• Welcome Guest

    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
    Fun 💃 Threads Overdosed? Click
    D R U G   C U L T U R E

would you sell drugs if it was legal?

For any drug user, selling drugs is a tricky game whether legal or not. Let's say you start selling all the main drugs. Your heroin use shoots up (pun intended), and you cant keep up with demand from customers. So your shots turn into speedballs, or you add some meth to the mix so you can get shit done. All while smoking 3g blunts and munching on handfuls of xanax.
My answer is no. If it were legal the competition and availability would drive down profit margins. As drug users a lot of us would quickly fly off the road and develop pretty big habits to more than one of our products. I'm not saying I'd be uncontrollably IVing stuff and popping pills all day, as I can happily leave most drugs. But I assume for some it'd be a dangerous situation to be in.
Or no opioids anyway. Or weed unless it
was wholesale only. I'd smoke too much to make it worth my efforts if it was grams, 8ths, and the occassional ounce.

My main ambition would be in manufacture. I'd love to get into breeding cannabis, rather than just growing for sale. Along with a bit of extraction and chemistry related jazz.
 
Last edited:
Vastness said:
the situation would look radically different to the illicit market today.

There would be no letting people just swing by your house to buy drugs for the same reason no one just swings by a random unlicensed residence to buy bathtub moonshine. There would be no drug consumers ringing dealers at all hours, there would be no tick system, haggling, etc, or any of the bullshit that unregulated marketplaces typically tend towards.
Click to expand...
Vastness said:
You may well get people hanging around whatever specialised establishments sell their DOC in the early hours, waiting for them to open, like what happens with alcohol in some places, or to some people. But you would likely not get masses of them.
Click to expand...

Vastness said:
There would in all likelihood still be heavily controlled, and other checks and balances would have to be established to counteract these negative potentialities.

There would, quite possibly, be certain quotas, consultations and some form of "prescription for recreation" needed, depending on the drug, or possibly the person.

Not just anyone would be able to get a license to sell anything and set up shop from their home, and the relationships between user and dealer would radically change - for the better I think ultimately.
Click to expand...
While I think the number of illegal dealers would drop they'd 100% still exist. Especially if the points you mentioned above ever become reality. If heavy regulations and checks are implemented a lot of users will simply go to matey on the corner. People will still be there to meet the deman created by out of hours sales, people who have been barred from stores, reached their allowance, couldn't get the necessary permission, can't afford to or don't want to pay the inevitably high tax on the product, whatever the reason, there will always be those people.
 
Silly question. I reckon 50%+ of the BL users have sold drugs atleast once. The real question is would You sell to underage and would You rip off anyone.
 
I definitely would. Even now I would prefer to set up some kind of supplement and/or kratom shop and make a living doing that. Would be a lot easier career than manual labor and customer service.
 
4meSM said:
Yeah it's a tricky subject, I don't think there's an universal model for legalization, it will have to be adapted to each country or even on a state-by-state basis. Coffee and weed might be seen as benign in our current society but as you know it wasn't always like that. And we don't even have to go as far as reefer madness. We don't even classify drugs according to their innate danger anyway, it has always been culture dependent. As they say, one man's poison is another man's high lol.

But yeah some substances clearly present a much higher risk, such as fentanyl analogs as you mentioned. I just wonder how many people would go after fent analogs if they had access to their opioid of choice. Probably not very many, and the ones who actually wanted to try carfent would probably have done their due homework and would be somewhat informed about the risks involved.

I'm also a bit too lazy to elaborate but, at the current moment, I do believe regulations are necessary in order to minimize risks and it wouldn't be a good idea to legalize every single drug, just as we don't allow people to build a nuclear reactor at home (or maybe it is allowed? Now I'm curious...).
Click to expand...
I know I'm a bit late responding but this thread being bumped reminded me I started typing a response to this but got sidetracked and abandoned it. Anyway - I would actually like to see a world in which there is a legal avenue for the average Joe to try carfentanyl if it took their fancy. I do agree that it would probably be a rare thing, although out of that small group of people I do think it's also overly optimistic to think they'd all be well informed, at least of their own volition. Not that I think it should necessarily be easy - perhaps for a select few substances, it could only be done in specially designated establishments with medical staff on hand and while wearing equipment monitoring your vital signs...

