Mental Health The Myth of Mental Illness

[Mycophile]

This awe-inspiring thread, nice! Badly, my time is short this week, too much work, so that I cannot dedicate to this discussion the amount of time that I would like to

Well, I am going to comment it in parts, starting with:


Ok, but then you would put people IN PRISON for using hard drugs??

Don't you think that makes it worse?

It is not “putting people in prison”, in a broad sense, it is putting a specific class of people in prison, which, at a first sight, may look even worse because this is a crystal clear deprivation of basic civil rights, such as the freedom to run one’s life.

The situation has culminated in this chaos on account of the politicians’ negligence as I have said and it is like in physics, once the chaos is established, it will not spontaneously return to a softer situation. This law is an extreme governmental measure, of course, literally. On the other hand, it may be good for the addicts, in general, they are homeless, and, in the clinics, they will get a place to live, regular food, shower, psychological and medical/dental assistance. In fact, you can realize that this is all they need to get out of the abyss of the misery and addiction to crack. I am not sure, but it may have social programs in addition in order to rehabilitate them professionally, giving education and technical courses. It is a specie of a forced rehab. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the imposed benefits that the addicts may eventually get from the coerced imprisonment in these specific drug addicts’ institutions, Brazil is a democracy and as such, it needs to preserve the individual rights of its citizens, this is a crucial pillar. And, obviously, crackheads are also citizens and they are having the right to come and go restricted

It is important to preserve the focus of the matter, which is: what is the line that separates people’s individual freedoms of action and the establishment of a social problem? Formulating this statement in a different way: if the rights of some people are interfering with the rights of the society, which one should be considered first? The individual or the society formed by many individuals? It appears to have an obvious answer. Therefore, the rights of a few ones are being kept within bounds in order to allow the plenitude of the manifestation of the right of the others, which, in the last instance, are the majority and those who are “following the laws and the principles that rule the pacific coexistence in society”.

Well, so basically you are saying you DON'T think they should be put in prison, just "forced rehab"?

If that is your opinion, and it is only in the case of those truly addicted to the very hardest drugs like crack, meth and heroin, I can see where you are coming from, but I still disagree.

I honestly still believe that the majority of violent crimes committed which involve these kinds of drug addicts happen because of the laws we have which make the practice of buying and selling drugs more dangerous and link it to violent crime and other kinds of crime, when the link would not be their socially if the drugs were legal.

To answer your last bolded part: the truth is, neither you or I know whether or not legalized drugs would result in more "rights being denied", as far as those non-users who are subject to crimes committed by users, or not.

So you are assuming that the way things are, with these drugs being illegal, there is LESS violent crime than if they were decriminalized, and I am arguing that there would be less violent crime if these drugs were decriminalized.

I am not only arguing for the rights of the few-er drug users who want to use drugs not being denied, but i am also arguing that our society would be safer if these drugs were decriminalized.

This is where we seem to disagree.

Also, there is a big question about whether or not some countries would be more able to handle these drugs being decriminalized than others, because you are from Brazil and I am from the U.S., and the countries are very different.

I think it is possible that some countries would adapt better to hard drugs being decriminalized than others, and I've never been to Brazil, but I believe that in the U.S. IF THE LAWS WERE WRITTEN VERY CAREFULLY, that decriminalization of all drugs would result in less violent crime being committed by the addicts than is the case currently.

I just don't think prohibition ever works or ever will, and I think it just makes the situation worse.

 

[Mycophile]

And how can you not admit that at least all the little 12 year old kids selling drugs in your favelas and shooting people with AK-47s would stop happening so much if gangs did not have control of the drugs??


Brazil is so overextravagant that even two points that seem to be directly correlated are not. The crackheads on the streets and the kids in the favelas are linked by misery, social abandonment, and the lack of future perspectives. Only a massive investment and government actions could solve these problems and it does not take much to solve them, the basic is sufficient: education, health care, safety. The basic rights that a citizen should expect as a return of its taxes. On the contrary, in the Brazilian society, one has oligarchies, big corporations, banks; these are the “most important citizens”, those for which the government looks after, a commonplace in capitalism, by the way. Unfortunately, I do not believe this is going to change in the next 50 years or even more.

This is not a digression

One has children in favelas, they see the dealers wearing expensive and branded clothes, driving motorcycles, fucking hot women, parties, cocaine, whisky, red bull, everything that the ads are throwing at them and they cannot afford.

What do you think that go through the mind of a teenager? A miserable one, who sleeps in a 5 square meter room along with 4 siblings. There is not even plaster on the walls, no sewage treatment. The mother works like a donkey and only makes little money, sometimes it is not sufficient for food. The father is absent or an alcoholic who beats his wife in front of her children. Have you have heard about caipirinha made with cachaça? If you have a good cachaça, that’s a God’s gift and as such it is very expensive. However, in the ordinary bars in the peripheries, you can find homemade cachaça for 20 cents of dollar a dose. Only Jesus knows the percentages of alcohol in these drinks, could easily reach 50 % not counting the toxic impurities originated from the hideous manufacturing processes. This is the fuel that feeds the domestic violence. So, to sell drugs or to live a miserable life? To be or not to be? These are the Shakespearian options for these kids.

