Sooo…….Do you support making drugs legal?
To what limit and why or why not?
Whether for recreational purposes or sale, And how to combat substance abuse and life ruin caused by addiction and children's access to them if they're made fully legal.
I support limited legalization for some drugs which are presently banned by the U.S. MDMA, psilocybin, DMT, etc. should not be criminal to possess, sell, or use at all. What should be criminal is the industrial level mass-production, marketing, and pharmaceutical branding of them.
I support restricting these particular drugs entirely to the gray market, where it is completely illegal for the criminals who mass produced and marketed oxycodone to be involved. The pharmaceutical companies should be cut out entirely. The sale of MDMA, psilocybin, DMT, and other "lighter" "hard" drugs should be restricted entirely to small dealers and producers. The sale of heroin, fentanyl, oxycodone, methamphetamine, and some other drugs for recreational purposes would remain illegal. Individuals who lacked job opportunities and sold drugs because they had no other way to reliably make that kind of income will be given a monopoly on sale of the "less bad" recreational drugs like empathogens and psychedelics, and the large scale pharmaceutical companies will not be allowed to out-compete them. Those who sell drugs in general illicitly today will thusly have an incentive to reduce risk (to themselves) by not selling more addictive drugs, and will be able to openly sell drugs like MDMA and make more money doing that.
The legalization of these drugs flatly today would be a major handout to corrupt pharmaceutical companies, and would increase risk by allowing them to be pitched as "cures," or, potentially, marketed like alcohol and cigarettes if they are legalized for recreational use in a similar way to those other currently legal drugs. It would be a slap in the face to all those who were wrongly imprisoned or killed for selling substances which the government lied about. Gray market only for some substances but not others is the way to go.
While I think that recreational sale of drugs like opiates and methamphetamine should remain illegal, usage of them should be met with treatment, not criminalization. Broadly, we need massive jobs programs and economic reforms to drive down the price of necessities by discouraging rentseeking, and this will help to reduce the slide of the population into nihilistic hedonism. There are some people who don't understand, or pretend not to understand, the kind of impact it has on people's lives when they look at their prospects, see no hope, and just say "fuck it." Also guys like Richard Sackler need to be imprisoned for life, arguably shot.
Also I'm not here to debate how spooky and dangerous any of these drugs is. Just giving my 2 cents on policy, thanks. My views on the drugs themselves are informed by years of knowledge and experience.
For starters, weed and psychedelics should 100% be legalized, bare minimum. There's no fucking good reason to treat them like they're on the same level as meth, crack, and heroin. I also think the growing, processing, and sale of these substances should be done by local co-operatives that are collectively managed and owned by their workers, with help and some oversight from people's councils & committees whenever necessary. As for the others, I personally lean more towards decriminalization for personal use, with an emphasis on rehab & safe use facilities for those who do any of the harder stuff, and those who get addicted or just otherwise wanna go clean. While only state-owned stores scattered across the nation should be able to legally sell these substances to members of the public; the sales of which are also highly regulated and the dangers of which are thoroughly disclosed to the buyer before any sales and on the product packaging itself.
Prevention, as prior anons have pointed out, is also a key factor to actually curb down on drug use. There needs to be a focus on providing stability and a meaning in life for people by bringing on a whole slew of economic reforms and public programs and by keeping a well-funded and well-maintained social safety net, and also one on removing the profit motive within healthcare and the pharmaceutical industry so that there's no repeat of the bullshit that happened with, say, for example: Oxycontin and its overprescription's eventual & inevitable explosion into the opioid crisis.
>>2501568>Do you support making drugs legal?yes
>To what limit and why or why not?usual shit like minimum age, regulated sales, limited max quantity, high taxes, accompany with health professionals/prevention
simply because its just playing with your brain chemistry to have fun and make social interactions easier, the main problem is health and addiction (and people doing stupid shit), but all these problem are easier fought if its legal. People are simply very spooked on this question.
>And how to combat substance abuse and life ruin caused by addiction and children's access to them if they're made fully legalits actually a lot easier to combat this if the drugs are legal, as science has shown that repression is shit at dealing with it while prevention, free healthcare and addiction specialist, safe spaces for drugs users work well
>>2508100 >moral stancesIt is a matter of public health, not morality.
I said in my post that we will get drugs with no side-effects in the future.
>>2508223All trade / deals will be done away with under a planned economy. Prohibition of tobacco and alchohol coming from an irish nationalist catholic flag shows me you have to be a religious subhuman a reactionary, we'll kill you first and never prohibit any drug, we'll murder all the WODiggers and religious.
