Mental Health The Myth of Mental Illness

[Quere]

I would NOT support that law at all because I believe all drugs should be legal if you are an adult and you aren't driving under the influence, and even as bad as crack can be, it doesn't necessarily make you insane, nor do I think it's fair to lock someone up for using any drug, whether you are locking them up in a mental hospital or a prison.

That doesn't sound like a law that is necessarily there to help the crack addicts and more like they made the law just to make some quick money.

Yeah that law sounds terrible.

If hypothetically crack did turn people into blood crazed murderers then you could just arrest them for murder.

But the fact is, it doesn't do that. People say drugs should be illegal because they cause people to commit crimes, but if that were true you could just lock them up for those crimes instead of having to make up another crime (i.e drug possession, supply etc).

Like if I smoke crack and kill someone, then arrest me for murder. Don't arrest me just for smoking crack because your prejudice leads you to believe that I'm obviously going to commit murder at some point because I smoke crack.

Cause all crack users graduate to murder right? Man crack just doesn't do it for me anymore, maybe murder is the high I'm looking for!

Lol

Those 'crackers' murdered people not because of drugs but probably because they were, poor, homeless, sick, generally had very shitty lives and I imagine noone gave them the help they needed.

If the drug was legal and free the govt. could free up money spent on persecuting drug users and use it to help them instead, the 'crackers' would have more money to spend on housing, building a stable life etc and wouldn't have an incentive to rob/murder people for drug money to buy drugs to self medicate problems that the govt. refuses to help them with

 

[Mycophile]

Yeah that law sounds terrible.

If hypothetically crack did turn people into blood crazed murderers then you could just arrest them for murder.

But the fact is, it doesn't do that. People say drugs should be illegal because they cause people to commit crimes, but if that were true you could just lock them up for those crimes instead of having to make up another crime (i.e drug possession, supply etc).

Like if I smoke crack and kill someone, then arrest me for murder. Don't arrest me just for smoking crack because your prejudice leads you to believe that I'm obviously going to commit murder at some point because I smoke crack.

Cause all crack users graduate to murder right? Man crack just doesn't do it for me anymore, maybe murder is the high I'm looking for!

Lol

Yeah, I mean, I kind of get where Jose Ribas de Silva is coming from to an extent, but I still don't see anything good coming from actually putting anyone IN PRISON for even hard drugs.

He seems to agree and think putting people in forced rehabs is better, but I still can't agree.

Plus, like, he's complaining about the drug crime in his country and how in the slums (favellas) little 12 year old kids with Ak-47s sell you the crack and heroin and shit cause they are too young to be penalized criminally, and that then people go to them and get shot or robbed or involved in the gang scene and drug crime, and admittedly I am sure that where he's from in Brazil is 100 times worse than the U.S....BUT...

...how can you deny that if you make those same drugs legal that those gangs lose their drug sales and monopolies on the drugs and then the violent crime will be decreased when people don't have to deal with violent gang members to get their, now decriminalized, drugs???

You can't have it both ways:

If you want to complain about the violent crime being associated with the drugs because of gangs selling them then you can't turn around say you can't be for decriminalizing them either.

Then he wants to say if we decriminalize them society will be too immature to handle the drugs, so they must be kept illegal, but obviously keeping these drugs illegal DOES NOT stop people from using them, and VERY STRONGLY maintains the connection of violent crime to drugs that can literally only be eliminated by decriminalizing them.

This circular logic makes no sense yet people maintain it.

If the drugs being illegal is working so well, then why complain about the gangs selling drugs in your country and people getting shot??

I still can't understand it.

I think so long as these drugs exist at all there will be casualties.

Alcohol is legal and claims god knows how many casualties per year, but it would be WAY worse if it was illegal.

Fewer casualties seem to happen when people can use dangerous things (drugs and guns) out in the open legally with people monitoring them, getting receipts for sales, putting their social security numbers in computers when they buy them, etc...then when we have people doing and selling and using these drugs/guns illegally and people have to be covert about it.

Being covert about it = violence.

Even if being more open about it may expose people who otherwise would not be and they will be casualties if they aren't smart enough and use hard drugs they would have otherwise avoided, at least they are less likely to be shot and killed when buying them or become gang members or drug dealers themselves or end up in prisons with rapists and murderers and come out even worse.

 

[Quere]

Yeah, I mean, I kind of get where Jose Ribas de Silva is coming from to an extent, but I still don't see anything good coming from actually putting anyone IN PRISON for even hard drugs.

He seems to agree and think putting people in forced rehabs is better, but I still can't agree.

Plus, like, he's complaining about the drug crime in his country and how in the slums (favellas) little 12 year old kids with Ak-47s sell you the crack and heroin and shit cause they are too young to be penalized criminally, and that then people go to them and get shot or robbed or involved in the gang scene and drug crime, and admittedly I am sure that where he's from in Brazil is 100 times worse than the U.S....BUT...

...how can you deny that if you make those same drugs legal that those gangs lose their drug sales and monopolies on the drugs and then the violent crime will be decreased when people don't have to deal with violent gang members to get their, now decriminalized, drugs???

You can't have it both ways:

If you want to complain about the violent crime being associated with the drugs because of gangs selling them then you can't turn around say you can't be for decriminalizing them either.

Then he wants to say if we decriminalize them society will be too immature to handle the drugs, so they must be kept illegal, but obviously keeping these drugs illegal DOES NOT stop people from using them, and VERY STRONGLY maintains the connection of violent crime to drugs that can literally only be eliminated by decriminalizing them.

This circular logic makes no sense yet people maintain it.

If the drugs being illegal is working so well, then why complain about the gangs selling drugs in your country and people getting shot??

I still can't understand it.

I think so long as these drugs exist at all there will be casualties.

Alcohol is legal and claims god knows how many casualties per year, but it would be WAY worse if it was illegal.

Fewer casualties seem to happen when people can use dangerous things (drugs and guns) out in the open legally with people monitoring them, getting receipts for sales, putting their social security numbers in computers when they buy them, etc...then when we have people doing and selling and using these drugs/guns illegally and people have to be covert about it.

Being covert about it = violence.

Even if being more open about it may expose people who otherwise would not be and they will be casualties if they aren't smart enough and use hard drugs they would have otherwise avoided, at least they are less likely to be shot and killed when buying them or become gang members or drug dealers themselves or end up in prisons with rapists and murderers and come out even worse.

I agree 100% with everything you just said. It seems so obvious to us but somehow people refuse to accept it.

And forced rehabs are terrible as well. I hate the way it would take a hell of a lot of problem drinking for people to force you into rehab but get caught using heroin recreationally once and they want to ship you off to a pray away the drug dependence camp for 6 months.