The crackheads on the streets, who are being interned against their will, they are these kids who have grown up, or, alternatively, they may be ordinary workers who could not support the pressure imposed by the poverty and misery summed to the lack of improvement and future perspectives. It is heartbreaking to see these persons; too many inequalities, it is revolting.

Thinking about what kinds of thoughts these persons have about life, what kinds of existential crises do they have? Which mechanisms do they use to cope with pain?

Myself, I have a job, a car, fashionable clothes, financial stability. Today, I have smoked many joints, sniffed cocaine, drunk, just took a Xanax to calm down because I am fast and I want to sleep soon (5 am now - when I wrote this but did not post it hahaha). What can these people who have nothing in their lives, living in wretched conditions, do in order to run away from their problems, to ease their minds off of the stress? They go to the streets to smoke crack, the cheapest hard drug out there. In addition, their lives are so demoralized that each one of them needs a constant fugue of the reality. Dealing with crack daily, under this social context, is a bridge to hell. They have lost their minds, they cannot respond for their actions, some of them are zombies, they need help.

Ok, well again, you are only talking about Brazil, and i have never been there, and so when I think about this I think about where I am from in the U.S., which is a nice area, but also other countries I have been to like The Netherlands/Amsterdam, England, Ireland, Spain, France, Canada, Italy, etc.

So I'll say again that it is possible that different countries or even states or cities might be more able to handle decriminalization of drugs than others and i don't know if it would be worse in Brazil than the U.S. or the countries I have been to, but I at least will still support that the places I have been and the part of the U.S. I am in that I believe all drugs should be decriminalized.

And the thing is, again, you talk about the choice of whether or not these young kids should sell drugs to make lots of money or work and make very little.

Well, I will say this: last night I was watching a special on the gangs in Los Angeles in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.

You have probably heard about the famous war between "The Bloods" and "The Crips" in South Central Los Angeles right??

It sounded to me like it could have been every bit as violent and bad as certain parts of Brazil.

It said in one part of the special that in 1987 EVERY SINGLE DAY ONE PERSON DIED IN L.A. FROM A GANG RELATED CRIME.

So yeah, it was of course the big boom for crack in the United States and they were talking about all these teenagers making more money in one week than their mothers make in a year off selling crack, and that is probably where it started and filtered down to Brazil.

But the thing is, the crack and illegal drug sales fueled the gang violence because the drugs were illegal.

I am not saying that anyone should be able to sell these drugs, it should only be legal for specific people who get licenses to sell drugs to sell them.

Basically, my idea is that just like you need a liquor license to sell liquor here, you would need a license to sell these drugs, and it would have to be a lot more work and a lot harder to get these licenses.

Then, people who want to buy these drugs would have to give their information and be entered into computers and all that.

It wouldn't be chaos, it would be a system.

So in my idea, you would get arrested for illegally selling these drugs and illegally buying them on the streets, and it would only be legal to buy these drugs from a licensed seller and only legal to sell them if you have a special license.

In this way, you would not have these little kids choosing a life of drug dealing because YES, they would be arrested for it.

They could make a legit profession out of it if they want to go get a drug dealer's license, just like someone who wants to work at a liquor store needs a liquor license, but it would no longer be a such a highly profitable thing to do because it would be regulated and normalized.

So yeah, in my idea, the situation would not be as you described.

I think the reason that both in South Central L.A. and in Brazil and places like that that people are able to choose these criminal life styles and make so much money selling these drugs is because there is no legal way to do it.

If you make it legal to do it, but only if regulated very strictly, and illegal to do it if you don't follow these laws, then suddenly there would be a lot more to lose and less to gain to choose to buy and sell these drugs illegally.

I am not arguing for chaos, I'm arguing for a system where it's only legal to buy and sell drugs if you do it the right way, or else yes, you would be arrested, just like right now you can get arrested for selling loose cigarettes or liquor on the street if you don't have a license.

 

[Mycophile]

Man, now I think that you have contradicted yourself.

First, people will not use things that are not promptly accessible, only if they want them a lot and, even in these cases, they will not have a way to buy the desired stuff. For instance, I have been looking for a clean LSD since a long time and I have not found it yet. Moreover, the fact that things are readily available strongly contributes to the frequency of usage. Imagine: you, very likely, have never thought about drinking a Brazilian beer but if Wall Mart suddenly shows one of them to you, on the shelves, you might be enticed to buy it. The same thought is valid for drugs, if you go to the drug market to buy weed and eventually see a white diamond of coke shining, you will probably be tempted and you will buy it.

Guns, this is the best example of why dangerous things must be not available (drugs, guns, etc). How many massacres are necessary? People go to the supermarket armed to the teeth, with rifles, and I ask: why? This is lack of sex, for sure (hahaha).

Now, Brazil’s president (Jair bolsonaro), who usually licks Trump’s testicles and was elected by the energumen parcel of the society, wants to legalize guns in Brazil, what a joke, we kill each other with sticks and stones, we don’t need guns to have violence.

The president is advocating that guns are necessary for personal defense. Yes, they are necessary but only because the State is not providing security to the society. This statement is ridiculous and cannot be used to justify the legalization of guns, actually, there are no logical justifications for the legalization of guns. If you have one, I am curious to hear it.

Wait, so NO guns are legal in Brazil at all, even regular hunting rifles and hand guns?

I do think we need legalized guns for self-defense, and the right to bare arms is in the U.S. constitution.