Probably also pure carfentanyl powder should not be legal to possess for the general populace - but ready made preparations of a set concentration should be the only forms of the drug available. Perhaps after a time, it would be possible to get a license to take your syringes home, although this license could be revoked given certain predetermined conditions. Any punitive measures for breaching the license conditions would absolutely have to remain within the realm of controlled access to substances for recreation, and NOT spill over into law enforcement, employment, or other domains, otherwise we again have an incentive for people to avoid seeking medical assistance for fear of legal repercussions, which we obviously want to avoid.

Same with a nuclear reactor - or even a nuclear bomb. If someone wants to know how to build one, even to detonate one in a controlled environment - although that latter thing might be a serious stretch, at least until such a time where resources and energy are so abundant that designating an uninhabited planet as a kind of nuclear firing range, should such a time ever come to pass - then I'd like to live in a world where there was a legal avenue to do that, but it was still not possible for someone to take a bunch of nuclear bombs home on a whim and use them to wipe out a continent.

Ideally I think we want a society with such an advanced culture that people can be trusted with dangerous things, so heavy handed law enforcement measures are not needed. Generally speaking I think people like to be free - freedom is an aspirational and valuable ideal - and, equally, highly restrictive measures to control behaviour pretty much never work completely, as far as I can tell, and always end up in an endless, expensive game of whack-a-mole with those segments of society who want to act in a certain way and devote a lot of energy to figuring out how to do so, and the enforcement arms of whatever government is trying to punish people for doing or even trying to do those things. But, that kind of culture is hard to get to, and in the meantime I think regulation - but, obviously, not CRIMINALISATION - is still needed in certain areas...


kaosisallwesee said:
While I think the number of illegal dealers would drop they'd 100% still exist. Especially if the points you mentioned above ever become reality. If heavy regulations and checks are implemented a lot of users will simply go to matey on the corner. People will still be there to meet the deman created by out of hours sales, people who have been barred from stores, reached their allowance, couldn't get the necessary permission, can't afford to or don't want to pay the inevitably high tax on the product, whatever the reason, there will always be those people.
Click to expand...
True, they would quite likely still exist in some form although this is arguably an indication that society has still not got the regulatory balance quite right. While I do think that in the early stages somewhat heavy handed enforcement of considerably less heavy handed regulations might be an unfortunate likelihood, if not an absolute necessity (although it may be) as society adjusts, this is for sure not a desirable or sustainable long term outcome. In the meantime though, moving drug supply "crimes" from the current absurdly moralistic, contradictory and uniquely illegal territory of being a "DRUG CRIME" to just being a (relatively white collar) tax crime or licensing grey area surely still has a lot of benefit.
 
If you want to buy rice you go to the supermarket, usually, yes?
So if someone sold rice on the streets, would you buy it?

If we had a choice to not feel like a shady criminal while buying drugs from a shady criminal, but instead buy them at the pharmacy like a normal human being, we would buy them at the pharmacy.
 
December Flower said:
If you want to buy rice you go to the supermarket, usually, yes?
So if someone sold rice on the streets, would you buy it?

If we had a choice to not feel like a shady criminal while buying drugs from a shady criminal, but instead buy them at the pharmacy like a normal human being, we would buy them at the pharmacy.
Click to expand...
If the supermarket had strict regulations around the sale of rice, charged several times the street price, required ID for sale and only let me buy 1 bag a week I'd probably buy from the guy on the street. While I see what you're getting at there is 1 huge difference you're not considering, rice isn't psychoactive and highly moreish. No one's ever sat there at 2 am trying to find a market open to grab a bag or 2 of rice, or spent the day begging for change because they just gotta have some rice to prevent physical withdrawals.
 
kaosisallwesee said:
If the supermarket had strict regulations around the sale of rice, charged several times the street price, required ID for sale and only let me buy 1 bag a week I'd probably buy from the guy on the street. While I see what you're getting at there is 1 huge difference you're not considering, rice isn't psychoactive and highly moreish. No one's ever sat there at 2 am trying to find a market open to grab a bag or 2 of rice, or spent the day begging for change because they just gotta have some rice to prevent physical withdrawals.
Click to expand...
There's something to be said about the physical withdrawals of food, but I'm not going to go there.

