• Hello Graphic
    NEW MEMBER'S GUIDE
    INTRODUCE YOURSELF
    YOUR FAVORITE DRUGS?
    WHERE ARE YOU FROM?

  • NMI Moderators: Coffeeshroom

End Prohibition

D

djsassyc40

Greenlighter
Joined
Nov 15, 2021
Messages
2
Hello. I found this site while researching my position on drug laws and the result of their existence. I believe that drug laws should be overturned and that all substances should simply be regulated. If an adult decides that they want to put any substance into their own body, I believe that prohibiting that is an infringement upon their civil liberties. Also, the prohibition of these substances increases the public and societal risk involved with the use of those substances. My primary source of evidence behind this stance is the Volstead Act, more commonly known as the era of Prohibition on alcohol. While researching how the same government that saw the negative effects of the prohibition of alcohol can defend the prohibition of other recreational substances, I found the assertion that "alcohol is safe in small doses". My question is: is methamphetamine and heroin, if regulation is present when it is manufactured, not equally as "safe in small doses" as alcohol?
 
BenzoBrain^^ said:
Methamphetamine and Heroin are more addictive than alcohol initially. The cravings from those 2 substances are extremely powerful and can be downright overwhelming.

But eventually alcohol will destroy those 2 substances when it comes to dangerous withdrawal symptoms and life threatening seizures.
Click to expand...
Assuming that they are "more addictive initially" for all people, but not as dangerous in terms of withdrawal (and I would argue also less dangerous in terms of reckless and dangerous behaviors resulting from their consumption), then is that truly a sound argument for them to be illegal while alcohol is legal? Especially if, as a part of the regulation, the potential for addiction is made clear and supported by evidence when distributed.
Also, if the addiction is what makes these substances so much more dangerous than alcohol, why do we enable the distribution of amphetamines to children? Is there evidence that methamphetamines' are significantly more addictive than the amphetamines that we distribute to children as young as 5 years old?
 
djsassyc40 said:
Assuming that they are "more addictive initially" for all people, but not as dangerous in terms of withdrawal (and I would argue also less dangerous in terms of reckless and dangerous behaviors resulting from their consumption), then is that truly a sound argument for them to be illegal while alcohol is legal? Especially if, as a part of the regulation, the potential for addiction is made clear and supported by evidence when distributed.
Also, if the addiction is what makes these substances so much more dangerous than alcohol, why do we enable the distribution of amphetamines to children? Is there evidence that methamphetamines' are significantly more addictive than the amphetamines that we distribute to children as young as 5 years old?
Click to expand...
Strange to me this distribution of amphetamines to children.Treating ADHD.Think that comes from US.Approved also in Europe i think.,but not very popular.
 
alcohol dependency comes on rather slowly ime. it's hard to drink heavily enough for dependency to develop at first. not so with heroin, etc. complete legalization would be catastrophic. nobody would show up for work on Monday morning.
 
Making drugs illegal never works I just hope they fix public education before legalizing it all in a place like America for prime example
 
Hey there and Welcome to BlueWorld @djsassyc40

Those are some hard questions to answers and also a big role that comes into play or at least for me is the different views or laws of all countries around the world. I mean if they make H legal, do they have he infrastructure to regulate it and enforce penalties if you break the law or said guidelines that were or are given for said substance to be used legally. Plus there is the safety behind it. I mean i dislike having drunk drivers on the road that are reckless and have no consideration for other drivers on the road but now if H is legal and you take your prescribe dose and maybe nod off while driving then that makes you just as dangerous as the drunken drivers or at least that's how i see it. So I'm not sure on this one but sure more will chime in.

Regards
CoffeeShroom
 
djsassyc40 said:
Assuming that they are "more addictive initially" for all people, but not as dangerous in terms of withdrawal (and I would argue also less dangerous in terms of reckless and dangerous behaviors resulting from their consumption), then is that truly a sound argument for them to be illegal while alcohol is legal? Especially if, as a part of the regulation, the potential for addiction is made clear and supported by evidence when distributed.
Also, if the addiction is what makes these substances so much more dangerous than alcohol, why do we enable the distribution of amphetamines to children? Is there evidence that methamphetamines' are significantly more addictive than the amphetamines that we distribute to children as young as 5 years old?
Click to expand...
Yes distribution of amphet-,like drugs to children for treating ADHD is a strange practise for me.The drugs from that class acts on children differently than the adults.Somehow they have calming effects on children with ADHD and making them more focused.I am not a doctor,but anyway such practise is somehow weird.Thats a strong meds for little children....i dont know
 
The thing is, drugs don't cause addiction so there is no reason for them to be banned. Regulated maybe, but not banned.

There is a clear link between trauma and addiction. There was a study in the early 90s where the doctors were looking to link addiction to socio-economic factors (eg low income, migrant, black, disadvantaged) but were shocked to find some kind of trauma as the pivotal cause. Note the trauma can be seemingly big or small to other people. It's how the individual views it that trauma and the impact to them that's important. You can Youtube Gabor Mate the Canadian physician, I've finished reading his book on it a while back.

If you think about it logically (Occams razor), then this explains why some people become addicted and some don't, why it's not confined to a particular subset of society, and why viewing drug use as a crime is just plain ludicrous. By making it illegal you are punishing people.... because they have suffered in the past.

There was an earlier study, popularly known as 'Rat Park' where they found happy Rats had to be virtually forced to drink from the 'poisoned' well. Google it, it's fascinating.

After years of thinking I had an 'addictive personality' and growing up around innumerable alcoholics in the family, I'm sure there's probably an element of genetics involved but over the past few years the trauma theory has won me over.

Of course the elephant in the room is law enforcement, big pharma (more so in the US) and political power (esp populism and their supporters). These are the things that sustain the war on drugs worldwide. Much easier to ratchet up the numbers of enforcement and in the punishment system than it is to be brave and funnel funds into meaningful (i.e. free or heavily state subsidized) programs that address the actual underlying issue.
 
I agree that the War on drugs was endless hole to fund without any results-on the contrary.As for legalisation(or at least made in another schedule) of any drug theres UN issues i think.Convention for drugs

Apart for that any country have its own regulation.For sure that is serious question and debate.And sure they may be some strong connection between past serious trauma and addiction.also a genetic factor plays role.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top