However, I do not think we need legalized assault rifles, but there are many who argue it won't matter if they are banned, that people will still find them.

I don't know exactly where I stand on that.

But as far as people wanting drugs if they are more accessible, to an extent yes I'd agree, but there is always a certain segment of the population who will know how to find those drugs, regardless of how inaccessible we try to make them.

Regardless, i still stand by the fact that I believe, at least in the United States and European countries I have been to, that things would be safer overall for people if all drugs were decriminalized, and also at the same time we would not be telling people they can't put into their bodies what they choose, which I feel is really wrong for us to do.

Again, in order for it to work you would only be able to buy drugs from licensed sellers, and you would only be able to sell them legally if you had special licenses, and there would need to be a whole lot of laws and regulations in place, and if you bought or sold drugs illegally you would be arrested.

It would be an organized system, not just anyone can buy or sell drugs from anyone they want.

 

[jose ribas da silva]

Well, so basically you are saying you DON'T think they should be put in prison, just "forced rehab"?

If that is your opinion, and it is only in the case of those truly addicted to the very hardest drugs like crack, meth and heroin, I can see where you are coming from, but I still disagree.

I honestly still believe that the majority of violent crimes committed which involve these kinds of drug addicts happen because of the laws we have which make the practice of buying and selling drugs more dangerous and link it to violent crime and other kinds of crime, when the link would not be their socially if the drugs were legal.

To answer your last bolded part: the truth is, neither you or I know whether or not legalized drugs would result in more "rights being denied", as far as those non-users who are subject to crimes committed by users, or not.

So you are assuming that the way things are, with these drugs being illegal, there is LESS violent crime than if they were decriminalized, and I am arguing that there would be less violent crime if these drugs were decriminalized.

I am not only arguing for the rights of the few-er drug users who want to use drugs not being denied, but i am also arguing that our society would be safer if these drugs were decriminalized.

This is where we seem to disagree.

Also, there is a big question about whether or not some countries would be more able to handle these drugs being decriminalized than others, because you are from Brazil and I am from the U.S., and the countries are very different.

I think it is possible that some countries would adapt better to hard drugs being decriminalized than others, and I've never been to Brazil, but I believe that in the U.S. IF THE LAWS WERE WRITTEN VERY CAREFULLY, that decriminalization of all drugs would result in less violent crime being committed by the addicts than is the case currently.

I just don't think prohibition ever works or ever will, and I think it just makes the situation worse.

Ok, well again, you are only talking about Brazil, and i have never been there, and so when I think about this I think about where I am from in the U.S., which is a nice area, but also other countries I have been to like The Netherlands/Amsterdam, England, Ireland, Spain, France, Canada, Italy, etc.

So I'll say again that it is possible that different countries or even states or cities might be more able to handle decriminalization of drugs than others and i don't know if it would be worse in Brazil than the U.S. or the countries I have been to, but I at least will still support that the places I have been and the part of the U.S. I am in that I believe all drugs should be decriminalized.

And the thing is, again, you talk about the choice of whether or not these young kids should sell drugs to make lots of money or work and make very little.

Well, I will say this: last night I was watching a special on the gangs in Los Angeles in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.

You have probably heard about the famous war between "The Bloods" and "The Crips" in South Central Los Angeles right??

It sounded to me like it could have been every bit as violent and bad as certain parts of Brazil.

It said in one part of the special that in 1987 EVERY SINGLE DAY ONE PERSON DIED IN L.A. FROM A GANG RELATED CRIME.

So yeah, it was of course the big boom for crack in the United States and they were talking about all these teenagers making more money in one week than their mothers make in a year off selling crack, and that is probably where it started and filtered down to Brazil.

But the thing is, the crack and illegal drug sales fueled the gang violence because the drugs were illegal.

I am not saying that anyone should be able to sell these drugs, it should only be legal for specific people who get licenses to sell drugs to sell them.

Basically, my idea is that just like you need a liquor license to sell liquor here, you would need a license to sell these drugs, and it would have to be a lot more work and a lot harder to get these licenses.

Then, people who want to buy these drugs would have to give their information and be entered into computers and all that.

It wouldn't be chaos, it would be a system.

So in my idea, you would get arrested for illegally selling these drugs and illegally buying them on the streets, and it would only be legal to buy these drugs from a licensed seller and only legal to sell them if you have a special license.

In this way, you would not have these little kids choosing a life of drug dealing because YES, they would be arrested for it.

They could make a legit profession out of it if they want to go get a drug dealer's license, just like someone who wants to work at a liquor store needs a liquor license, but it would no longer be a such a highly profitable thing to do because it would be regulated and normalized.

So yeah, in my idea, the situation would not be as you described.

I think the reason that both in South Central L.A. and in Brazil and places like that that people are able to choose these criminal life styles and make so much money selling these drugs is because there is no legal way to do it.

If you make it legal to do it, but only if regulated very strictly, and illegal to do it if you don't follow these laws, then suddenly there would be a lot more to lose and less to gain to choose to buy and sell these drugs illegally.

I am not arguing for chaos, I'm arguing for a system where it's only legal to buy and sell drugs if you do it the right way, or else yes, you would be arrested, just like right now you can get arrested for selling loose cigarettes or liquor on the street if you don't have a license.

Now I have understood better your point.

The way you have pictured it, yes, it may work in certain countries.