Maybe not the right analogy. Let's take something closer, alcohol. If you can buy alcohol from a liquor store, where you KNOW they keep close track of what goes into the alcohol, the purity of the alcohol, and you can be sure that what you buy is what you get, would you buy it from someone who charged less for his home-made whiskey on the street, where you can't even be sure it's really whiskey?

I mean sure, if there were restrictions to the purchase, someone with a higher tolerance of a substance would have to buy it off the streets, that's ipso facto, but the topic was if they were legal, not if they were decriminalized, that would imply them being freely available at any given quantity.
 
even if the legal market doesnt completely eliminate the black market (which you're right it probably won't) at least some users will buy from the legal/regulated source. the black market exists now and is killing countless people so if we can reduce even some of that, we should probably try no?
 
December Flower said:
Maybe not the right analogy. Let's take something closer, alcohol. If you can buy alcohol from a liquor store, where you KNOW they keep close track of what goes into the alcohol, the purity of the alcohol, and you can be sure that what you buy is what you get, would you buy it from someone who charged less for his home-made whiskey on the street, where you can't even be sure it's really whiskey?

I mean sure, if there were restrictions to the purchase, someone with a higher tolerance of a substance would have to buy it off the streets, that's ipso facto, but the topic was if they were legal, not if they were decriminalized, that would imply them being freely available at any given quantity.
Click to expand...
This is for sure a topic with a lot of interesting nuance... Alcohol obviously is very available everywhere, nowadays, but there are restrictions on it's sale, such as age limits most places, quantity restrictions some places, and server discretion to cut people off at a certain point when they're becoming a danger to themselves and potentially others.

On that note I don't think "legal" necessarily means freely available everywhere, although for sure it's an improvement on the intermediate step of decriminalisation which in most cases is kind of just an acceptance of grey market supply chains and decision not to heavily police them, rather than an actual opening for these substances to be properly commercialised and accepted into civilised society.

Alcohol's current regulatory status I would say is not bad but is still imperfect, just for the reason that we get minors having to illegally buy alcohol, and that we still have a lot of people with alcohol problems, or even just a strong fondness for alcohol, that continue to cause society many other problems. I'm not sure what the exact solution to these issues is, it's a complex issue for sure, and every substance is going to have difference issues and complexities... the easier solution, on paper, arguably, is just to outright ban everything even if it is morally indefensible. The right thing on the other hand often requires more effort... as it does in this case.

One area where alcohol's current legal regulation is working though is that we generally do not see almost anyone dealing in illicit bathtub moonshine.. Unfortunately, obviously, you do hear of people drinking mouthwash and the like in certain places and societies that have obviously failed them in some way. Ultimately legal regulation of almost any substance is going to require a healthy dose of compassionately provided resources to catch people in danger of getting themselves into such a state that drinking bathtub moonshine or mouthwash out of desparation is even a possibility... or, indeed, get themselves into a downwards spiral with any previously illegal psychoactive. This also has to be done while walking the line between harm reduction that recognises that people are using drugs for fun, primarily, a lot of the time - and thus, not sapping the fun out of it with too strict regulation or judgement of certain modes of usage.

I heard in the great Carl Hart's recent audiobook something he says about how the phrase "harm reduction" has become outdated, because a lot of the time the way it's actually used is a kind of grudging, abstinence-is-always-better, but if you must... kind of thing, which sadly is very true, so I hesitated to use the phrase there, but for the moment as long as the problems with harm reduction done wrong are understood, and given it's still the official phrasing of the ethos of this forum, I hope it conveys my meaning appropriately still.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top