If the drugs were provided legally and cheaply and adequate training in the safe use provided then the majority of users habits would be no more dangerous (or less) than the majority of alcohol users currently.

And the ones who did get in trouble could access help easier and with less stigma attached.

And prison for anything less than violent crime is monstrously inhumane and also completely counterproductive

 

[Mycophile]

I agree 100% with everything you just said. It seems so obvious to us but somehow people refuse to accept it.

And forced rehabs are terrible as well. I hate the way it would take a hell of a lot of problem drinking for people to force you into rehab but get caught using heroin recreationally once and they want to ship you off to a pray away the drug dependence camp for 6 months.

If the drugs were provided legally and cheaply and adequate training in the safe use provided then the majority of users habits would be no more dangerous (or less) than the majority of alcohol users currently.

And the ones who did get in trouble could access help easier and with less stigma attached.

And prison for anything less than violent crime is monstrously inhumane and also completely counterproductive

Yeah, I mean, it's very hard to say exactly what would happen if you could go to your local CVS and get meth, crack and heroin, and it's hard to deny there would not undoubtedly be hundreds if not thousands of people exposed who would not otherwise have been, and yes, there would be deaths there would not have been, but likewise, there would be FEWER deaths in other areas that there would be have been like fewer deaths from gang crimes because you didn't join a gang or buy drugs from a gang member, fewer deaths from impure laced drugs, fewer extra crime surrounding the drugs in general etc.

So overall, I tend to think that over the course of years things would even out to no more deaths and serious crimes associated with hard drug use, and most likely, much less.

On the surface, it sounds hard to imagine standing in line to get your heart medication behind a heroin junkie LOL (I would NOT say they should have the same drug stores for legal hard drugs as other drugs and would not want people mingling in the same place so much...), but in reality, bringing these things out into the open is SAFER than keeping them covert.

Those junkies are still out there and they are still harmful at times, but now they are lurking in dark corners.

When brought out into the light so to speak, things are safer.

The key to it being successful would absolutely be VERY strict laws in place, but those laws would not be denying drug access to adults of legal age at least, but rather, them having to buy their drugs under specific circumstances using IDs and being entered into databases only at legal authorized stores and without open sale in the streets being even REMOTELY legal.

It would not be "anarchy" or "yeah, just go sell or buy drugs wherever" or it most certainly WOULD NOT WORK. It means making everything VERY systematic.

We would know exactly who bought what drugs at what drug stores and when: they are on cameras, video surveillance buying their drugs having to give their social security numbers and licenses to get them and being given receipts.

Should one of these users go to commit a crime after buying his drugs BAM!! he's on camera at 5:07PM in this exact city, in the computer for having spent $89.17 on a very specific amount of heroin and meth, and there's only so far he can travel from there before he's taken down by police.

We know his name, where he lives (or if he doesn't even have an address), his finger prints maybe too, even DNA under certain conditions.

Otherwise, he's buying those drugs covertly in slums and on street corners and we have no idea who he is, where he's going or where he's been or how to find him if he's involved in a crime.

 

[Quere]

Yeah, I mean, it's very hard to say exactly what would happen if you could go to your local CVS and get meth, crack and heroin, and it's hard to deny there would not undoubtedly be hundreds if not thousands of people exposed who would not otherwise have been, and yes, there would be deaths there would not have been, but likewise, there would be FEWER deaths in other areas that there would be have been like fewer deaths from gang crimes because you didn't join a gang or buy drugs from a gang member, fewer deaths from impure laced drugs, fewer extra crime surrounding the drugs in general etc.

So overall, I tend to think that over the course of years things would even out to no more deaths and serious crimes associated with hard drug use, and most likely, much less.

On the surface, it sounds hard to imagine standing in line to get your heart medication behind a heroin junkie LOL (I would NOT say they should have the same drug stores for legal hard drugs as other drugs and would not want people mingling in the same place so much...), but in reality, bringing these things out into the open is SAFER than keeping them covert.

Those junkies are still out there and they are still harmful at times, but now they are lurking in dark corners.

When brought out into the light so to speak, things are safer.

We know exactly who bought what drugs at what drug stores and when: they are on cameras, video surveillance buying their drugs having to give their social security numbers and licences to get them and being given receipts.

Should one of these users go to commit a crime after buying his drugs BAM!! he's on camera at 5:07PM in this anxiety city, in the computer for having spent $89.17 on a very specific amount of heroin and meth, and there's only so far he can travel from their before he's taken down by police.

Otherwise, he's buying those drugs covertly in slums and on street corners and we have no idea who he is, where he's going or where he's been or how to find him if he's involved in a crime.

My idea would be to allow Dr's to prescribe recreational prescription's to their patients, you would do some sort of safety training at the start before you got your first script and would have checkups with the Dr every now and then. In the interest of harm reduction the Dr could try to educate and/or persuade the person not to use it but at the end ofthe day that sort of setup would still reduce harm than having to go out and get drugs off shady ppl.

Obviously in this setup the govt would need to heavily subsidise the drugs and Dr's visits so that addicts weren't still forced into committing acquisitive crimes to fund their drug use. But I think the value in money, lives and improved quality of life would be huge in a system like this.

And if some people who wouldn't have tried it currently ended up trying it and a small amount of those got addicted - I honestly wouldn't care - their lives would still be far better than the millions of addicts currently forced to use drugs illicitly.

I think completely legalising to the point where hard drugs are sold at every corner store is a bit different and certainly a harder sell

 

[Mycophile]

My idea would be to allow Dr's to prescribe recreational prescription's to their patients, you would do some sort of safety training at the start before you got your first script and would have checkups with the Dr every now and then. In the interest of harm reduction the Dr could try to educate and/or persuade the person not to use it but at the end ofthe day that sort of setup would still reduce harm than having to go out and get drugs off shady ppl.

Obviously in this setup the govt would need to heavily subsidise the drugs and Dr's visits so that addicts weren't still forced into committing acquisitive crimes to fund their drug use. But I think the value in money, lives and improved quality of life would be huge in a system like this.

And if some people who wouldn't have tried it currently ended up trying it and a small amount of those got addicted - I honestly wouldn't care - their lives would still be far better than the millions of addicts currently forced to use drugs illicitly.

I think completely legalising to the point where hard drugs are sold at every corner store is a bit different and certainly a harder sell

Yeah, I like that idea, though I wouldn't have the doctor's trying to tell them specifically not to use them, but how to use them as carefully as possible, unless there's a drug or drug combo that is truly too dangerous, and the doctor would know the patient's health history to be able to determine that.