There is a difference between the organized crime in the US and in the South/Central America. Namely this difference may represent the origin by which the legalization of hard drugs may work in the US in the way you have said, but it would not work in Brazil.

In the US, there were or there are violent gangs, high mortality rates associated with them, etc. Nevertheless, even when there is crime, the State is present there by providing sewage treatment, policing, schools, that is, the minimum required for a decent life, a human’s life and not an animal’s life, I mean. I could tell (not completely sure) that the American kids who grow up and end up entering in gangs, they may be very poor (for the US patterns) but they are not miserable. Being poor and miserable are two different things, the difference is subtle at a first sight but, in effect, it is not, it is a considerable difference. As Dostoiévski said in Crime and Punishment, misery is the most degrading life situation that a person can live. How does a miserable person who has been treated like an animal since the day of his birth see himself? How does he interpret life? I do not think they consider themselves a part of the society. Their asses are being constantly kicked out by it and by the government’s neglect.

Concluding, the fact that these American kids are poor but not miserable has as a consequence the fact that the American gangs are not such a strong parallel power as the FARC is in Colombia or drug dealers are in favelas in Rio de Janeiro. Because these kids (and the dealers) are somehow also inserted in the system, the police is acting there too, they can be doing just a little, but it is better than nothing and it could be worse. There is corruption in the American police but I do not believe it is too strong like it is in South America and corruption is the main pillar that structures a criminal parallel power.

Therefore, the absence of an active parallel power, which arises from many different causes apart from drug dealing, makes the legalization easier to be implemented.

 

[jose ribas da silva]

Wait, so NO guns are legal in Brazil at all, even regular hunting rifles and hand guns?

I do think we need legalized guns for self-defense, and the right to bare arms is in the U.S. constitution.

However, I do not think we need legalized assault rifles, but there are many who argue it won't matter if they are banned, that people will still find them.

I don't know exactly where I stand on that.

But as far as people wanting drugs if they are more accessible, to an extent yes I'd agree, but there is always a certain segment of the population who will know how to find those drugs, regardless of how inaccessible we try to make them.

Regardless, i still stand by the fact that I believe, at least in the United States and European countries I have been to, that things would be safer overall for people if all drugs were decriminalized, and also at the same time we would not be telling people they can't put into their bodies what they choose, which I feel is really wrong for us to do.

Again, in order for it to work you would only be able to buy drugs from licensed sellers, and you would only be able to sell them legally if you had special licenses, and there would need to be a whole lot of laws and regulations in place, and if you bought or sold drugs illegally you would be arrested.

It would be an organized system, not just anyone can buy or sell drugs from anyone they want.

Some guns are legalized in Brazil, but it is very far away from the situation demonstrated by the American culture. There is no regular sale of guns of any type. In order to buy one, it is necessary to fill some requirements and prove the necessity of the gun in your life. I do not know very well to be sincere, but certainly it is not like “I want a gun to train my aim in the boonies, let’s go buy one”.

The guns used in crime are bought illegally. Corruption in the police and in the army is a source, the US is other source, mainly for high caliber ones, I mean, they are bought legally there and sold illegally here. Arms trafficking and drug trafficking walk together in Brazil. This happens because, as I have mentioned above, drug dealers are a parallel power and guns are necessary to support this parallel power. The favelas’ relief, predominantly formed by hills, helps locating the artillery.

I do not see any reason to buy guns, it would be better without them. I do not think that a society built up with guns will end up being an example of quality of life.

 

[jose ribas da silva]

Why is corruption present in Brazil?

• Portugal’s exploitation colony until 1822.
• Transitional period from 1822 to 1889, still connected to Portugal, somehow
• 1889 – 1930 First republic structured by agrarian oligarchies
• 1930 – 1945 – dictatorship
• 1945 – 1965 – democratic governments nevertheless totally directed to the elites.
• 1965 – 1984 – military dictatorship financed by the US
• 1984 – 1992 – Transition period
• 1992 – president-elect suffers impeachment
• 1992- 1994 - Transition period
• 1994 – 2016 – normal governments
• 2016 – new impeachment
• 2016 – 2017 – transition period
• THE NINCOMPOOP DONKEY – current president jair bolsonaro,

Brazil did not recovery from colonial times

 

[Phobos]

In this discussion several interesting points have been made, but I would like to add something as I'm not sure everyone is aware of it.
So, Portugal, all drugs are completely legal to possess, so if you are found in possession the police will verify what it is and how much and give it back to you if they think you are not selling.
The money they used to spend to investigate and incarcerate users is being spent now in trying to help them out.
Drug consumption went down, deaths by overdose reduced in half.

The reason for people to be addicted to drugs and not being able to quit is not that they have taken a drug enough times that now they would do anything for it.
It is that people that have a problem, if they try drugs they get immediately addicted. The people that you could say are more or less ok, they have something to loose from an addiction, they will not seek to repeatedly dose.
They might sometimes, but they won't be addicts.

To give an example, when the Vietnam War was over, A LOT of the US soldiers coming back were Heroin addicts, they were using to cope with being in a warzone.
Upon return, 95% successfully stopped using heroin with no therapy/rehab and did not relapse.
Now this is a ridiculously high figure, people that successfully quit Heroin at the first attempt, on their own, and don't relapse?
That's not what normally happens, but thing is these soldiers were coming back to a normal life, once the problem was removed from their life, they did not need to use a drug anymore.
That's why I understand that what worked for Portugal might work in many other countries, but it won't work in the favelas, it's the favelas that creates the addicts, it's not the drugs.

