• Current Events, Politics
    & Science

    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • CEPS Moderators: cduggles | Deru | mal3volent
  • Bluelight HOT THREADS
  • Let's Welcome Our NEW MEMBERS!

Opinion Anti-Legalization Recreational Drug Users Unite

FallenOne86

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 16, 2020
Messages
72
Drugs should be optional classes you can take in school. If you pass the final you can be licensed to buy, use, carry etc.

People are drawn to drug use for specific reasons, just like food, some like more. If we spent more time understanding what makes us seek drugs in the first place we would be much further ahead but for the mean while we should use education as a tool to eradicate laws. Legalization of marijuana is a tiny step forward but we need solid education.

For example all the posts in this thread talk about lazy marijuana users.... you all smoke it... Try using it as an edible long term and don't smoke, no lazy days.
Burning marijuana or vaping often heats past 350F where THC converts to CBN. If your weed is fresh you have mostly THC-A which converts to THC. If your weed is older a lot of the THC-A may have already decarbed. Old weed is sleeper weed and makes you lazy.

If something isn't right with the life your leading and you think you might find some kind of answer in drugs, educate yourself but don't fear experience. The world has told us all a thousand boogeyman stories about drug use, uneducated users will walk directly into them.
Sorry @birdup.snaildown for going off topic again but I'm curious. @FallenOne86 but why can't you get a script for vyvanse or dexedrine? What country are you in?
California.. San Diego to be exact. I had an ex girlfriend who aired out my business to the old doctors I had about my meth use so I’m sure it’s in their system that I self medicated with amphetamines and now they are being assholes with prescribing me some legal speed lol call it what you well.. I told them I always had the right to buy the shitty cartel dope if I wanted so it wouldn’t matter to me if I killed myself with drugs and my wouldn’t matter to them neither.

But with my anger and ways I’ve approached things in the past I don’t blame them for constantly having security and at times the cops be there every time I would show up for an appointment haha they made me a celebrity in some form or another but I don’t like that kind of attention.

And as much fun as it was for me to enjoy people looking at me and talking about me to amongst each other and me being known as the crazy kid with spiked hair who looks like one of the guys from growing up Gotti or jersey shore lol hate those comments but it kinda funny now days I try to keep a low profile and I’ve worked on my anger because you get better results when you have a better attitude towards something and show kindness to people even if they give you a hard time.
 

Bella Figura

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Jun 5, 2003
Messages
12,065
5) There is no benefit to be gained from legalizing something like ether for human consumption. It's an extremely volatile substance. It's super dangerous. Pretty much nobody uses it any more. There is no harm in it being a prohibited substance. There are countless examples of this.
Ether isn't a prohibited substance (here at least) - it's a solvent with many uses right? Whose to stop me huffing it from a rag like I did a couple years ago :p
 

birdup.snaildown

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 5, 2020
Messages
2,113
Location
Somewhere
@Atelier3

Yeah, it's too early to tell either way. Generations brought up with shrooms and weed (rather than alcohol) would - I think - be more stable and less likely to develop toxic addictions... but I don't have any scientific basis for that. I could be wrong. If alcohol wasn't legal, I would be less apprehensive about weed being legalized. The combination is not good.

As for gateway drugs, you're probably statistically more likely to try heroin if you ride a motorcycle. That doesn't mean bikes are gateway vehicles. I don't believe that weed leads to heroin. I'm sure you're more likely to try H if you've had weed in the past, but that's not the same thing. You're more likely to climb Everest (which is much more dangerous than doing IV drugs) if you've done some indoor mountain climbing in the past.

Heroin is one of those things that when people try it they have a very high chance of becoming addicted. I've known a lot of people who've become accidentally addicted to opiates after being prescribed pain meds. I've also known a lot of people who've been stuck on methadone for decades.

Methadone is an example of legal government regulated opiates and it's a fucking disaster.

Bella Figura said:
Ether isn't a prohibited substance

It's a controlled substance.
 

dalpat077

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 14, 2019
Messages
1,656
Obviously I've been monitoring this thread since my last post but have been giving it time to breathe before adding my fifty cents again.


In the interim though I saw the below while scrolling through and figured it'd be a good time to correct (probably scattering the cat among the pigeons).


Not saying either, really. I don't think established heroin addicts are going to move to weed if it's legal. I do - however - suspect that people might be less likely to take hard drugs they have to score on the street if there are relatively harmless legal alternatives.

So you are saying that legal weed might actually be the opposite of a gateway drug? That's probably a testable hypothesis in states that have made weed legal. Has there been any change in the number of hard drug users since legalisation. Might be too early to tell but I bet someone will research it eventually.


Academic studies have already been done and are ongoing. Cannabis use has risen in states where's it's been made legal for recreational purposes. And it is leading to further substance abuse disorders particularly in teenagers and young adults. I've contributed to two threads around these parts already, and with references, on this very topic.


The caveat with all of these studies and statistics etc.: when something is illegal it's difficult to obtain reliable data. In my humble opinion of course i.e. academics and statisticians alike will probably disagree with me.


