• 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?

I sold drugs when they were illegal...ok, most of them that I sold still are...because I wanted to provide safe and quality product to people who were going to use anyway.
Also to make money in university because I couldn't get a job.

Backpack pharmacy: weed, meth, LSD, mushrooms, M, coke, K...fun times, don't touch your own stash (!).

I now only freely distribute mushrooms because they're mushrooms and everyone should have access.

If all the drugs I used to sell became legal I wouldn't worry about quality and safety and therefore wouldn't feel the need to sell the stuff to ensure such.

I legit make fun of all the people I know who still illegally sell weed now that you can buy it as easily as a coffee, which was actually the case before it became legal but now it's just more visible and so slightly even easier.
 
SunriseChampion said:
I sold drugs when they were illegal...ok, most of them that I sold still are...because I wanted to provide safe and quality product to people who were going to use anyway.
Also to make money in university because I couldn't get a job.

Backpack pharmacy: weed, meth, LSD, mushrooms, M, coke, K...fun times, don't touch your own stash (!).

I now only freely distribute mushrooms because they're mushrooms and everyone should have access.

If all the drugs I used to sell became legal I wouldn't worry about quality and safety and therefore wouldn't feel the need to sell the stuff to ensure such.

I legit make fun of all the people I know who still illegally sell weed now that you can buy it as easily as a coffee, which was actually the case before it became legal but now it's just more visible and so slightly even easier.
Click to expand...
Yeah, weed is still illegal in PA. We have MMJ but it's probably the worst program in the country. 8ths of flower you can't see or smell before buying are $75. So you can make fun of me for finding some at festivals. But now some festivals are shutdown, and cops show up to the ones still going.
 
Nah, I wouldn't work at a liquor store either. If legal I would possibly learn synthesis to taste some of the less common shulgin compounds and arylcyclohexylamines, but I have real qualms about enabling people's habits. Shit, even making my own stuff probably would have deleterious effects on my life.
 
I would probably build myself a mini lab, and yeah may sell them but only at the kg level and up. There's no way I'd be selling grams.
 
"Drugs" no. Fucking exhausting having your phone ring every time you get comfortable. I think they should just be sold at stores like liquor, weed, or nicotine.

Weed? Maybe.
 

DEA Diversion Control Division | Home

The mission of DEA's Diversion Control Division is to prevent, detect, and investigate the diversion of controlled pharmaceuticals and listed chemicals from legitimate sources while ensuring an adequate and uninterrupted supply for legitimate medical, commercial, and scientific needs.
www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov

Last I checked, it was 737 dollars for 3 years.
 
I would yes, if possible, I think I'd really enjoy doing it. In a properly legally regulated market that is. But I recognise that it would most likely not be an easy market to get into.

A lot of people here are not really understanding what legal regulation would mean. Barring some completely unrealistic borderline anarchic system where nothing at all changes except that law enforcement no longer bothers to prosecute anyone for drug related crimes, 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.

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. As has been mentioned, the drug industry would be big business, and those substances more associated with sketchy behaviour or problem usage habits would in all likelihood still be heavily controlled, and other checks and balances would have to be established to counteract these negative potentialities.

Hopefully these would be medical, educational from an early age, which is the soft approach, but in lieu of this, or quite possibly despite these support structures - especially in the early stages of implementing full legalisation - sale of certain substances may well require security staff - possibly heavy security. 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.
 
Well, the way OP asked the question implied that it would be possible for individuals to sell drugs. Obviously it's not a very realistic scenario in the near future since drugs and pharmaceuticals are a very established industry with big players and tons of regulations.

Centuries ago anyone could sell drugs, it wasn't really much different than growing and selling carrots. The world seemed to work "fine" without the need for complex regulations. You never know how things could change let's say in the distant future.
Of course a completely unregulated drug market would likely create many problems because of the way our current society works. But those regulations might not be needed as new technologies are developed.
For example, quality control is something crucial right now with consumer products (specially drugs and food), but what if anyone could use their phone to analyse any product and have accurate results within a couple of seconds?
What if we found a reliable treatment for drug addiction?
 