 

[jose ribas da silva]

In this discussion several interesting points have been made, but I would like to add something as I'm not sure everyone is aware of it.
So, Portugal, all drugs are completely legal to possess, so if you are found in possession the police will verify what it is and how much and give it back to you if they think you are not selling.
The money they used to spend to investigate and incarcerate users is being spent now in trying to help them out.
Drug consumption went down, deaths by overdose reduced in half.

The reason for people to be addicted to drugs and not being able to quit is not that they have taken a drug enough times that now they would do anything for it.
It is that people that have a problem, if they try drugs they get immediately addicted. The people that you could say are more or less ok, they have something to loose from an addiction, they will not seek to repeatedly dose.
They might sometimes, but they won't be addicts.

To give an example, when the Vietnam War was over, A LOT of the US soldiers coming back were Heroin addicts, they were using to cope with being in a warzone.
Upon return, 95% successfully stopped using heroin with no therapy/rehab and did not relapse.
Now this is a ridiculously high figure, people that successfully quit Heroin at the first attempt, on their own, and don't relapse?
That's not what normally happens, but thing is these soldiers were coming back to a normal life, once the problem was removed from their life, they did not need to use a drug anymore.
That's why I understand that what worked for Portugal might work in many other countries, but it won't work in the favelas, it's the favelas that creates the addicts, it's not the drugs.

Yeah

In rich countries, it is common to see people using drugs to cope with feelings. Independently of the bank account, life is hard for everyone. So think about these persons who use drugs because of traumas and compare them with those who use drugs to cope with misery. It is different, one is not using because of a childhood trauma or because one has broken up a relationship. One is using because one eats from the trash. It is a very different perspective, and, yes, it will not be resolved by legalization/decriminalization because misery will continue there.

Most likely, criminal rates would rise, because if people who work selling drugs lose their “jobs”, what will they do? They will need money, where can they get it? There are no options and they will go to the streets to steal.

War is certainly an extreme life situation, but a temporary one, I am not saying that it is an easy situation to live in, but, it is temporary, and most soldiers know it is temporary. If they survive they will be back home. Misery is eternal, eternal suffering.

What would a soldier do knowing he would be doomed to eternal suffering? No hope at all, they would prefer to commit suicide.

 

[Mycophile]

@jose ribas da silva that's some good information about Brazil that I hadn't known before, as far as that one post above with all these different transitional periods. Brazil certainly seems to be one of a number of different countries which just has a very unstable and painful history that has led to a lot of hardship for its' people.

Yeah, I think maybe you understand a bit more what I had in mind with how I would want to see drugs legalized/decriminalized.

To be a bit more specific, there would be a number of different conditions that would need to be in place to legally buy drugs in my ideal society, and even more conditions to sell them.

For example, I don't really fully understand how the social security system works in the United States, let alone in Brazil or other countries, but one thing I do know is that there are a lot of different things you cannot legally do in the United States if you do not have a social security number. For example, you cannot legally work in the United States without one, and at least one of these reasons is that I am pretty sure you cannot pay taxes if you don't have a social security number, and of course dodging taxes is illegal.

Now, I've had a social security number for as long as I can remember, and I'm honestly not sure when I first got one. My parents probably set me up with one when I was a baby, but to be honest I don't know, and i don't know what one has to do to get a social security number and card if one does not have one, but I do know that a large percentage of homeless people in the United States don't have social security numbers.

So basically, having a social security number and card means in the United States that you exist on paper as a U.S. citizen.

So, in the system I am talking about, in order to be able to legally buy or sell drugs you would need to have a social security number and card, pay taxes yearly, and have a valid form of identification, whether or not it is a driver's license, and be at least 18 years old.

And as far as being able to be a licensed seller/drug dealer when it comes to these drugs, in my perfect system you would need to jump through a whole lot more legal hoops to be able to get a dealer's license.

I am not sure what a licensed dealer would have to do to become one in my perfect system, but it would be something similar to what people have to do to get liquor licenses to work in liquor stores, and they would have to take some kind of long course and pass it, get registered by the U.S. government as a seller, etc, and of course be a legal adult at least 18 years old or older.

Then of course, when one of these dealers gets their license it would not allow them to sell drugs on the street, only in the store that they work in, and only to people who have social security numbers, valid IDs who pay taxes and are of legal age, etc etc etc.

In my system, if you were to sell drugs without having a license you would get arrested and in a lot of legal trouble, but not the same level or kind of legal trouble you get in right now for selling drugs illegally, not like years and years or life in prison, but it would still be serious.

Someone who did that would have to pay VERY serious fines and spend probably several years in prison, but it would be more like the kind of prison time a person does for not paying their taxes or for operating a business illegally or money laundering etc: the people they would be imprisoned with would NOT be violent criminals, murderers, rapists, pedophiles or armed robbers, but more like thieves, burglars, tax evaders, money launderers, those who sell fake IDs, etc etc.

Then the people who buy drugs illegally from those who are not licensed sellers would not get NEARLY the kind of convictions they get now, and most would probably get very heavy fines and only do jail time if they could not pay their fines.