But with the above in mind: it's not lost, on me anyway, that the pro-Cannabis legalization organizations and pundits are the ones that refute the data and categorically deny that Cannabis is a gateway drug. I personally disagree with them. But then I'd say the same thing about alcohol i.e. it too is a gateway drug for many. Exactly where you draw the line on this: I know not.


Anyway. I thought the above just worthy of a mention at this stage of this thread. I'll let it mature a little more before playing Devil's Advocate on a few things that have been posted. Then again: this not something that hasn't already been bandied about and bashed to death on that UK legalization thread. Many of the same arguments were made on that thread. And being familiar with the content of both threads: I still have the same questions and reservations. At least when it comes to the full legalization of any or all psychoactive substances. This said: there's some new issues that have been brought up on this thread and that are for sure worthy of further discussion and debate (or at very least a comment and observation or two).
 

TripSitterNZ

Bluelighter
Joined
May 6, 2019
Messages
5,177
Location
The Dimension of LSD-25
@Atelier3

Yeah, it's too early to tell either way. Generations brought up with shrooms and weed (rather than alcohol) would - I think - be more stable and less likely to develop toxic addictions... but I don't have any scientific basis for that. I could be wrong. If alcohol wasn't legal, I would be less apprehensive about weed being legalized. The combination is not good.

As for gateway drugs, you're probably statistically more likely to try heroin if you ride a motorcycle. That doesn't mean bikes are gateway vehicles. I don't believe that weed leads to heroin. I'm sure you're more likely to try H if you've had weed in the past, but that's not the same thing. You're more likely to climb Everest (which is much more dangerous than doing IV drugs) if you've done some indoor mountain climbing in the past.

Heroin is one of those things that when people try it they have a very high chance of becoming addicted. I've known a lot of people who've become accidentally addicted to opiates after being prescribed pain meds. I've also known a lot of people who've been stuck on methadone for decades.

Methadone is an example of legal government regulated opiates and it's a fucking disaster.



It's a controlled substance.
depends on the demography bro. In the hood everybody starts on weed then moved onto speed and meth. in the 1960s people started weed and was like this is good and saw it was just as illegal as heroin and was like hmm all drugs must be equally good and got hooked on heroin
 

deficiT

Sr. Moderator: DC, TDS, NSADD
Staff member
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
4,890
Location
Washington, DC
So you are saying that legal weed might actually be the opposite of a gateway drug? That's probably a testable hypothesis in states that have made weed legal. Has there been any change in the number of hard drug users since legalisation. Might be too early to tell but I bet someone will research it eventually.
From what I understand, states with legal weed have shown some benefit in regards to opioid addiction and the like. I don't have links for the numbers at the moment but it is worth looking into.
 

Xorkoth

🎨 ARTministrator 🎨
Staff member
Joined
Feb 8, 2006
Messages
54,358
Location
In the mountains
This is too close to something I might see on a bumper sticker.

You could say COVID has won the war on COVID.

I don't think the government should control manufacture and distribution of the drug CH died from. I don't think it should be produced. It should be illegal. (Not to mention all the future drugs that haven't been created yet.)

Like I said, perhaps certain drugs should be legal. They should all be considered on a case by case basis, in the same way that we do with every other patent in every industry. And, as I've said, that is what we're doing.

Legalizing marijuana is a first, careful step. It's best not to run full speed into the unknown. Mass legalization is a complete 180. There is no justification for such a move.

Politics is divided into left/right because people tend to gravitate towards one extreme or the other. The answer, I think, is somewhere in between.

You can't "legalize" the production and distribution of cereal without dotting your is and crossing your ts... Some people in this thread seem to be implying that we should have less regulations on drugs than cereal?

There would be less of a market for RCs if the drugs people are trying to replace were legal and available. The reason people go for dangerous RC opioids is because they can't get heroin or other less dangerous opioids, or because all of the heroin contains unknown dangerous opioids so it's actually "safer" (maybe) to buy a known quantity of an RC opioid. Obviously it's still not safe, some of those (like the one that killed CH) are dangerous in and of themselves. But if something better was available, would there even be any desire for the shitty dangerous RC opioids?

I am not trying to say no regulation, at all. I'm saying, if there is a demand for a drug, that drug is going to make it into peoples' hands one way or another. History and current events show that this is true. If we could take manufacture and distribution out of the hands of criminals, and into a place where we tax it, and ensure quality controls (ie, regulation, to your point, yeah cereal is regulated to make sure it's got what it says it has in it, we would do the same for drugs in my hypothetical scenario), and then people can get the drugs safely, without involving the criminal element, and without people ending up getting drug Y when they expected to get drug Z.

In an ideal world, people wouldn't abuse dangerous drugs, but people do abuse dangerous drugs and it seems naive to think that suddenly, after all this time and all these efforts, prohibition will begin to work.
 

S.J.B.