I mean, it would even have to get down to the point where the doctor would tell certain people if they cannot safely combine certain drugs, and under those circumstances, like if it's a very dangerous interaction or the doctor believes using a certain drug is REALLY dangerous to that particular user, then that doctor would certainly have to tell the patient he does NOT think it is a good idea, but that he will not stop the user from it, but rather, will tell them all the reasons it is dangerous, then basically, he would sign something saying he did NOT recommend that drug or drug combo, then the user would also sign that any health problems or death occurring from the use would NOT be the doctor's fault, etc...it goes into a computer etc.....that that user IS TAKING THE RISK THEMSELVES AT NO ONE ELSE'S EXPENSE.

I didn't say I thought they should be sold on every corner store.

Actually I had thought about the idea more and forgotten my ideas but they were pretty much the same as yours.

I kind of meant in terms of when they actually purchased their drugs, after having been given prescriptions or whatever, they would need to be entered into databases on computers according to what they bought, when they bought, where they bought, etc.

That info would be extremely important IMO in terms of keeping crime levels down.

We would need to keep very good track of who the hard drug users are so that if they commit other crimes they are easier to find.

Overall, the combo of harm reduction and organized record keeping of users information would go a long way I think to preventing harm to the user and others.

 

[Quere]

Yeah, I like that idea, though I wouldn't have the doctor's trying to tell them specifically not to use them, but how to use them as carefully as possible, unless there's a drug or drug combo that is truly too dangerous, and the doctor would know the patient's health history to be able to determine that.

I mean, it would even have to get down to the point where the doctor would tell certain people if they cannot safely combine certain drugs, and under those circumstances, like if it's a very dangerous interaction of the doctor believes using a certain drug is REALLY dangerous to that particular user, then that doctor would certainly have to tell the patient he does NOT think it is a good idea, but that he will not stop the user from it, but rather, will tell them all the reasons it is dangerous, then basically, he would sign something saying he did NOT recommend that drug or drug combo, then the user would also sign that any health problems or death occurring from the use would NOT be the doctor's fault, etc...it goes into a computer etc.....that that user IS TAKING THE RISK THEMSELVES AT NO ONE ELSE'S EXPENSE.

I didn't say I thought they should be sold on every corner store.

Actually I had thought about the idea more and forgotten my ideas but they were pretty much the same as yours.

I kind of meant in terms of when they actually purchased their drugs, after having been given prescriptions or whatever, they would need to be entered into databases on computers according to what they bought, when they bought, where they bought, etc.

That info would be extremely important IMO in terms of keeping crime levels down.

We would not to keep very good track of who the hard drug users are so that if they commit other crimes they are easier to find.

Overall, the combo of harm reduction and organized keeping-track of users information would go a long way I think to preventing harm to the user and others.

Oh with the corner store thing, I wasn't saying you thought they should do that.

Yeah I only say the Dr's could try to persuade them not to use x drug as it might make the idea more palatable to anti drug ppl.

Exactly.

the idea would be that the doctor is an advisor only.

Unlike currently where they get to decide unilaterally what is best for us and act as the gatekeepers for narcotic drugs.

If they had your well-informed consent and you had completed some sort of brief course on drug safety they would not be allowed to turn down your request for a script.

It would be about protecting and supporting drug users instead of judging and controlling them

 

[Quere]

Haha I just realized I'd totally forgotten what this thread was actually about.

 

[Mycophile]

Oh with the corner store thing, I wasn't saying you thought they should do that.

Yeah I only say the Dr's could try to persuade them not to use x drug as it might make the idea more palatable to anti drug ppl.

Exactly.

the idea would be that the doctor is an advisor only.

Unlike currently where they get to decide unilaterally what is best for us and act as the gatekeepers for narcotic drugs.

If they had your well-informed consent and you had completed some sort of brief course on drug safety they would not be allowed to turn down your request for a script.

It would be about protecting and supporting drug users instead of judging and controlling them

The idea even gets me excited lol...of course cause then I could access certain drugs I can't otherwise (though truth is I am REALLY serious about using fewer substances now), but also imagine how much better it would be.

If the doctor isn't there to stop you and literally can't stop you, drug users would know if he specifically tells them he would not advise certain drugs or drug combos that they best beware in those circumstances.

It'll never ever happen though.

Look how long it has taken to even REMOTELY get weed to be decriminalized in some states and countries and we STILL have stupid politicians saying "there haven't been enough studies done yet to be sure it's safe" lol.

I heard that shrooms are being looked into being decriminalized in Colorado, but I mean, I wouldn't hold my breath. IF it happens I'd give it 15-20 years to be decriminalized ANYWHERE in the U.S., like maybe a single city. We have some cases of Ketamine, MDMA or Shrooms being prescribed, which is nice, but most people don't qualify.

Our whole war on drugs is fucked permanently.

Ever since it began in the early 1920s....once it got started, reversing it will be nearly impossible.

The biggest single name to blame is Harry J. Anslinger: one of the biggest assholes in history and I believe he was the one who started the DEA.

He basically dedicated his life to creating the horrible system we have and is single handedly responsible for so much carnage he really should be considered a terrorist of sorts in the history books.

If I could go back in time and stop certain people from being born....of course after a long list of people like Hitler and Stalin coming first....he'd be a name I'd eliminate from history lol.

Man, I just made things get dark, but seriously, that man was evil.

He was responsible for all the reefer madness shit, was EXTREMELY racist, really really bad and if you ever look up his name online you will be hating him within a few minutes of reading about him and need to go blow off some steam lol.

 

[Quere]

The idea even gets me excited lol...of course cause then I could access certain drugs I can't otherwise (though truth is I am REALLY serious about using fewer substances now), but also imagine how much better it would be.

If the doctor isn't there to stop you and literally can't stop you, drug users would know if he specifically tells them he would not advise certain drugs or drug combos that they best beware in those circumstances.

It'll never ever happen though.

Look how long it has taken to even REMOTELY get weed to be decriminalized in some states and countries and we STILL have stupid politicians saying "there haven't been enough studies done yet to be sure it's safe" lol.

I heard that shrooms are being looked into being decriminalized in Colorado, but I mean, I wouldn't hold my breath. IF it happens I'd give it 15-20 years to be decriminalized ANYWHERE in the U.S., like maybe a single city. We have some cases of Ketamine, MDMA or Shrooms being prescribed, which is nice, but most people don't qualify.

Our whole war on drugs is fucked permanently.

Ever since it began in the early 1920s....once it got started, reversing it will be nearly impossible.

The biggest single name to blame is Harry J. Anslinger: one of the biggest assholes in history and I believe he was the one who started the DEA.

He basically dedicated his life to creating the horrible system we have and is single handedly responsible for so much carnage he really should be considered a terrorist of sorts in the history books.