Last edited:
True, the question is kind of ambiguous perhaps, I interpreted it to be if drugs were all legal and society did not change that much otherwise, and the only way I can see that this can happen is with sensible legal regulation and leaning on existing medical and commercial frameworks to absorb the sociocultural impact. I guess also when I think of legalisation this is the kind of stuff I'm biased towards thinking about because I think it's likely to be the most realistic route to legalisation in the present day.

If the possibilities are expanded to include both archaic societies which compared to today's world were almost lawless - or hypothetical future societies - I think it becomes a different question, and a much harder one to answer since the very nature of commercial enterprise could change in a way that is impossible to predict. One could argue that the phrasing of the question implies a capitalistic element by the use of the word "sell"... but perhaps that's just arguing semantics. Before I move on from that though I'll just say I think it's pretty debatable how "fine" societies of 100 years ago were, speaking as someone who is a big fan of modern technology and all it's conveniences while acknowledging that yes modern technological civilisation is having some teething problems... but if we dwell on this too much it could completely derail the thread, I'm sure. 😏

Responding to your last few points, if technological and scientific advancements rendered the dangers of the vast majority of drugs almost insignificant, via as you say readily available, reliable chemical analysis, and just to build on that say, some smart rewiring of the default human genome so that we're essentially resistant to a huge range of chemical insults, overdoses, chemical dependence, and finally something fundamental about human psychology such that we always had an essentially unbreakable access to a higher level of will that always acted as a failsafe to override any dangerous drug-induced behaviour which in our un-enhanced, just-past-monkeys brains of today would lead us to act in ways that we'd later seriously regret... well then yeah, sure, probably then there would be little if any regulation of any drug needed, that seems hard to argue with. But, again, I think taking these kind of hypotheticals into account does change the question quite a bit.
 
4meSM said:
Well, the way OP asked the question implied that it would be possible for individuals to sell drugs. Obviously it's not a very realistic scenario in the near future since drugs and pharmaceuticals are a very established industry with big players and tons of regulations.

Centuries ago anyone could sell drugs, it wasn't really much different than growing and selling carrots. The world seemed to work "fine" without the need for complex regulations. You never know how things could change let's say in the distant future.
Of course a completely unregulated drug market would likely create many problems because of the way our current society works. But those regulations might not be needed as new technologies are developed.
For example, quality control is something crucial right now with consumer products (specially drugs and food), but what if anyone could use their phone to analyse any product and have accurate results within a couple of seconds?
What if we found a reliable treatment for drug addiction?
Click to expand...
Vastness said:
True, the question is kind of ambiguous perhaps, I interpreted it to be if drugs were all legal and society did not change that much otherwise, and the only way I can see that this can happen is with sensible legal regulation and leaning on existing medical and commercial frameworks to absorb the sociocultural impact. I guess also when I think of legalisation this is the kind of stuff I'm biased towards thinking about because I think it's likely to be the most realistic route to legalisation in the present day.

If the possibilities are expanded to include both archaic societies which compared to today's world were almost lawless - or hypothetical future societies - I think it becomes a different question, and a much harder one to answer since the very nature of commercial enterprise could change in a way that is impossible to predict. One could argue that the phrasing of the question implies a capitalistic element by the use of the word "sell"... but perhaps that's just arguing semantics. Before I move on from that though I'll just say I think it's pretty debatable how "fine" societies of 100 years ago were, speaking as someone who is a big fan of modern technology and all it's conveniences while acknowledging that yes modern technological civilisation is having some teething problems... but if we dwell on this too much it could completely derail the thread, I'm sure. 😏

Responding to your last few points, if technological and scientific advancements rendered the dangers of the vast majority of drugs almost insignificant, via as you say readily available, reliable chemical analysis, and just to build on that say, some smart rewiring of the default human genome so that we're essentially resistant to a huge range of chemical insults, overdoses, chemical dependence, and finally something fundamental about human psychology such that we always had an essentially unbreakable access to a higher level of will that always acted as a failsafe to override any dangerous drug-induced behaviour which in our un-enhanced, just-past-monkeys brains of today would lead us to act in ways that we'd later seriously regret... well then yeah, sure, probably then there would be little if any regulation of any drug needed, that seems hard to argue with. But, again, I think taking these kind of hypotheticals into account does change the question quite a bit.
Click to expand...
It takes a lab and a doctor. It’s a skill like any other. I’m learning mescaline synthesis for months now.
 