>>2508232Drugs are life, medicine, pharmacology, science, chemistry, rape all the catholic & religious men and women and kill them for stagnating science and human development for a millenia. Murder and rape all of you nationalist liberal vermin. Addiction never has been as big a problem as you made it out to be, religious retardation ruins brains, drug use comes with responsibility, death to all prohibitionists, death to all WODiggers, rape murder and piss on irish gobshites, infect your people with genetically modified disease and bring you famine.
>>2508567Drug usage will mostly wither away too, so if most of the people won't be using them, why not ban them for the small number of people who would try them anyways? Never give them the option to OD or have a psychosis (drugs are addictive).
>>2508568I don't only want to prevent abuse, I also want to prevent use.
>>2508768I thought we were speaking about socialism, and there won't be cartels under socialism.
Why do you want to fuck your head and organs instead of waiting for the super safe and advanced communist psychedelics? Why do you have to have such a harmful "hobby" at the expense of the whole society?
>>2508805I don't think anyone here thinks capitalist war on drugs is a positive thing.
I don't know why I was called a WODigger.
>>2508816no one talks about this unless you're yourself a drug nerd or researcher but as far back as 2006 there's been a whole psychedelic renaissance with all sorts of studies confirming what had already been known early into the history of LSD before it was scheduled: psychedelic substances (and stuff like ketamine that are technically a different class) have incredibly powerful therapeutic potential. unlike the sorts of legal psychoactive drugs like SSRIs that are prescribed by psychiatrists in the US, psychedelics don't treat the symptoms of mental illness (e.g. adjusting your brain chemical levels to some normative standard) but actually have the ability to cure mental illnesses. there's huge amounts of research into the potential for things like psilocybin, LSD, and MDMA to treat things like PTSD and addiction, and ketamine and DXM are both powerful antidepressants. we know neurologically that psychedelics induce neurogenesis and can make the brain form new synapses that essentially heal things like trauma on the literal physical level of reshaping your grey matter.
it's actually anti-scientific reactionary nonsense to be against legalization, even notwithstanding the whole history of the WOD being essentially the new war on communism after the Cold War ended. it's also nonsense to argue that there are certain classes of drugs that are inherently bad and others that are good, because generally people don't do drugs for the sole purpose of hurting themselves because they're just stupid and being tricked by pushers or something. most opioid addiction for instance originates in people having chronic pain or getting major surgeries, and of course the opioid crisis was created by pharma companies, who are the real pushers because they use the edifice of arbitrary drug laws to trick people into thinking that something is inherently safe medicine if it's legal and has no medical value if it's illegal.
WOD shit is actually one of the stupidest reactionary taboos that we've inherited from AmeriKKKa's puritanical history and it should be ruthlessly critiqued on many fronts.
>>2508816>why must consumers and producers be seperated as to deprive experimentation and personal utilization when you can't get inside a person's mind?Because they are harmful (some almost harmless like fungi but many are very harmful, if not physically then psychologically) and addictive.
>they are incompetent and too retarded to be able to say what drugs are beneficiary and what are harmfulI know they can be useful, that's why I said for recreational usage.
>>2508820>>2508827How is fentanyl necessary for the health of the species.
Degeneracy is not something real unlike health.
>>2501819To elaborate on my position, I think human bodily autonomy should be an inalienable fundamental right. Junkies and drunks are going to hurt themselves with drugs and they have the right to do that; society just has to deal with the ramifications and do everything it can not to enable their self-destructive behavior. When they rob or kill other people because of their addiction they have to pay the price just like any other criminal, but criminalizing the addiction itself is neither sensible nor ethical. It only further alienates them from society and makes their addictions worse, and their addiction is not a moral failing to be punished, it is a disease.
Drug distributors on the other hand, whether they be black market dope dealers on the street or legitimate multinational pharmaceutical companies, are outside the jurisdiction of bodily autonomy. They are selling products to other people that are dangerous and addictive and can kill them if they use too much or if the potency suddenly increases or the drugs are contaminated somehow, they are taking a risk endangering other people's lives to make profit and therefore they must be held accountable for that.
>>250885690% of the world population uses drugs, you live with cognitive dissonance and false consciousness since you still believe the lies of the war on drugs started by Richard Nixon and have no interest in science, chemistry and botany other than science as a rhetoric to promote your ideological secft. You are unscientific. People do not use drugs to simply "engage in fiction", all drugs have different effects, recreational use can vary tremendiously from substance to substance. Most drug users are functional. Dysfunctional drug users are a byproduct of a lack of a safe envinronment caused by prohibition and stigmatization that affects their employment status.