If I could go back in time and stop certain people from being born....of course after a long list of people like Hitler and Stalin coming first....he'd be a name I'd eliminate from history lol.

Man, I just made things get dark, but seriously, that man was evil.

He was responsible for all the reefer madness shit, was EXTREMELY racist, really really bad and if you ever look up his name online you will be hating him within a few minutes of reading about him and need to go blow off some steam lol.

I know man, people like Jose don't understand that 100 yrs ago all these drugs weren't illegal and they were not made illegal because society was in chaos and falling apart.

They were made illegal because of prejudice against the people who used the drugs, hysteria and probably certain people's personal greed as well.

Another thing many people don't understand is that what they see as the effects of drugs are actually 90% the effects of a flawed and destructive social control system known as drug prohibition.

We've had expert scientists saying for decades that prohibition is terrible and yet people just ignore them.

The idea of a system like we discussed gets me excited too ?

 

[Mycophile]

I know man, people like Jose don't understand that 100 yrs ago all these drugs weren't illegal and they were not made illegal because society was in chaos and falling apart.

They were made illegal because of prejudice against the people who used the drugs, hysteria and probably certain people's personal greed as well.

Another thing many people don't understand is that what they see as the effects of drugs are actually 90% the effects of a flawed and destructive social control system known as drug prohibition.

We've had expert scientists saying for decades that prohibition is terrible and yet people just ignore them.

The idea of a system like we discussed gets me excited too ?

I'm not sure if he doesn't know that, I mean he's from Brazil where things are very different than the U.S. and was saying he agrees with soft drugs being legal, just not hard ones, but I still can't agree on that.

A lot has changed in those 100 years, but a lot of it became so bad cause of prohibition.

It's pretty hard to imagine those years prior to 1920 or so because actually coke and heroin and all those drugs were LEGAL and you could buy them anywhere!!

If you look online you can see these crazy adds from like the 1890s, and early 1900s with pictures of little bottles saying things like "Heroin tincture--helps for tooth aches, headaches and labor pains. Available for 25 cents from your local apothecary!"

Or like "Cocaine THE WONDER DRUG! Cures all your ails. Combats bad mood and fatigue. GREAT FOR HOUSEWIVES! available for 50 cents at your local drug store" hahaha.

Hard to imagine that society was not falling apart and these drugs were legal and easily available.

I mean, they were in more simplified forms and many of today's drugs were not around, but heroin, coke, opium, morphine, all that stuff did exist and was legal and society was ok.

There's absolutely no question that the war on drugs is what caused 90% of the drug problems that have developed within those 100 years and that is the true irony.

If you want to make something MORE dangerous then banning it will do so in the majority of situations.

Truth is, the people like Anslinger and all those people KNEW what they were doing was NOT helping and didn't care. It was and continues to be corrupt and is about nothing but money.

I was just looking at Anslinger's wikipedia page again, and prior to the 1930s he was NOT against marijuana use and considered it safe, but when alcohol prohibition failed there was sort of some kind of social and financial incentives for him to demonize weed and other drugs and so he put all his effort into it.

I mean, it's really worth studying this kind of thing in schools as a failed sociological experiment.

It really proves what happens when you demonize various substances or objects and how much MORE dangerous you can make something if you tell people that it is forbidden at all costs to use or engage in.

They took a relatively small problem and made it into an absolute epidemic, and that goes for today's opiate epidemic, all the worldwide crime associated with drug use, EVERYTHING.

It is entirely possible that what has been done CANNOT be undone at this point in terms of the social stigma created worldwide.

I think it COULD be, IF drugs were legalized, but it would probably take at least another 100 years or more to undo so much of what has been done for the past 100 years.

These monsters were successful beyond their wildest dreams.

I wonder if even the assholes like Anslinger wouldn't change their ways if brought back to life today to see what it's resulted in...but probably not. He died in the 70s and that should have been enough time to see the damage done.

There's too much incentive between the police agencies, prison systems, everything.

It's literally a world wide epidemic but not even remotely because of the drugs themselves so much as the social ills created by linking so much crime to the drugs and forcing it all under ground.

If you could literally design a way to make drugs THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IMAGINABLE you could not find a better way to do so than what we have done, and what Anslinger and others did obviously resonated world wide as people like Jose are seeing it in Brazil, etc. We pretty much started it here in the good old U S of A and now it's a world wide issue.

Go us LOL.

 

[jose ribas da silva]

Ok, but then you would put people IN PRISON for using hard drugs??

Don't you think that makes it worse?

And how can you not admit that at least all the little 12 year old kids selling drugs in your favelas and shooting people with AK-47s would stop happening so much if gangs did not have control of the drugs??

You complained that your drug trade is controlled by violent gangs who kill and steal, but if you don't decriminalize those drugs then people can still do that.

You decriminalize them and the violence goes down.

I still disagree.

I think that most likely, there would be a long period of time where more people died from overdoses and accidents, but EVENTUALLY, people would start to learn and realize that those drugs are dangerous, and if they didn't, there would still be some casualties but the thing is THERE WILL ALWAYS BE CASUALTIES TO DRUG USE....whether they are overdoses, gang murders, etc.

The question is: will there be more problems if drugs are illegal and we have all these gangs and drug lords running the streets, or if they are decriminalized?

I say, it would be better if they were decriminalized.

As for our "opioid crisis", I have opinions on how we have handled it wrong, and actually in some ways how it has been created by the government, but it would take a while to discuss and I don't feel like it now.

I will say, I think every single time anyone is ever given a pain killer a doctor needs to tell them "This stuff CAN GET YOU HIGH AND IT FEELS GOOD BUT IS VERY ADDICTIVE SO BE CAREFUL."

I have had to Oxycodone and Hydrocodone for several severe injuries from Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu like torn ACLs, and that was how I discovered they got me high, and i liked it but thankfully did not become addicted.

Still, no doctor ever told me "they get you high", and I think they should have.

I think doctors think if they tell you that then you will use them to get high, but if you DON'T know it is worse.

This awe-inspiring thread, nice! Badly, my time is short this week, too much work, so that I cannot dedicate to this discussion the amount of time that I would like to

Well, I am going to comment it in parts, starting with:


Ok, but then you would put people IN PRISON for using hard drugs??

Don't you think that makes it worse?

It is not “putting people in prison”, in a broad sense, it is putting a specific class of people in prison, which, at a first sight, may look even worse because this is a crystal clear deprivation of basic civil rights, such as the freedom to run one’s life.

