Discussion Drug legalization

[S.J.B.]

argument against legalization :legalization means more availability and availability leads more people to try the drug.

That is the argument against drug legalization, and as a drug user who often wonders how things would have been had I never fallen into this world, I can certainly appreciate it.

Drugs are illegal, mostly, because parents hope that their children will never happen upon this dark world, and they think that illegality will increase the chances of that never happening.

Then again, how much of this world's darkness has been conferred by the illegality itself? Not an insignificant portion. Not an insignificant portion of the world's attractiveness, either.

 

[skipjames]

That is the argument against drug legalization, and as a drug user who often wonders how things would have been had I never fallen into this world, I can certainly appreciate it.

Drugs are illegal, mostly, because parents hope that their children will never happen upon this dark world, and they think that illegality will increase the chances of that never happening.

Then again, how much of this world's darkness has been conferred by the illegality itself? Not an insignificant portion. Not an insignificant portion of the world's attractiveness, either.

Not so sure man, I think it depends from the drug, the culture, the politics or religion....I mean alcol prohibitionism in the US started also from the...progressive left, from the women tired of seeing their husband drunk spending their salaries on booze. In Afghanistan women have less right than my cat, but you can easily find videos of afghani women smoking opium to relax. If it was beer they would be stoned to death. Down here in Brazil weed was the drug of the blacks, and was prohibited along with anything black related (capoeira etc)

 

[thegreenhand]

Yeah, I reject the disease model of addiction. From a neurobiological perpsective it's always a continuum with no easy answer, but from a legal/moral perspective I think it's important to ascribe as much autonomy to every person as possible. It goes back to the Golden Rule, really. Would I like autonomy ascribed to me liberally or restrictively? Obviously there are situations, e.g. acute psychosis, where society is and should be willing to set aside this ascription, but I think this should be avoided whenever possible. The choices I make regarding my drug use are mine and mine alone. I have this attitude not only about drugs: I'm also, for example, very apprehensive about the use of not-criminally-responsible verdicts in criminal cases. In the end autonomy is mostly just an idea -- we do what we do because of our environment, our genes, how we're programmed -- but autonomy, at least as a concept or feeling, is an important aspect of being human and we shouldn't dilute it, especially if that dilution just causes more harm than it attenuates.

Acute psychosis is a tricky one. Ironically enough, a common solution western medicine has for psychosis simultaneously robs you of autonomy in the hope that you will regain it. Arguably, being given a long acting injectable antipsychotic is one of the largest violations of autonomy that modern medicine uses. Yet at the same time, it’s done in the name of returning someone to “baseline” where hopefully they can act autonomously again once free of the psychosis. The history of lobotomies in psychiatry is a more extreme example of this same phenomenon imo

Thomas Szasz-ian ramblings aside, I agree that autonomy is an important abstraction that our society has made. Without it, the case for having any kind of law essentially falls apart

 

[skipjames]

That is the argument against drug legalization, and as a drug user who often wonders how things would have been had I never fallen into this world, I can certainly appreciate it.

Drugs are illegal, mostly, because parents hope that their children will never happen upon this dark world, and they think that illegality will increase the chances of that never happening.

Then again, how much of this world's darkness has been conferred by the illegality itself? Not an insignificant portion. Not an insignificant portion of the world's attractiveness, either.

hmmm,a good argument could be : yeah, prohibitionism can even work. Where has it worked? Mao´s China, Pinochet´s Chile, Indonesia, Singapura, and some other places where the Declaration of Human Rights is used as toilet paper. So : if you want a real democracy, you can t force and punish people for what they use, at most can help the people for which this use became a problem.
If not, take the Mao route : kill users and dealers ( as long as there will be users there will be dealers)
As I don t think your average drug prohibitionist fancies Mao, I think he would be kinda forced to accept the first line of the argument. What do you think?

 

[S.J.B.]

hmmm,a good argument could be : yeah, prohibitionism can even work. Where has it worked? Mao´s China, Pinochet´s Chile, Indonesia, Singapura, and some other places where the Declaration of Human Rights is used as toilet paper. So : if you want a real democracy, you can t force and punish people for what they use, at most can help the people for which this use became a problem.
If not, take the Mao route : kill users and dealers ( as long as there will be users there will be dealers)
As I don t think your average drug prohibitionist fancies Mao, I think he would be kinda forced to accept the first line of the argument. What do you think?

Of course, freedom generally and the freedom to make bad decisions for oneself go hand in hand.

 

[S.J.B.]

Thomas Szasz-ian ramblings aside, I agree that autonomy is an important abstraction that our society has made. Without it, the case for having any kind of law essentially falls apart

I'm a big fan of Szasz, and Stanton Peele, much more so than a diseasist such as, say, Gabor Maté.

 

[skipjames]

Of course, freedom generally and the freedom to make bad decisions for oneself go hand in hand.

Cool, now we have to convince people like the one I know down here, that drink cachaça like water but think that weed is the plant of the devil. Not sure I have enough good coke for the task......seriously man ok crack, but the fact that weed is prohibited in many democratic countries while booze is not is simply ABSURD to me, and I don t even smoke weed....

 

[skipjames]

Cool, now we have to convince people like the one I know down here, that drink cachaça like water but think that weed is the plant of the devil. Not sure I have enough good coke for the task......seriously man ok crack, but the fact that weed is prohibited in many democratic countries while booze is not is simply ABSURD to me, and I don t even smoke weed....

but then they could say : why when your bad choices take you to the Hospital, we as society have to cure you? It could work in places were public health is private, but methinks that private health is wrong, hence... what do you guys think?