The kind of time they did would be more like JAIL time than PRISON time: mostly put in holding cells until they can post bail or pay for their fines, and they'd be in jail just with petty thieves, those who drove drunk, those who vandalize or do graffiti or disturb the public, etc.

The reason they'd be in prison would really not be because they were doing anything wrong by having or buying the drug, but only because by not buying it through the proper system they would be supporting an untaxed dealer which is not ok.


Then lets say a kid under the age of 18 buys drugs illegally, or period from anyone, he would probably just get put in juvenile detention, no big deal.


And the kinds of kids you are talking about in Brazil, the 12 year olds with the AK-47s who sell drugs to people in the favelas? Those kids would just get locked up in juvenile detentions for like a year and probably made to take school classes while locked up and not permitted back onto the streets until they have a safe legal guardian.

So under this system, all the people you are talking about, the kids who sell the drugs in the favelas and the people who buy from them, ANYONE who is selling these drugs that does not have a license to sell, anyone who is not buying from someone with a license ALL THOSE PEOPLE WOULD BE ARRESTED AND PUT IN JAIL, but it would not be the kind of serious prison time it is now.

I mean basically, all those people in the favelas that you are talking about, how many of them have social security numbers, valid IDs and pay taxes and are part of a yearly census where the government keeps track of who they are and where they live, etc??

Probably not many right?

Just like in the U.S., probably 95% or more of those people living in the slums or on the streets or who are part of gangs do not have social security numbers, do not pay taxes, and are unaccounted for by the government, so those people would be put in jail.

Basically, not having a social security number might even be a crime in itself.

Right now I know it is not a crime not to have one in the U.S, but at the same time you cannot legally work or pay taxes, so honestly, I am not really sure why it isn't illegal not to have one.


Anyways, the point is, that my idea is that you would have to be part of a system to buy these drugs and have a social security number and pay taxes and have your name in a government computer verifying your identity and all that stuff.

Then if you are of legal age and you pay taxes and have social security number and go through the entire process to become a legal drug dealer, then you can sell those drugs, and if you do the same things then you can buy from a licensed dealer.

I honestly believe that it would be WAY WAY better if we had legalized drugs under a system like this, and I really don't see why people of legal age who pay taxes and are part of the system should not be allowed to buy any drug they want so long as they use the drug in the privacy of their own homes and don't drive while high.

These are the same kinds of laws they have in places like Amsterdam right now.

I went to Amsterdam 15 years ago and bought and smoked weed and bought and took shrooms legally in coffee shops, but there was one kid who tried to sell weed to me once in a park and I didn't buy from him.

He was totally selling weed illegally and would have gotten arrested cause he had no dealer's license.

It's the same in the U.S. when it comes to liquor and cigarettes: you can be arrested for just making your own liquor or beer and selling it on the street or going and buying a pack of cigarettes and then selling them to people.

It would just be the same thing for selling or buying drugs without doing it legally, but it wouldn't be because the drugs themselves are illegal, but just because you aren't following the proper protocol when buying or selling.

 

[jose ribas da silva]

@jose ribas da silva that's some good information about Brazil that I hadn't known before, as far as that one post above with all these different transitional periods. Brazil certainly seems to be one of a number of different countries which just has a very unstable and painful history that has led to a lot of hardship for its' people.

Yeah, I think maybe you understand a bit more what I had in mind with how I would want to see drugs legalized/decriminalized.

To be a bit more specific, there would be a number of different conditions that would need to be in place to legally buy drugs in my ideal society, and even more conditions to sell them.

For example, I don't really fully understand how the social security system works in the United States, let alone in Brazil or other countries, but one thing I do know is that there are a lot of different things you cannot legally do in the United States if you do not have a social security number. For example, you cannot legally work in the United States without one, and at least one of these reasons is that I am pretty sure you cannot pay taxes if you don't have a social security number, and of course dodging taxes is illegal.

Now, I've had a social security number for as long as I can remember, and I'm honestly not sure when I first got one. My parents probably set me up with one when I was a baby, but to be honest I don't know, and i don't know what one has to do to get a social security number and card if one does not have one, but I do know that a large percentage of homeless people in the United States don't have social security numbers.

So basically, having a social security number and card means in the United States that you exist on paper as a U.S. citizen.

So, in the system I am talking about, in order to be able to legally buy or sell drugs you would need to have a social security number and card, pay taxes yearly, and have a valid form of identification, whether or not it is a driver's license, and be at least 18 years old.

And as far as being able to be a licensed seller/drug dealer when it comes to these drugs, in my perfect system you would need to jump through a whole lot more legal hoops to be able to get a dealer's license.

I am not sure what a licensed dealer would have to do to become one in my perfect system, but it would be something similar to what people have to do to get liquor licenses to work in liquor stores, and they would have to take some kind of long course and pass it, get registered by the U.S. government as a seller, etc, and of course be a legal adult at least 18 years old or older.

Then of course, when one of these dealers gets their license it would not allow them to sell drugs on the street, only in the store that they work in, and only to people who have social security numbers, valid IDs who pay taxes and are of legal age, etc etc etc.

In my system, if you were to sell drugs without having a license you would get arrested and in a lot of legal trouble, but not the same level or kind of legal trouble you get in right now for selling drugs illegally, not like years and years or life in prison, but it would still be serious.