The situation has culminated in this chaos on account of the politicians’ negligence as I have said and it is like in physics, once the chaos is established, it will not spontaneously return to a softer situation. This law is an extreme governmental measure, of course, literally. On the other hand, it may be good for the addicts, in general, they are homeless, and, in the clinics, they will get a place to live, regular food, shower, psychological and medical/dental assistance. In fact, you can realize that this is all they need to get out of the abyss of the misery and addiction to crack. I am not sure, but it may have social programs in addition in order to rehabilitate them professionally, giving education and technical courses. It is a specie of a forced rehab. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the imposed benefits that the addicts may eventually get from the coerced imprisonment in these specific drug addicts’ institutions, Brazil is a democracy and as such, it needs to preserve the individual rights of its citizens, this is a crucial pillar. And, obviously, crackheads are also citizens and they are having the right to come and go restricted

It is important to preserve the focus of the matter, which is: what is the line that separates people’s individual freedoms of action and the establishment of a social problem? Formulating this statement in a different way: if the rights of some people are interfering with the rights of the society, which one should be considered first? The individual or the society formed by many individuals? It appears to have an obvious answer. Therefore, the rights of a few ones are being kept within bounds in order to allow the plenitude of the manifestation of the right of the others, which, in the last instance, are the majority and those who are “following the laws and the principles that rule the pacific coexistence in society”.

 

[jose ribas da silva]

Ok, but then you would put people IN PRISON for using hard drugs??

Don't you think that makes it worse?

And how can you not admit that at least all the little 12 year old kids selling drugs in your favelas and shooting people with AK-47s would stop happening so much if gangs did not have control of the drugs??

You complained that your drug trade is controlled by violent gangs who kill and steal, but if you don't decriminalize those drugs then people can still do that.

You decriminalize them and the violence goes down.

I still disagree.

I think that most likely, there would be a long period of time where more people died from overdoses and accidents, but EVENTUALLY, people would start to learn and realize that those drugs are dangerous, and if they didn't, there would still be some casualties but the thing is THERE WILL ALWAYS BE CASUALTIES TO DRUG USE....whether they are overdoses, gang murders, etc.

The question is: will there be more problems if drugs are illegal and we have all these gangs and drug lords running the streets, or if they are decriminalized?

I say, it would be better if they were decriminalized.

As for our "opioid crisis", I have opinions on how we have handled it wrong, and actually in some ways how it has been created by the government, but it would take a while to discuss and I don't feel like it now.

I will say, I think every single time anyone is ever given a pain killer a doctor needs to tell them "This stuff CAN GET YOU HIGH AND IT FEELS GOOD BUT IS VERY ADDICTIVE SO BE CAREFUL."

I have had to Oxycodone and Hydrocodone for several severe injuries from Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu like torn ACLs, and that was how I discovered they got me high, and i liked it but thankfully did not become addicted.

Still, no doctor ever told me "they get you high", and I think they should have.

I think doctors think if they tell you that then you will use them to get high, but if you DON'T know it is worse.

And how can you not admit that at least all the little 12 year old kids selling drugs in your favelas and shooting people with AK-47s would stop happening so much if gangs did not have control of the drugs??


Brazil is so overextravagant that even two points that seem to be directly correlated are not. The crackheads on the streets and the kids in the favelas are linked by misery, social abandonment, and the lack of future perspectives. Only a massive investment and government actions could solve these problems and it does not take much to solve them, the basic is sufficient: education, health care, safety. The basic rights that a citizen should expect as a return of its taxes. On the contrary, in the Brazilian society, one has oligarchies, big corporations, banks; these are the “most important citizens”, those for which the government looks after, a commonplace in capitalism, by the way. Unfortunately, I do not believe this is going to change in the next 50 years or even more.

This is not a digression

One has children in favelas, they see the dealers wearing expensive and branded clothes, driving motorcycles, fucking hot women, parties, cocaine, whisky, red bull, everything that the ads are throwing at them and they cannot afford.

What do you think that go through the mind of a teenager? A miserable one, who sleeps in a 5 square meter room along with 4 siblings. There is not even plaster on the walls, no sewage treatment. The mother works like a donkey and only makes little money, sometimes it is not sufficient for food. The father is absent or an alcoholic who beats his wife in front of her children. Have you have heard about caipirinha made with cachaça? If you have a good cachaça, that’s a God’s gift and as such it is very expensive. However, in the ordinary bars in the peripheries, you can find homemade cachaça for 20 cents of dollar a dose. Only Jesus knows the percentages of alcohol in these drinks, could easily reach 50 % not counting the toxic impurities originated from the hideous manufacturing processes. This is the fuel that feeds the domestic violence. So, to sell drugs or to live a miserable life? To be or not to be? These are the Shakespearian options for these kids.

The crackheads on the streets, who are being interned against their will, they are these kids who have grown up, or, alternatively, they may be ordinary workers who could not support the pressure imposed by the poverty and misery summed to the lack of improvement and future perspectives. It is heartbreaking to see these persons; too many inequalities, it is revolting.

Thinking about what kinds of thoughts these persons have about life, what kinds of existential crises do they have? Which mechanisms do they use to cope with pain?

Myself, I have a job, a car, fashionable clothes, financial stability. Today, I have smoked many joints, sniffed cocaine, drunk, just took a Xanax to calm down because I am fast and I want to sleep soon (5 am now - when I wrote this but did not post it hahaha). What can these people who have nothing in their lives, living in wretched conditions, do in order to run away from their problems, to ease their minds off of the stress? They go to the streets to smoke crack, the cheapest hard drug out there. In addition, their lives are so demoralized that each one of them needs a constant fugue of the reality. Dealing with crack daily, under this social context, is a bridge to hell. They have lost their minds, they cannot respond for their actions, some of them are zombies, they need help.

 

[jose ribas da silva]

Ok, but then you would put people IN PRISON for using hard drugs??

Don't you think that makes it worse?

And how can you not admit that at least all the little 12 year old kids selling drugs in your favelas and shooting people with AK-47s would stop happening so much if gangs did not have control of the drugs??

You complained that your drug trade is controlled by violent gangs who kill and steal, but if you don't decriminalize those drugs then people can still do that.

You decriminalize them and the violence goes down.

I still disagree.

I think that most likely, there would be a long period of time where more people died from overdoses and accidents, but EVENTUALLY, people would start to learn and realize that those drugs are dangerous, and if they didn't, there would still be some casualties but the thing is THERE WILL ALWAYS BE CASUALTIES TO DRUG USE....whether they are overdoses, gang murders, etc.

The question is: will there be more problems if drugs are illegal and we have all these gangs and drug lords running the streets, or if they are decriminalized?

I say, it would be better if they were decriminalized.

As for our "opioid crisis", I have opinions on how we have handled it wrong, and actually in some ways how it has been created by the government, but it would take a while to discuss and I don't feel like it now.