@Vastness
I don't think we would need all that, though it would be nice and I hope we'll get there one day.
We already have portable mass spectrometers, the technology exists but it hasn't been fully developed mainly due to a lack of demand.
There's also a lot of money invested in the development of anti-addiction drugs. We didn't know how to treat many psychiatric illnesses at all even half a century ago, and look at us now... We still can't cure them but there are some life-saving treatments.

It might seem like a bit of a stretch but do you think it would be as unreasonable to be able to grow and sell your own coffee? Do we need to be able go past our monkey brains and make caffeine 100% safe and not addictive?
Also what about cannabis? I think one should be able to grow its own weed in the places where it's legal, that's basically manufacturing an addictive drug. And if people wanted to buy your weed I think you should be allowed to sell it eventually.

I'm not advocating for a complete lack of regulations right now but I think we could get there eventually, or at least we should.


I think technology is not the main problem (though it's also a significant one). It's mainly a political and economical one in my opinion.
 
4meSM said:
It might seem like a bit of a stretch but do you think it would be as unreasonable to be able to grow and sell your own coffee? Do we need to be able go past our monkey brains and make caffeine 100% safe and not addictive?
Also what about cannabis? I think one should be able to grow its own weed in the places where it's legal, that's basically manufacturing an addictive drug. And if people wanted to buy your weed I think you should be allowed to sell it eventually.
Click to expand...
Not unreasonable at all. But, coffee and cannabis are fairly benign substances. There are some that to me seem to have a higher intrinsic danger... the most obvious examples I can think of would be microgram active opiates like fentanyl and carfentanyl. I have some doubts that allowing these substances to be completely unregulated would be good for society... and if you accept that some substances on the extreme end require some regulation, then it's a sliding scale, although for sure not necessarily an easy one to calibrate, as far as how to best regulate everything between carfentanyl and coffee.

Given the potential for simple human error even absent any deliberate malice with such highly potent and potentially dangerous substances, it's also hard for me to see that the problems that could arise from allowing such substances to be completely unregulated can be solved without a technological solution, as dangers still exist even in a society that has managed to develop such a morally perfect culture that foul play would never even be in question.

I'm sure I could think of a lot more to say on this, I think it's an interesting discussion for sure, but I guess I'll leave it there for now. Interested to hear your thoughts though.
 
Vastness said:
Not unreasonable at all. But, coffee and cannabis are fairly benign substances. There are some that to me seem to have a higher intrinsic danger... the most obvious examples I can think of would be microgram active opiates like fentanyl and carfentanyl. I have some doubts that allowing these substances to be completely unregulated would be good for society... and if you accept that some substances on the extreme end require some regulation, then it's a sliding scale, although for sure not necessarily an easy one to calibrate, as far as how to best regulate everything between carfentanyl and coffee.

Given the potential for simple human error even absent any deliberate malice with such highly potent and potentially dangerous substances, it's also hard for me to see that the problems that could arise from allowing such substances to be completely unregulated can be solved without a technological solution, as dangers still exist even in a society that has managed to develop such a morally perfect culture that foul play would never even be in question.

I'm sure I could think of a lot more to say on this, I think it's an interesting discussion for sure, but I guess I'll leave it there for now. Interested to hear your thoughts though.
Click to expand...
I believe in morphine opium codiene because they are natural products. But I don’t believe in needles.
 
Vastness said:
Not unreasonable at all. But, coffee and cannabis are fairly benign substances. There are some that to me seem to have a higher intrinsic danger... the most obvious examples I can think of would be microgram active opiates like fentanyl and carfentanyl. I have some doubts that allowing these substances to be completely unregulated would be good for society... and if you accept that some substances on the extreme end require some regulation, then it's a sliding scale, although for sure not necessarily an easy one to calibrate, as far as how to best regulate everything between carfentanyl and coffee.

Given the potential for simple human error even absent any deliberate malice with such highly potent and potentially dangerous substances, it's also hard for me to see that the problems that could arise from allowing such substances to be completely unregulated can be solved without a technological solution, as dangers still exist even in a society that has managed to develop such a morally perfect culture that foul play would never even be in question.

I'm sure I could think of a lot more to say on this, I think it's an interesting discussion for sure, but I guess I'll leave it there for now. Interested to hear your thoughts though.
Click to expand...

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...).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top