Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[10ebbor10]

Just infiltrate the drugs circuits and poison the stuff. In so far as that isn't already happening.

Erm... I hope you're not serious.

Of course not.

Though they found a variety of poisonous (or weird) substances in all kinds of drugs.

[Helgoland]

Just infiltrate the drugs circuits and poison the stuff. In so far as that isn't already happening.

Erm... I hope you're not serious.

Of course not.

Though they found a variety of poisonous (or weird) substances in all kinds of drugs.

Local anaesthetics, rat poison, strychnine, baby powder, similar drugs, completely different drugs... the small-time dealers and cooks are crazy, that's for sure.

[Scelly9]

Yeah, that's the problem with shipped in pot. Because it's packed in the way it is, it loses some potency, so they cut it with other stuff to up the effect.

[10ebbor10]

Also glas, certain types of lamps, bricks,...

Actually, I'm for the legalisationg of several drug types as a controlled medicin. Oil based solutions and stuff.

[PanH]

Portugal : possession of drugs is ~legal (administrative offense, not criminal), while trafficking and possession of more than "10 days worth of personal use" is illegal. This is not exactly legal, but near.
And globally, reduction of drugs : reduction of drugs related deaths, reduction of young users, reduction of drugs related justice, and decrease of drugs prices.

[Truean]

Create a society where people don't fall into patterns of hopelessness where their only perceived out is addiction?

I haven't yet met a crackhead with even a fairly ok life.

[Something Evil]

Well, before one can really talk about legalization (decriminalization is okay; U.S. jails are full enough already), you need to focus on providing reasonably objective data to legislators (and the population in general) so they can make coherent decisions on something beyond crime rates as correlated with substance use, be they personal decisions or laws regarding individual substances or substance categories. What those laws end up being may differ from country to country, as per local social expectations, perceived level of social stability, maturity of thought etc. So it's kinda difficult to draft out one Big Solution and lump everyone with it.

Thing is, such a task may be Sisyphean in nature due to, again, raising interest more than raising awareness, especially given that peer pressure can be a large factor in experimenting with various substances rather than an informed decision of "Okay, I think this won't turn out too badly, and if others tell me it's becoming a problem I'll admit it's a problem and seek professional help." (train of thought that ought to apply to a lot of things beyond substance use). There's also the matter of different individuals' predispositions. While some will happily remain at pot or will pop some LSD now and then, there will also be some that end up existing solely for the next high.

Let adults do what they want with their own bodies. 

Well, it's not solely their own bodies that are affected. Friends and family, emotionally strained, strangers and their possessions endangered. It's not a decision that revolves solely around one's self, which is one of the more easily-identifiable things that make the problem difficult to give a clear-cut answer to. Then again, it's not exclusively adults that become addicted.

Also, the idea of a "government subsidied company focused on profit" selling drugs is naive at best, stupid at worst, because the competition can undercut you, because they do stuff and cut corners that a "government subsidied company focused on profit", can't (or oughtn't) do. Like cutting drugs with rat poison.



I guess first, before talking about legalization, one must ask "Are the individuals comprising today's society arguably mature enough to make informed decisions about something that can so gravely affect them and those around them?". Personally, I don't think so. While some individuals may, indeed, be capable of making the decision in an informed manner and of understanding the consequences, for the greater masses, "Derp, Respect mah authoratah" as someone so adorably brainfarted at me recently, may be a more valid option.

To paraphrase Robert Heinlein and make a not-altogether-kosher analogy of my own, when the steak ends having a chance to make the diners choke to the point you need an on-site EMT team, and the chokees thrash around smacking those nearby, then maybe, just maybe, banning steak (or at least selling it) may be reasonable.

Edit: Goddamn pleonasms.

[Xantalos]

Well, I'll at least watch this before I post.

[Frumple]

Also, the idea of a "government subsidied company focused on profit" selling drugs is naive at best, stupid at worst, because the competition can undercut you, because they do stuff and cut corners that a "government subsidied company focused on profit", can't (or oughtn't) do. Like cutting drugs with rat poison.

Many people (easily a majority of users, which would be a tremendous coup) will turn to legitimate sources even if you can get it cheaper from illegitimate sources, especially when buying from something government regulated (if not owned) doesn't carry the threat of jail time or serious disruptions in their day-to-day (rehabilitation), and the legitimate source considerably safer.

I guess first, before talking about legalization, one must ask "Are the individuals comprising today's society arguably mature enough to make informed decisions about something that can so gravely affect them and those around them?". Personally, I don't think so. While some individuals may, indeed, be capable of making the decision in an informed manner and of understanding the consequences, for the greater masses, "Derp, Respect mah authoratah" as someone so adorably brainfarted at me recently, may be a more valid option.