I will say, I think every single time anyone is ever given a pain killer a doctor needs to tell them "This stuff CAN GET YOU HIGH AND IT FEELS GOOD BUT IS VERY ADDICTIVE SO BE CAREFUL."

I have had to Oxycodone and Hydrocodone for several severe injuries from Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu like torn ACLs, and that was how I discovered they got me high, and i liked it but thankfully did not become addicted.

Still, no doctor ever told me "they get you high", and I think they should have.

I think doctors think if they tell you that then you will use them to get high, but if you DON'T know it is worse.

The question is: will there be more problems if drugs are illegal and we have all these gangs and drug lords running the streets, or if they are decriminalized?

I say, it would be better if they were decriminalized.


Yes, the legalization would decrease the profit of drug dealers, but, as I have mentioned, at very high costs for society, considering hard drugs. Nevertheless, I think that it would work with cannabis. The legalization of cannabis will not end drug trafficking but the profits will be lower. In addition, fewer people will be exposed to cocaine/crack, because they need to go to favelas to buy weed and cocaine is there as well, as a temptation to be surpassed. There is urgency in legalization of cannabis in Brazil. Other aspect to be considered is that many people are arrested because of weed, crowding the prison system, which is a pressure cooker that can explode at any time and it feeds violence and organized crime.

 

[jose ribas da silva]

Ok, but then you would put people IN PRISON for using hard drugs??

Don't you think that makes it worse?

And how can you not admit that at least all the little 12 year old kids selling drugs in your favelas and shooting people with AK-47s would stop happening so much if gangs did not have control of the drugs??

You complained that your drug trade is controlled by violent gangs who kill and steal, but if you don't decriminalize those drugs then people can still do that.

You decriminalize them and the violence goes down.

I still disagree.

I think that most likely, there would be a long period of time where more people died from overdoses and accidents, but EVENTUALLY, people would start to learn and realize that those drugs are dangerous, and if they didn't, there would still be some casualties but the thing is THERE WILL ALWAYS BE CASUALTIES TO DRUG USE....whether they are overdoses, gang murders, etc.

The question is: will there be more problems if drugs are illegal and we have all these gangs and drug lords running the streets, or if they are decriminalized?

I say, it would be better if they were decriminalized.

As for our "opioid crisis", I have opinions on how we have handled it wrong, and actually in some ways how it has been created by the government, but it would take a while to discuss and I don't feel like it now.

I will say, I think every single time anyone is ever given a pain killer a doctor needs to tell them "This stuff CAN GET YOU HIGH AND IT FEELS GOOD BUT IS VERY ADDICTIVE SO BE CAREFUL."

I have had to Oxycodone and Hydrocodone for several severe injuries from Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu like torn ACLs, and that was how I discovered they got me high, and i liked it but thankfully did not become addicted.

Still, no doctor ever told me "they get you high", and I think they should have.

I think doctors think if they tell you that then you will use them to get high, but if you DON'T know it is worse.

I will say, I think every single time anyone is ever given a pain killer a doctor needs to tell them "This stuff CAN GET YOU HIGH AND IT FEELS GOOD BUT IS VERY ADDICTIVE SO BE CAREFUL."

I have had to Oxycodone and Hydrocodone for several severe injuries from Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu like torn ACLs, and that was how I discovered they got me high, and i liked it but thankfully did not become addicted.

Still, no doctor ever told me "they get you high", and I think they should have.

I think doctors think if they tell you that then you will use them to get high, but if you DON'T know it is worse.


Finally, we agree on something (haahahah =P). The doctors need to be more transparent, sincere, always the truth, that’s should be the rule; this is a mentality that needs to change in medicine. Nevertheless, this mentality has arisen on account of the society’s precepts. By change them, we can change the behavior of doctors in this context. If the doctor tells to the patient: “this is a mind-altering drug that can be used recreationally, take care”. Imagine the case where the patient has an overdose with this drug later, this may have legal implications.

 

[jose ribas da silva]

Well, I did coke 13 times in college, and I think it's a SOMEWHAT dangerous drug...one I have said I will never do again, but not so bad like Meth, crack, Heroin, etc...but you can do it sometimes and it will not just ruin your life.

I have known many people who use a little bit of coke on the weekends for many years of their lives and are still healthy and have jobs.

I don't know why when you turn it into crack it becomes so different and more destructive.

I think because you smoke it with the baking powder the high is more intense and lasts less time so you want more right away and so it is much worse and I have never and will never ever smoke crack.

But alcohol is the same: it is everywhere and people use it all the time, AND ALCOHOL IS NOT THAT MUCH SAFER IF YOU DRINK A LOT, THAN COKE IS!!

I think that Coke is worse....but if you get drunk everynight (and I myself drink WAY too much also)....that is very very bad for you.

I think I am not fully aware of the damage I do to my body with alcohol cause it is legal but I know it's very bad.


Also, cigarettes are legal and very very dangerous, maybe as bad as coke in the long term or at least often lead to cancer.


So do you think we should make alcohol and cigarettes illegal??

My belief is: people are going to use whatever they are going to use regardless. We can make things harder for people to find, yes, but eventually people will find things if they try hard enough and it will be up to them to use them appropriately, and some will, and some will choose not to use at all, and some will not and they will die or have bad things happen, or maybe they use too much and learn their lesson.

Yes, it is kind of a bleak point of view, but I don't believe we can stop this by banning things.

It even becomes hard to discuss with things like guns now with all the increasing gun violence.

Part of me wants to see us at least making assault rifles illegal in my country like they are in many others, and the other part thinks it will not matter, but at least guns hurt OTHER people, not just the user.

So yeah, I'd probably say we should not have assault rifles legal for the civilian population, but the rest of the guns we need to let them have.

Overall, I don't believe making almost any objects illegal will stop people.

Every object can be misused or used correctly.

I think the more something is around and available the more people learn about it and how it can be dangerous, and some people will use it wrong, and some won't, but I do not think the answer is throwing non-violent drug users in prison with rapists and murderers, or allowing violent gangs to monopolize the drug trade so they can kill people and rob people.

All those people who get killed going into your favelas looking for hard drugs would stop and your gangs would lose money and power if drugs were decriminalized and I think the criminals need to lose money and power.

I don't know why when you turn it into crack it becomes so different and more destructive.

I think because you smoke it with the baking powder the high is more intense and lasts less time so you want more right away and so it is much worse and I have never and will never ever smoke crack.

This is related to the lungs’ surfaces, which are very large and have a great absorption power. When one sniffs, many cocaine particles get trapped in the respiratory tract, decreasing the bioavailability of the active compound.