 

[thegreenhand]

I'm a big fan of Szasz, and Stanton Peele, much more so than a diseasist such as, say, Gabor Maté.

I’ve listened to Stanton Peele on a few podcasts and I enjoyed his ideas quite a lot

I’ve yet to get around to reading any of Szasz’s novels, but his arguments that I’ve in seen interviews (and on his Wikipedia page tbh) have influenced my thinking in a profound way

 

[S.J.B.]

but then they could say : why when your bad choices take you to the Hospital, we as society have to cure you?

We do it for obesity-induced diabetes, the myriad consequences of tobacco and alcohol addiction, ski accidents, etc. Public health care should be non-judgemental like this, because (a) most people want to be healthy and don't try to get hurt or sick, regardless of what their behaviour might be, and (b) almost none of us live our lives without unhealthy behaviours which make us more likely to become hurt or sick. Who would qualify for health care if the criterion were "you cannot have contributed to your health problem"?

I’ve yet to get around to reading any of Szasz’s novels, but his arguments that I’ve in seen interviews (and on his Wikipedia page tbh) have influenced my thinking in a profound way

I would recommend Ceremonial Chemistry. It goes into how messed up it is that we've appointed a cartel (physicians) which has immense power over what substances each individual can or cannot consume.

 

[nznity]

Before drugs are legalized, I think there should be an EXTENSIVE drug education. Literally, drugs are part of every culture, it moves between circles, there's different drugs for different purposes, the dangers of abusing each one. Let's be honest, the world does not fucking work without pharmaceuticals ugh. They are an inherent part of society and we should end the bloody taboos. I'm not saying everyone should go and go get high asf buttt we should be able to every once in a while indulge in pure pharma drugs made by a chemist and being taught about them before using em. They should teach BDD at schools, I'm being serious.

 

[skipjames]

We do it for obesity-induced diabetes, the myriad consequences of tobacco and alcohol addiction, ski accidents, etc. Public health care should be non-judgemental like this, because (a) most people want to be healthy and don't try to get hurt or sick, regardless of what their behaviour might be, and (b) almost none of us live our lives without unhealthy behaviours which make us more likely to become hurt or sick. Who would qualify for health care if the criterion were "you cannot have contributed to your health problem"?

Thanks man!Also, if drugs were legalized they could be taxed, so drug buyers will somewhat "contribute" to society. Here in Brazil I buy my opioids from...the pharmacy, my health is generally better than when I was smoking smack in Europe and also...I am not financing the fucking Mafia, Talibans etc.

 

[skipjames]

Before drugs are legalized, I think there should be an EXTENSIVE drug education. Literally, drugs are part of every culture, it moves between circles, there's different drugs for different purposes, the dangers of abusing each one. Let's be honest, the world does not fucking work without pharmaceuticals ugh. They are an inherent part of society and we should end the bloody taboos. I'm not saying everyone should go and go get high asf buttt we should be able to every once in a while indulge in pure pharma drugs made by a chemist and being taught about them before using em. They should teach BDD at schools, I'm being serious.

Yeah man, for instance take the recreational use of opium in South East Asia that has been going on for ages, they know how to use the thing so it´s not a big deal vs the heroin crisis in Europe in the 80´s, people were dying like everyday in the streets....here in Brazil weed is forbidden, but they prescribe strong benzos as if they were candies, which is ABSURD....
Also, opioids can be made everywhere, coca grows only in Perú Bolivia & Colombia, you guys have the monopoly : if cocaine was legal, and the money made was reinvested for the benefit of all the citizens and not only of the narcos and their mates, Perú Bolivia & Colombia could be richer and safer than Scandinavian countries!

 

[thegreenhand]

I would recommend Ceremonial Chemistry. It goes into how messed up it is that we've appointed a cartel (physicians) which has immense power over what substances each individual can or cannot consume.

Looks like archive.org has a copy available for check out. I’ll give it a go, seems right up my alley. thanks for the recommendation

 

[nznity]

Yeah man, for instance take the recreational use of opium in South East Asia that has been going on for ages, they know how to use the thing so it´s not a big deal vs the heroin crisis in Europe in the 80´s, people were dying like everyday in the streets....here in Brazil weed is forbidden, but they prescribe strong benzos as if they were candies, which is ABSURD....
Also, opioids can be made everywhere, coca grows only in Perú Bolivia & Colombia, you guys have the monopoly : if cocaine was legal, and the money made was reinvested for the benefit of all the citizens and not only of the narcos and their mates, Perú Bolivia & Colombia could be richer and safer than Scandinavian countries!

Yeah man but apart from that, like I said in my previous post. Ppl should be taught the basics of each drug, the risks if u do too much and ffs let ppl consume legal 100% drugs. For example #3 brown is fking garbage imo if you compare it to pure diamorphine. You can inject errdsy and ur veins are pristine.

 

[skipjames]

Yeah man but apart from that, like I said in my previous post. Ppl should be taught the basics of each drug, the risks if u do too much and ffs let ppl consume legal 100% drugs. For example #3 brown is fking garbage imo if you compare it to pure diamorphine. You can inject errdsy and ur veins are pristine.

Totally, and I can confirm , since I moved from smoking # 3 Brown in europe to use pharmaceutical oxys nd morphine hre my quality of life ( amd my highs ) improved radically. On oxys I can work write and I even go to the gym, with smack I was pretty much a useless puking zombie ....