And yet we allow people to drive and own guns, have children, purchase alcohol and tobacco... it seems in general people are capable of dealing with having fairly hefty decisions in front them without screwing up to a degree that it becomes overtly society troubling. S'kinda' the fundamental issue with any, "Well, people don't make the right decision" argument when it comes to many illegal drugs -- we let people do and have things that have just as much, or more, impact and are just as, or even moreso, dangerous, so the argument kinda' breaks down unless you're advocating for a similar level of control of all those other things that are as much or more of a responsibility than responsible drug use.

Drug use in particular in America is something we need to see legalized and appropriately regulated (like alcohol, like tobacco), for the simple reason that the war on drugs is doing more damage to the country than drug use ever has -- notably so. In regards to the OP, as others have said, legalization, regulation, education, rehabilitation. That will do more to combat irresponsible drug use than anything else we can do. Honestly, the biggest obstacle to improvement is ignorance and the greed of the bastards that are profiting from the situation in the states -- and I'm not talking about criminals, there, though many of them arguably should be

[kaijyuu]

In my perfect world, people would have to take a test determining if they knew exactly what they were getting into before they could get drugs. Then they could get as many drugs as they could afford.

The world ain't perfect though, so I'll settle for legalization and age limits (for now).

[Jimmy]

The law will change when the opinion of the public shifts and reaches a critical mass in favor of legalization.

I noted the following story with interest.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/07/la-council-votes-on-pot-shops.html

Due to the high number of complaints received about the legal pot shops allowed to open in LA, the government was forced to shut them down completely. Apparently legalizing pot attracted unsavory elements to proliferate in the surrounding areas. Who'd have guessed?

[Loud Whispers]

"Are the individuals comprising today's society arguably mature enough to make informed decisions about something that can so gravely affect them and those around them?". Personally, I don't think so. While some individuals may, indeed, be capable of making the decision in an informed manner and of understanding the consequences, for the greater masses, "Derp, Respect mah authoratah" as someone so adorably brainfarted at me recently, may be a more valid option.

BAN ALCOHOL
BRAINFARTS EVERYDAY

[Zrk2]

The best bet is to legalize, regulate and tax it, like alcohol or tobacco. imagine if we could make money on pot instead of losing it in the War on Drugs.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The law will change when the opinion of the public shifts and reaches a critical mass in favor of legalization.

Already the case with marijuana. 54% support legalization in the US, and of course there's what happened with Colorado and Washington.

Canada is going to be so sad if we legalize it before them.

[Something Evil]

Many people (easily a majority of users, which would be a tremendous coup) will turn to legitimate sources even if you can get it cheaper from illegitimate sources, especially when buying from something government regulated (if not owned) doesn't carry the threat of jail time or serious disruptions in their day-to-day (rehabilitation), and the legitimate source considerably safer.

It does become pretty much a matter of competition between offered services, especially in the safety/cost market. There's also the problem of how do you justify state-held monopolies. Because you either do that, and it still leaves room for the black market, or you drop any pretense of control for most widely-used substances, and anyone can get into the game.

Huh. Funnily enough, as GlyphGlyph pointed out in the Sad Thread, this might actually be the ticket. Give the drug cartels enough competition on an open market and their foothold might collapse sooner rather than later, especially with pharmaceutical companies able to pump out reasonably consumption-safe (compared to the alternatives) substances at insane volumes with competitive costs.

And yet we allow people to drive and own guns, have children, purchase alcohol and tobacco... it seems in general people are capable of dealing with having fairly hefty decisions in front them without screwing up to a degree that it becomes overtly society troubling. S'kinda' the fundamental issue with any, "Well, people don't make the right decision" argument when it comes to many illegal drugs -- we let people do and have things that have just as much, or more, impact and are just as, or even moreso, dangerous, so the argument kinda' breaks down unless you're advocating for a similar level of control of all those other things that are as much or more of a responsibility than responsible drug use.

Drug use in particular in America is something we need to see legalized and appropriately regulated (like alcohol, like tobacco), for the simple reason that the war on drugs is doing more damage to the country than drug use ever has -- notably so. In regards to the OP, as others have said, legalization, regulation, education, rehabilitation. That will do more to combat irresponsible drug use than anything else we can do. Honestly, the biggest obstacle to improvement is ignorance and the greed of the bastards that are profiting from the situation in the states -- and I'm not talking about criminals, there, though many of them arguably should be

Again, I was merely stating the question being asked, and giving my own two cents (since I'm not a legislator and my opinion counts for fuck-all) that at the moment, it's not entirely a good idea to hop out and just legalize the most widely-used controlled substances because we still have, all around the world, arguments about legislative measures concerning birth control, vehicular safety, weapon ownership and alcohol and tobacco use, topics that the public is infinitely more informed about (and things that arguably cause less neurochemichal imbalances).

Lastly, I agree with your statement on the current incarnation of the War on Drugs. As I've stated in two instances in the Sad Thread, and those who quoted me there were keen to gloss over, there need to be "coherent laws that don't harm the people that they're supposed to protect". The current legislation in the U.S. is mostly hitting consumers and low level dealers, arguably the both people posing the highest risk and the people most at risk, something the latter half of which current supporters of the War on Drugs would want to not be brought up.