 

[jose ribas da silva]

Well, I did coke 13 times in college, and I think it's a SOMEWHAT dangerous drug...one I have said I will never do again, but not so bad like Meth, crack, Heroin, etc...but you can do it sometimes and it will not just ruin your life.

I have known many people who use a little bit of coke on the weekends for many years of their lives and are still healthy and have jobs.

I don't know why when you turn it into crack it becomes so different and more destructive.

I think because you smoke it with the baking powder the high is more intense and lasts less time so you want more right away and so it is much worse and I have never and will never ever smoke crack.

But alcohol is the same: it is everywhere and people use it all the time, AND ALCOHOL IS NOT THAT MUCH SAFER IF YOU DRINK A LOT, THAN COKE IS!!

I think that Coke is worse....but if you get drunk everynight (and I myself drink WAY too much also)....that is very very bad for you.

I think I am not fully aware of the damage I do to my body with alcohol cause it is legal but I know it's very bad.


Also, cigarettes are legal and very very dangerous, maybe as bad as coke in the long term or at least often lead to cancer.


So do you think we should make alcohol and cigarettes illegal??

My belief is: people are going to use whatever they are going to use regardless. We can make things harder for people to find, yes, but eventually people will find things if they try hard enough and it will be up to them to use them appropriately, and some will, and some will choose not to use at all, and some will not and they will die or have bad things happen, or maybe they use too much and learn their lesson.

Yes, it is kind of a bleak point of view, but I don't believe we can stop this by banning things.

It even becomes hard to discuss with things like guns now with all the increasing gun violence.

Part of me wants to see us at least making assault rifles illegal in my country like they are in many others, and the other part thinks it will not matter, but at least guns hurt OTHER people, not just the user.

So yeah, I'd probably say we should not have assault rifles legal for the civilian population, but the rest of the guns we need to let them have.

Overall, I don't believe making almost any objects illegal will stop people.

Every object can be misused or used correctly.

I think the more something is around and available the more people learn about it and how it can be dangerous, and some people will use it wrong, and some won't, but I do not think the answer is throwing non-violent drug users in prison with rapists and murderers, or allowing violent gangs to monopolize the drug trade so they can kill people and rob people.

All those people who get killed going into your favelas looking for hard drugs would stop and your gangs would lose money and power if drugs were decriminalized and I think the criminals need to lose money and power.

I think because you smoke it with the baking powder the high is more intense and lasts less time so you want more right away and so it is much worse and I have never and will never ever smoke crack.
But alcohol is the same: it is everywhere and people use it all the time, AND ALCOHOL IS NOT THAT MUCH SAFER IF YOU DRINK A LOT, THAN COKE IS!!
I think that Coke is worse....but if you get drunk everynight (and I myself drink WAY too much also)....that is very very bad for you.
I think I am not fully aware of the damage I do to my body with alcohol cause it is legal but I know it's very bad.
Also, cigarettes are legal and very very dangerous, maybe as bad as coke in the long term or at least often lead to cancer.

The reasons by which cigarettes and alcohol are legal are different but, in the end, these two things reunite. The usage of alcohol has its origin in ancient times, biblical times. The wine is the blood of Christ, nevertheless, considering toxicity levels, alcohol should not be legalized. Even cocaine does not give me a hangover as strong as alcohol does and, of course, hangovers are illustrations of the noxiousness.

Alcohol is inlaid on society, it is a synonym of entertainment, there is no fun without alcohol, it is a crucial ingredient for meetings, social celebrations, etc. Imagine the ordinary human beings who do not take drugs, how would they celebrate life without alcohol?

It is very interesting that you have mentioned this, because the origins of the organized crime in your country are connected with the alcohol prohibition that occurred in the past, which was, in other words, a drug prohibition. I am highlighting this fact because prohibition generates crime, which is also valid for cocaine and other substances and there is the organized crime commanded by drug dealers in favelas in Brazil.

So why I do not support cocaine legalization? Because I can go out and drink some beers on the weekends, all the weekends of my life, the same cannot be done with cocaine, heroin, meth, etc, you know? This is the main point.

Finally, how the reasons by which cigarettes and alcohol are legal may be reunited? The answer is that large corporations finance political campaigns and politicians make the laws, laws that instead of protecting citizens are protecting economic interests and power maintenance. When the laws are strict, the consumption rates fall. In Brazil, there are almost no younger smokers on account of the negative propaganda about cigarettes. In addition, taxes are too high for them, making the final price too high too, thereby decreasing consumption. In Europe, on the contrary, it is craziness, people there smoke a lot, Eastern Europe, France, Italy, holy shit, it is everywhere. I remember that one day I was in Sofia (Bulgaria’s capital), in the winter. There, bars and restaurants have in general a covered external area, which is kept at room temperature, practically unventilated, crowded places, smoking allowed. You can imagine the results. I’ve seen with these eyes that God gave me people eating and smoking at the same time, simultaneously, chewing and puffing. Bulgarians, Serbians, and Italians, I have noticed that these societies are crazy about cigarettes. Social situations like the aforementioned one do not happen in Brazil so that I conclude that cigarettes are a social drug, it is a cultural feature. In Brazil the general image is the image of something disgusting, image that was created by means of a massive negative campaign. To me, it is disgusting, kissing a woman who smoked a cigarette is horrible, which is not true for cannabis, by the way.

 

[jose ribas da silva]

Well, I did coke 13 times in college, and I think it's a SOMEWHAT dangerous drug...one I have said I will never do again, but not so bad like Meth, crack, Heroin, etc...but you can do it sometimes and it will not just ruin your life.

I have known many people who use a little bit of coke on the weekends for many years of their lives and are still healthy and have jobs.

I don't know why when you turn it into crack it becomes so different and more destructive.

I think because you smoke it with the baking powder the high is more intense and lasts less time so you want more right away and so it is much worse and I have never and will never ever smoke crack.

But alcohol is the same: it is everywhere and people use it all the time, AND ALCOHOL IS NOT THAT MUCH SAFER IF YOU DRINK A LOT, THAN COKE IS!!

I think that Coke is worse....but if you get drunk everynight (and I myself drink WAY too much also)....that is very very bad for you.

I think I am not fully aware of the damage I do to my body with alcohol cause it is legal but I know it's very bad.


Also, cigarettes are legal and very very dangerous, maybe as bad as coke in the long term or at least often lead to cancer.


So do you think we should make alcohol and cigarettes illegal??

My belief is: people are going to use whatever they are going to use regardless. We can make things harder for people to find, yes, but eventually people will find things if they try hard enough and it will be up to them to use them appropriately, and some will, and some will choose not to use at all, and some will not and they will die or have bad things happen, or maybe they use too much and learn their lesson.

Yes, it is kind of a bleak point of view, but I don't believe we can stop this by banning things.