Someone who did that would have to pay VERY serious fines and spend probably several years in prison, but it would be more like the kind of prison time a person does for not paying their taxes or for operating a business illegally or money laundering etc: the people they would be imprisoned with would NOT be violent criminals, murderers, rapists, pedophiles or armed robbers, but more like thieves, burglars, tax evaders, money launderers, those who sell fake IDs, etc etc.

Then the people who buy drugs illegally from those who are not licensed sellers would not get NEARLY the kind of convictions they get now, and most would probably get very heavy fines and only do jail time if they could not pay their fines.

The kind of time they did would be more like JAIL time than PRISON time: mostly put in holding cells until they can post bail or pay for their fines, and they'd be in jail just with petty thieves, those who drove drunk, those who vandalize or do graffiti or disturb the public, etc.

The reason they'd be in prison would really not be because they were doing anything wrong by having or buying the drug, but only because by not buying it through the proper system they would be supporting an untaxed dealer which is not ok.


Then lets say a kid under the age of 18 buys drugs illegally, or period from anyone, he would probably just get put in juvenile detention, no big deal.


And the kinds of kids you are talking about in Brazil, the 12 year olds with the AK-47s who sell drugs to people in the favelas? Those kids would just get locked up in juvenile detentions for like a year and probably made to take school classes while locked up and not permitted back onto the streets until they have a safe legal guardian.

So under this system, all the people you are talking about, the kids who sell the drugs in the favelas and the people who buy from them, ANYONE who is selling these drugs that does not have a license to sell, anyone who is not buying from someone with a license ALL THOSE PEOPLE WOULD BE ARRESTED AND PUT IN JAIL, but it would not be the kind of serious prison time it is now.

I mean basically, all those people in the favelas that you are talking about, how many of them have social security numbers, valid IDs and pay taxes and are part of a yearly census where the government keeps track of who they are and where they live, etc??

Probably not many right?

Just like in the U.S., probably 95% or more of those people living in the slums or on the streets or who are part of gangs do not have social security numbers, do not pay taxes, and are unaccounted for by the government, so those people would be put in jail.

Basically, not having a social security number might even be a crime in itself.

Right now I know it is not a crime not to have one in the U.S, but at the same time you cannot legally work or pay taxes, so honestly, I am not really sure why it isn't illegal not to have one.


Anyways, the point is, that my idea is that you would have to be part of a system to buy these drugs and have a social security number and pay taxes and have your name in a government computer verifying your identity and all that stuff.

Then if you are of legal age and you pay taxes and have social security number and go through the entire process to become a legal drug dealer, then you can sell those drugs, and if you do the same things then you can buy from a licensed dealer.

I honestly believe that it would be WAY WAY better if we had legalized drugs under a system like this, and I really don't see why people of legal age who pay taxes and are part of the system should not be allowed to buy any drug they want so long as they use the drug in the privacy of their own homes and don't drive while high.

These are the same kinds of laws they have in places like Amsterdam right now.

I went to Amsterdam 15 years ago and bought and smoked weed and bought and took shrooms legally in coffee shops, but there was one kid who tried to sell weed to me once in a park and I didn't buy from him.

He was totally selling weed illegally and would have gotten arrested cause he had no dealer's license.

It's the same in the U.S. when it comes to liquor and cigarettes: you can be arrested for just making your own liquor or beer and selling it on the street or going and buying a pack of cigarettes and then selling them to people.

It would just be the same thing for selling or buying drugs without doing it legally, but it wouldn't be because the drugs themselves are illegal, but just because you aren't following the proper protocol when buying or selling.

Yeah man, I ask an ethical question then, why should the government allow people to buy things that can easily kill them?

So let’s make other poisons available too, why not? What are the limits for the available substances?

Because if I am from a crazy religious and I think rattlesnake poison it's aphrodisiac I have the right to buy one, analogously to crack

From the very large drug menu, which is current available, which drugs would be legalized? From weed to NBOMes?

 

[jose ribas da silva]

Furthermore

Considering the opioid crisis, do you think society can deal with hard drugs in a mature way? Because apparently not, and apparently the solution is to make it difficult to access them

 

[Phobos]

Yeah man, I ask an ethical question then, why should the government allow people to buy things that can easily kill them?
.....
.....

From the very large drug menu, which is current available, which drugs would be legalized? From weed to NBOMes?

Yes, all drugs legal.
I would just limit the amount for a single purchase and that's it.
At least people would know what it is that they buy.
Now you buy something and it is not what you want and normally it is something much worse.
Did alcohol prohibition work?
No and people died from the metanol.
Exactly the same things will happen with drugs.
If someone wants to be stupid they will be stupid, you cannot save anyone that is stupid.
It is the smart ones that act stupid because of ignorance that you can and will save with legal drugs.

 

[jose ribas da silva]

Yes, all drugs legal.
I would just limit the amount for a single purchase and that's it.
At least people would know what it is that they buy.
Now you buy something and it is not what you want and normally it is something much worse.
Did alcohol prohibition work?
No and people died from the metanol.
Exactly the same things will happen with drugs.
If someone wants to be stupid they will be stupid, you cannot save anyone that is stupid.
It is the smart ones that act stupid because of ignorance that you can and will save with legal drugs.