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
5,807
Location
Canada
The fundamental problem of drug prohibition is that individuals tend to not feel beholden to the prohibition. That certainly encompasses everyone on this site. So the law ends up being widely ignored, and most people aren't punished for breaking the prohibition, while the people who are punished are disproportionately from less advantaged sectors of society.
 

birdup.snaildown

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 5, 2020
Messages
2,113
Location
Somewhere
@Xorkoth

I'm not convinced the reasons you suggested people consume RCs align with the reasons CH was using an RC when he died. I'd be very surprised if he couldn't get on to decent H considering how long he's been using. Some people get bored of H and seek out an alternative. Most people I know wouldn't order research chemicals on the internet. I've never done it. It's too risky. If it wasn't risky - if that alternative was more readily available - I definitely would have consumed more drugs just for the sake of it.

Moving away from RC opioids, there's a seemingly never ending amount of RC dissociatives and RC psychs and RC psych-amphetamines etc. I would have bought and consumed all of them if it was legal to do so. I also would have bought DXM powder. I considered it long ago but ultimately decided against it because the legal risk wasn't worth the reward.

It is a good thing these drugs were unavailable to me.

I'm much more likely to think that legalizing mainstream drugs is a good idea than legalizing all drugs. Like I said, we should do what we're doing. Start with marijuana. See how that works. Then legalize other drugs. There is no reason to legalize everything all at once. We should be sensible about it.

Perhaps after 20 years of legalizing cannabis, there will be significantly reduced rates of opioid consumption; perhaps if we do legalize heroin, the rates will increase... As I said, you don't know the answers to these questions and neither do I.

Legalizing (not decriminalizing) all research chemicals is another story.

Xorkoth said:
I am not trying to say no regulation, at all. I'm saying, if there is a demand for a drug, that drug is going to make it into peoples' hands one way or another. History and current events show that this is true. If we could take manufacture and distribution out of the hands of criminals, and into a place where we tax it, and ensure quality controls (ie, regulation, to your point, yeah cereal is regulated to make sure it's got what it says it has in it, we would do the same for drugs in my hypothetical scenario), and then people can get the drugs safely, without involving the criminal element, and without people ending up getting drug Y when they expected to get drug Z.

You said "while there is a demand". But there isn't a demand for drugs that have yet to be invented, nor is there a significant demand for obscure RCs.

I understand the benefits of legalization. I don't disagree with them. We disagree about the risks. Perhaps the benefits outweigh the risks. We don't know.

Xorkoth said:
In an ideal world, people wouldn't abuse dangerous drugs, but people do abuse dangerous drugs and it seems naive to think that suddenly, after all this time and all these efforts, prohibition will begin to work.

Whether prohibition has/hasn't worked is not a totally binary thing. This brings me back to my bumper sticker statement. You are looking at prohibition as a complete failure; I am not.
 

Skorpio

Bluelighter
Joined
May 11, 2011
Messages
629
Location
The zone
It's not only alcohol prohibition that hasn't worked.
I'm not sure that statement is true. Alcohol prohibition reduced drinking rates, but created misery through the seeding of organized crime networks for those who did drink. I agree that it was not worth the costs, but it did reduce alcohol related societal costs.

Here are some sources

This one is an economic analysis to quantify things.

This one is a review that is super biased towards prohibition with its opinions, but actually does a pretty good job describing social costs of prohibition and the context.


 
Last edited:

hylite

Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 23, 2021
Messages
1,106
What exatly is an RC ? I have tried to look it up but yeah doesn't make too much sense.
 

Xorkoth

🎨 ARTministrator 🎨
Staff member
Joined
Feb 8, 2006
Messages
54,358
Location
In the mountains
The opioids, yeah. Literally (according to lab reports from samples sent in) 99% of the "heroin" in the US is fentanyl or analogues, or contains it. That kills tons of people. Some of them don't kill anyone. Almost all the people (CH excepted) are not trying to do RC opioids, they think they're doing heroin or pills. If those were legal and controlled, they would know what they were taking and many would not die.
 

hylite

Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 23, 2021
Messages
1,106
The opioids, yeah. Literally (according to lab reports from samples sent in) 99% of the "heroin" in the US is fentanyl or analogues, or contains it. That kills tons of people. Some of them don't kill anyone. Almost all the people (CH excepted) are not trying to do RC opioids, they think they're doing heroin or pills. If those were legal and controlled, they would know what they were taking and many would not die.
this ty always ♡
 

birdup.snaildown

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 5, 2020
Messages
2,113
Location
Somewhere
Xorkoth said:
Why though? Isn't the evidence clear that it has not worked? There are drugs everywhere, despite prohibition on most of them.

The point of prohibition was to reduce the damage drugs do to society, not to eliminate drugs. It's impossible to say how much or little this has worked without access to the multiverse. You might as well say: people still drive over the speed limit, so clearly speed limits don't work... but wouldn't more people drive dangerously fast if there were no legal consequences? I don't see how anyone can sensibly argue that drug usage is unaffected by legality.
 

aemetha

Bluelighter
Joined
May 7, 2017
Messages
183
The point of prohibition was to reduce the damage drugs do to society, not to eliminate drugs.
I think the US alcohol prohibition period is probably a bad example to make your case given how many people died from drinking bootleg methanol during that period. The social harm from those deaths, which likely would not have occurred without prohibition, alone is astronomical.

 
Top