It even becomes hard to discuss with things like guns now with all the increasing gun violence.

Part of me wants to see us at least making assault rifles illegal in my country like they are in many others, and the other part thinks it will not matter, but at least guns hurt OTHER people, not just the user.

So yeah, I'd probably say we should not have assault rifles legal for the civilian population, but the rest of the guns we need to let them have.

Overall, I don't believe making almost any objects illegal will stop people.

Every object can be misused or used correctly.

I think the more something is around and available the more people learn about it and how it can be dangerous, and some people will use it wrong, and some won't, but I do not think the answer is throwing non-violent drug users in prison with rapists and murderers, or allowing violent gangs to monopolize the drug trade so they can kill people and rob people.

All those people who get killed going into your favelas looking for hard drugs would stop and your gangs would lose money and power if drugs were decriminalized and I think the criminals need to lose money and power.

Man, now I think that you have contradicted yourself.

First, people will not use things that are not promptly accessible, only if they want them a lot and, even in these cases, they will not have a way to buy the desired stuff. For instance, I have been looking for a clean LSD since a long time and I have not found it yet. Moreover, the fact that things are readily available strongly contributes to the frequency of usage. Imagine: you, very likely, have never thought about drinking a Brazilian beer but if Wall Mart suddenly shows one of them to you, on the shelves, you might be enticed to buy it. The same thought is valid for drugs, if you go to the drug market to buy weed and eventually see a white diamond of coke shining, you will probably be tempted and you will buy it.

Guns, this is the best example of why dangerous things must be not available (drugs, guns, etc). How many massacres are necessary? People go to the supermarket armed to the teeth, with rifles, and I ask: why? This is lack of sex, for sure (hahaha).

Now, Brazil’s president (Jair bolsonaro), who usually licks Trump’s testicles and was elected by the energumen parcel of the society, wants to legalize guns in Brazil, what a joke, we kill each other with sticks and stones, we don’t need guns to have violence.

The president is advocating that guns are necessary for personal defense. Yes, they are necessary but only because the State is not providing security to the society. This statement is ridiculous and cannot be used to justify the legalization of guns, actually, there are no logical justifications for the legalization of guns. If you have one, I am curious to hear it.

 

[jose ribas da silva]

Yeah that law sounds terrible.

If hypothetically crack did turn people into blood crazed murderers then you could just arrest them for murder.

But the fact is, it doesn't do that. People say drugs should be illegal because they cause people to commit crimes, but if that were true you could just lock them up for those crimes instead of having to make up another crime (i.e drug possession, supply etc).

Like if I smoke crack and kill someone, then arrest me for murder. Don't arrest me just for smoking crack because your prejudice leads you to believe that I'm obviously going to commit murder at some point because I smoke crack.

Cause all crack users graduate to murder right? Man crack just doesn't do it for me anymore, maybe murder is the high I'm looking for!

Lol

Those 'crackers' murdered people not because of drugs but probably because they were, poor, homeless, sick, generally had very shitty lives and I imagine noone gave them the help they needed.

If the drug was legal and free the govt. could free up money spent on persecuting drug users and use it to help them instead, the 'crackers' would have more money to spend on housing, building a stable life etc and wouldn't have an incentive to rob/murder people for drug money to buy drugs to self medicate problems that the govt. refuses to help them with

If hypothetically crack did turn people into blood crazed murderers then you could just arrest them for murder.

Then, is it better to wait for them to kill someone? An innocent?



Like if I smoke crack and kill someone, then arrest me for murder. Don't arrest me just for smoking crack because your prejudice leads you to believe that I'm obviously going to commit murder at some point because I smoke crack.

This is logical when applied to a general context. But when applied to the specific Brazilians conditions, more characteristics need to be summed in order to have the actual panorama of the social context. But, sure, it is a controversial law.



Those 'crackers' murdered people not because of drugs but probably because they were, poor, homeless, sick, generally had very shitty lives and I imagine noone gave them the help they needed.

This is true, crack is only the gasoline that feeds the preexisting fire.

 

[Mycophile]

I will respond to your posts when I have the time and energy, but I don't think they will change my opinion.

And even if you could change my opinion on what the laws should be IN BRAZIL...I have never been there and live in the U.S., and I think hard drugs should be decriminalized HERE in the U.S.

And NO, I do not think that hard drugs usually cause people to commit violent crimes, so I will not arrest someone for a drug that does NOT usually result in violent crimes before they commit one.

This isn't the movie "Minority Report" with Tom Cruise where we can tell who will kill someone before it happens.

Maybe in Brazil most junkies and crack heads kill people, but I'd be willing to bet that the majority of them in the U.S. still have not ever murdered anyone and the largest percentage who have have probably done it because they are associated with gangs and violent crime because the drugs are illegal, which is the whole point of making them legal.

Perhaps certain societies may be more able to handle decriminalized drugs than others, and perhaps Brazil is one that cannot. I can't prove that the U.S. can, but I think that there will be fewer casualites in my country if they are decriminalized.

Decriminalizing heroin HAS worked in one or two cities or countries. In Amsterdam, where I have been, I believe it is legal for certain heroin users under certain circumstances to go to a couple select clinics to take Heroin, and that the program has worked in decreasing overdoses and violent crimes associated with it, and I think maybe it has also been done in other places, like I thought I heard maybe Portugal and/or Uruguay but I'm not sure so I'll have to check.

Again, I don't have the time or energy for this now, and it's a very interesting discussion, but I will never support telling people that they cannot use whatever substance they want in the privacy of their own homes unless someone can PROVE to me that if they do it it will someone lead to them killing and raping people, and that's just not how it works.

People don't kill and rape just because they take a certain drug.

There are many more factors associated with it like that, like the crime I mentioned that is linked to illegal drug use, and the poor social conditions you already mentioned.

Right now in the U.S., especially New England and areas not too far from me, there are TONS of junkies because of the Opioid crisis, but I'd be willing to bet good money that none of them have ever killed anyone for their habit and probably won't.

Perhaps the biggest difference is that most of those heroin addicts are upper/middle class white people who come from good upbringings, which leads back to the idea that maybe certain countries and/or social classes are more likely to be able to handle legalized hard drugs than others, but that just supports my opinion that it is not the DRUG that causes the crimes further violent crimes, but the social and economic situations surrounding them.

So I believe that AT BEST you MIGHT be able to convince me that BRAZIL cannot currently handle what I am talking about, but I very much doubt that you can convince me that hard drugs should not be decriminalized in the United States and certain other countries I have also been to that seem like they could handle it like The Netherlands, Ireland and England where social and economic conditions are probably not as bad as Brazil.

I'll return to this thread when I have the time and energy.