At the very least you're open to the idea of engaging with drugs, even if its not because you recognize their necessity, but to promote your ideological sect.
>>2508852Why are you bringing suicide? I might as well say recreational ketamine which is not lethal.
>You want to blame drug usersWhy do you think I want to put them on prisions?
A rehabilitation program would work, and this only in advanced socialism, in the lower stages I said I want them to be decriminalised FOR RECREATIONAL USAGE.
>you cant prohibit cars can youWhen we finally have every street with multiple CCTV and if someone tries to suicide with their car it will be disabled remotely.
>>2508860>>2508858Why are you so obtuse?
Nobody here is speaking about drugs used for medical reasons.
>>2508870The responsibility is on the user, quality control depends on society, as long as there is demand there is supply, long live the union of producers and users and long live it will as long as humans and sentient beings exist.
>A rehabilitation program would work, Rehabilitation only works for those who want it. There is nothing to rehab with responsibile drug users who are 90% of the population and functioning, rehabilitate yourself dumb WODigger.
>When we finally have every street with multiple CCTV and if someone tries to suicide with their car it will be disabled remotely.Even here you fail, even in your made up scenario, since such suicides are commited at home in the garage.
Death upon you and your WODigger kind.
>>2508873>You on the other hand don't even think such a thing is beneficiaryThey are a time-waster, you could get better past times like sport which keep you healthy or an intellectual hobby instead of zoning out in your couch for 8 hours or roaming the streets seeing things and speaking alone and disrupting the other people with your hallucinations.
>Recreational use is transhumanistSo?
>>2508878I already said decriminalization and rehabilitation would go in different stages of socialism.
Has weed fucked your memory so bad that you can't remember a full sentence after reading it?
>>2508881Watching football is not a sport, I meant doing exercise/a sport, it was my mistake, sorry.
>>2508883Rehabiliate yourself dumb WODigger, still ranting on about weed users lmao.
>>2508883>Watching football is not a sport, I meant doing exercise/a sport, it was my mistake, sorry.I can give you an excersize, tell me which retarded MLoid social club you're in so that one day when I'm done with it all I can come in and start shooting.
>>2508886>>2508890I seldom leave my house and I am not greek.
>>2508891So they should've just let the mexican government fill them with drugs? That way they would've had a better time defending themselves, right?
>>2508865>Drug producers cause no damage. Again you cannot explain how it is any different from anyone producing anything else that can result in harm or injury.Well, it's a matter of degree. Technologies tend to become more powerful and disruptive as history progresses. Our society doesn't allow people to enrich uranium without strict authorization and supervision from the federal government because otherwise people would be building nuclear warheads and blowing up cities. Seems reasonable to me.
Drugs are a powerful technology, they save millions of lives, and they also destroy millions of lives, it is society's imperative to ensure that this technology is used carefully and responsibily for the benefit of society and not for its destruction.
>>2508827animals eat drugs too. they get the urge to consume "poisonous" plants to help with ailments. i would even go the other way from normal people and say lots of food is drugs.
>>2508829>many are very harmfulpretty much just benzos and alcohol. the danger from opiates cocaine and meth comes from inconstancy in purity and financial problems from addiction. wealthy people can be completely functional crackheads or use heroine and back in the day non-ADD people would do meth for work, famously Paul Erdos the most ever cited mathematician would take dex when working on proofs. obviously thats not an endorsement for everyone to go smoke crack cause they probably dont have the social support he did.
>>2508805>psychedelics are Schedule I because they reliably induce experiences that would make many people feel far less inclined to waste their lives working as wage slavesreminder
https://www.psymposia.com/magazine/lucy-in-the-sky-with-nazis-psychedelics-and-the-right-wing/https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/search/text/lsd%20made%20me%20racist/wasnt there some kind of new word to replace 'psychedelic' that means like confirmation bias?
>>2509006Clearly the issue is not the behavior itself but the ramifications of how technological advancements alter the scale of the behavior.
An example would be the indigienous population of the Americas before the arrive of European settlers. Drugs and alcohol were used extensively by every indigenous tribe, but it wasn't a social problem because they didn't have the technology to mass produce these powerful intoxicants in such quantities that it would have a major effect on their society. It wasn't until the industrial European settlers arrived that the indigenous people were introduced to the Europeans' mass-produced distilled liquor and then suddenly substance abuse became not only a huge social problem for the indigenous people, but it became a blight on their society that destroyed their culture and it still does to this day.
Unique IPs: 38