As a counterpoint, I bought more cocaine today, only because it is easy to buy and it's cheap, I paid $ 2 in 0.3 g of a good one (not the best one, nonetheless), $2!!

So I bought because it's easily available, I was not so much in the mood to do so, but the easiness was a point to be consider, imagine if it was legal!

 

[jose ribas da silva]

Again, alcohol is not a hard drug, some people can get addicted to it, but it not like opioids or cocaine.

 

[jose ribas da silva]

If someone wants to be stupid they will be stupid, you cannot save anyone that is stupid.

That's craziness, societies do not work like that, it is necessary rules, more than 50 % is stupid.

A simple example is alcohol + driving

 

[Phobos]

That's craziness, societies do not work like that, it is necessary rules, more than 50 % is stupid.

A simple example is alcohol + driving

The problem with stupid people is that they do not follow the rules.
Alcohol causes an incredible amount of car accidents deaths, and in most cases (not all) I think that drinking and driving is a pretty accurate way of acting stupid.

As a counterpoint, I bought more cocaine today, only because it is easy to buy and it's cheap, I paid $ 2 in 0.3 g of a good one (not the best one, nonetheless), $2!!

So I bought because it's easily available, I was not so much in the mood to do so, but the easiness was a point to be consider, imagine if it was legal!

I would say that from what transpires from your postings, You are not a good measuring stick for the general behaviour of people.
All instances I know of where a drug is legalised causes a reduction in consumption.
One of the main reasons young people try drugs is because of their illegal status.
But it is only the ones that have preexisting issues that keep using.

 

[jose ribas da silva]

Who on bluelight is a parameter for normality?

So if your post transpires 2 days and half without sleeping because of speed, your opinions and actions are not a good measuring stick as well and hence all of us must be silent.

Luckily, I don't think like that, I think we are the odds, those who know more than others, that have discovered the dark sides and survived, even you, the NBOMe guy, I would consider more your sleepy-speed binge-based opinion than one uttered by an unsightly ordinary citizen =**

 

[Invegasucksx]

Therapy is pseudoscience, psychiatry is hard science but sadly the mental drugs are rubbish and have horrible side affects. Also, involuntary "treatment" should be banned. Psychiatry needs to be voluntary

 

[Mycophile]

Yeah man, I ask an ethical question then, why should the government allow people to buy things that can easily kill them?

So let’s make other poisons available too, why not? What are the limits for the available substances?

Because if I am from a crazy religious and I think rattlesnake poison it's aphrodisiac I have the right to buy one, analogously to crack

From the very large drug menu, which is current available, which drugs would be legalized? From weed to NBOMes?

Yup, I would legalize all drugs, including poisons if you want, for 18 and older if you are not driving a car.

I will answer your question with my own question: "why should the government be allowed to STOP people from deciding what they want to put into their own bodies and do with their own bodies, even to the point of death, so long as they are NOT hurting anyone else?"

I have never understood why suicide is illegal, and I think it should be legal.

I don't want to kill myself, but if I did want to kill myself, why should the government be able to stop me?

My own body should be my own property above all else with no one having the right to tell me what i can and can't put into it or do with it so long as I am not hurting other people.

Yes, I think if I want to poison myself with any chemical on earth it should be my choice, so long as I do not physically hurt anyone else in the process.

 

[Mycophile]

Furthermore

Considering the opioid crisis, do you think society can deal with hard drugs in a mature way? Because apparently not, and apparently the solution is to make it difficult to access them

Yes, I think society can address the opioid crisis in a more mature way and no, I think the solution is not to make it difficult to access them because the honest truth is that most people who are willing to break laws will find opioids.

I don't necessarily know what the solution is though, but I know I believe part of the solution is legalizing all opioids for 18 and older.

I also believe that when doctors prescribe them to people for pain or any reason they need to tell the patient "this can get you high, and it can also kill you, and it will feel very very good if you use it to get high, but i do NOT recommend that because they are very dangerous, but there is nothing morally wrong with it, so if you do take too much, then don't be afraid to be honest with me because we need to make sure you are safe" INSTEAD of stigmatizing the drug use.

I would also say that every time ANYONE is prescribed or buys any kind of opioid that if they buy it legally it should come with a free NARCAN kit that they are shown how to use so that if they overdose then someone they know can use it on them to save their lives.

Kratom should be made more available to people for chronic pain and opioid addiction because I do not believe it can kill people or cause CNS depression and I like it a lot, and other safer pain therapies like Marijuanna and CBD should also be introduced to patients.

Also, one of the biggest problems with the opioid crisis is all the Fentanyl the heroin is laced with, so if we legalize heroin and regulate it we can make sure it has no Fentanyl in it and people will be less likely to overdose.

All of these would just be SOME possible ways to help with the opioid crisis.

Honestly, by and large I do not believe that trying to make a substance or object harder to access helps the situation as there are always a large amount of people who will find it anyway, and when it comes to drugs, again, I do not feel it is the government's right to tell someone what they can do with their own body.

I suppose we disagree on this because we keep going in circles, but really, why do you think anyone should have the right to tell someone they can't go shoot heroin or smoke crack or meth in their own homes??

Assuming the person buys the drug LEGALLY....they are a tax payer with a job who buys the drug from a LICENSED SELLER and they are 18 or over and use the drug in the privacy of their own home, then why should they not be allowed to use it??