come in a foil-like container, with no marketing even on the package, other than the thc concentration ( which I think is stupid in itself, but a story for a different time.)

There's no cigarette commercials, there's no weed commercials, for some reason I guess there's still alcohol commercials, though that can be just as bad as anything else we are discussing here.

Anyway, I just really think easy accessibility is key. And I took your post for leaning to the idea that individuals needs to jump through hoops to get the product they need. I saw that as a way for criminals continuing to operate. If I was wrong about that, I apologize.

 

[brokedownpalace10]

Sorry, maybe I went a little overboard there. I hadn't slept in a couple nights ( and not drug related for once) I don't actually think they should be sold in literal corner stores.

I was imagining something like, you get it from a pharmacy, the pharmacist takes you into a 'consultation room,' maybe asks you a few questions (primarily for reporting purposes), gives you some info on rehab if you're interested, give you some info on safe practices, give you some info on risks and how to reduce them and maybe some narcan ( This should be free of charge imo, only saves the state in the long run, here anyway, where its all paid for by the state)

And you walk out of there in 5 - 15 minutes and pay a fee. Which I imagine to be, probably a little high at first only because legit companies and or government entities (however which way its done) are gonna need some time to set up supply lines that allow affordable & high quality consistent products at the same time. But getting to the point of undercutting criminals in quality, price and accessibility is mandatory in my opinion.

I just don't want anybody who really needs them to be denied. Perhaps the old, the mentally ill, the pregnant/breastfeeding etc, get some extra time spent on their specific risks. I just don't want anybody to be turned down... except perhaps under 18 without parental consent - but even that would would present problems, like them just using somebody they know to buy it for them. No matter who we exclude, that just leaves the door open for criminals to still have a market, I'm not sure on all of the answers myself, I just see all the ways its gone wrong in the past.

I mean we already have dedicated places to buy alcohol, weed, cigarettes, coffee, kratom/kava. I imagine something like the way those are handled.

And no, I don't think billboards are a wise choice, for obvious reasons. Where I live, weed cant be sold with any advertising of any kind. They come in a foil-like container, with no marketing even on the package, other than the thc concentration ( which I think is stupid in itself, but a story for a different time.)

There's no cigarette commercials, there's no weed commercials, for some reason I guess there's still alcohol commercials, though that can be just as bad as anything else we are discussing here.

Anyway, I just really think easy accessibility is key. And I took your post for leaning to the idea that individuals needs to jump through hoops to get the product they need. I saw that as a way for criminals continuing to operate. If I was wrong about that, I apologize.

All good. I didn't think a lot of it and entered the snark zone myself. Apologies right back.

I'm not sure what I think about the harder drugs. We want as many people to not go there as possible, but, once there obstacles will only hinder their return. Harm reduction.
And also, some people are better off staying there. There are many worse things than addiction.

So, zero people on here think that anyone should go to prison for even the hardest drugs.
Reading the thread it seems that most all want some kind of "guardrails" or "discouragement" for the most addicting or harmful (for want of better terms, for all terms in that sentence )
All we need to figure out is what those guardrails might be.

 

[Mycophile]

Even though this doesn't totally have to do with drug legalization or sale, this just made me think about one more reason why I hate the way that doctors have to act when prescribing opioids and other drugs that are both useful and possibly fun yet potentially dangerous. The reason is basically the lack of transparency that doctors are forced to have.

I don't honestly really get very upset about people who end up accidentally dying while taking hard drugs UNLESS they really wanted to quit badly and just couldn't pull it off. If someone is ok with the risks they are taking (and we know that many are), then that feels acceptable to me. But what really bothers me are tainted drugs where the user doesn't know they are impure and doctors prescribing drugs without being transparent about not just their potential harms, but also how much fun they can be lol.

I remember watching one of those documentaries a while back which was all about scaring people away from opioids and it just had stories about completely drug-naive people who were prescribed opioids and then either died or went on to get addicted to heroin etc. People like a middle aged mom who was prescribed them when she got injured and discovered that a few extra felt good and then started intentionally injuring herself to get more. There was also a story about a teenage girl who had something similar happen, with both cases ending horribly (I don't remember who lived at this point.)

I know we all know it, and there's no way doctors could say it, but if opioid prescribing doctors were to just openly admit to people who haven't been prescribed opioids that they can feel good when used in excess but that they are dangerous, then those same people probably never would have died/met horrible fates. Doctors should even be able to be honest and tell people how much extra they are likely to be able to get away with without actually dying if they do decide to use them to get high.

Of course, the way our stupid laws work, every doctor would lose their license, but that's stupid. I think it would be great if opioid prescribing doctors could just say "ok, just in case you haven't taken these before, you really shouldn't exceed 2, but if you do then you could feel really good. However, the more you take the greater your chance of addiction and possible death from things like respiratory depression. Therefore, I don't recommend you take any extra, but if you do, then at least don't exceed 4 (considering your weight, age, etc) and you will most likely be ok. And you should really not take them every day, but if you do, here are some tips on avoiding addiction. Please don't be afraid to tell me if you have "accidentally" taken too many and would like help, because it's only natural to want to feel good."

I know that's kind of a silly ass dialogue, but I would bet most of us would agree on this. Because honestly, it just really bothered me that these people had ZERO CLUE that the medicine they were getting could feel so good if they took some extra, and then once they did they didn't have anyone to talk to about the dangers because they probably felt they had to hide it. THAT IMO is what truly caused the "opioid epidemic": not overprescribing of opioids, but lack of transparency from doctors in a culture where getting high is taboo. So what ended up happening was everyone started talking about how bad all these opioid drugs are and not how bad it is that we live in a society where we can just be fucking honest and open about the pleasurable effects that drugs have.

 

[Mjäll]

All drugs should be legal and subject to general trade and consumer laws. Even most pharmaceuticals could be used under individual responsibility. The reasonable limit case is not weed, not psychedelics, not speed or heroin, zenes or fentanyls - but antibiotics. One of few drug classes that actually carries harm beyond the user.

 

[snmfmy]

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.

Well it obviously couldn't be a character defect with respect to him so it must be the drugs.

This is the classic cop out that many addicts take instead of saying that people who OD are personally responsible for ODing and it's not the dealer's fault and it's not the government's fault. It's only that person's fault because they weren't absolutely sure exactly what was in what they were shooting in their arm. They shouldn't shoot it in their arm.

Instead they blame it on the drug dealer. They blame it on the drugs itself and they blame it on the government.

Because when you decriminalize the use of drugs that means it's okay to use drugs. So if you have ridiculous behavior while using drugs, it's your fault your responsibility. You can't blame it on the drugs anymore.

And most addicts don't want to take personal responsibility for anything much less the fact that they fucked up their life from the choices they made, not from the drugs they did.