Print

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

[DJ]

Pot smoking isn't exactly a niche activity either.

[scriver]

Then maybe one could draw from that the conclusion that I'm not really talking about cannabis, wouldn't you think?

[nuker w]

To be honest, my personel expectations of this doing ANYTHING to the worlds little rampage on things that make people think differently are low. Oh so very low.

[nil]

I don't think you can compare huffing glue to the problems posed by drugs like heroin, crack-cocaine, or methamphetamine. Please. It's not as if glue is regulated to be safe to inhale.

So wait, if I'm following you correctly, the fact that inhalants are legal doesn't imply that the consequences of legalizing harmful drugs would be less dire than people think because... inhalants are so much worse than other drugs?  You're gonna have to spell yourself out a little more here.

A lot of bad things. Methamphetamine, heroin, and crack are not alcohol.

The criminalization of one thing causing problems doesn't mean that you shouldn't criminalize anything.

Although I do legalization is a good idea for all drugs, and certainly have never met anyone who refuses to do hard drugs because and only because they're illegal, I do think the discussion of them is utterly beside the point.  If we do manage to start down the path of legalization, it is a political reality that it will come piecemeal.  First we'll get pot, then we'll get psilocybin mushrooms, then probably LSD (despite the fact it's essentially equivalent to psilocybin, but you go to war with the reputation you have, not the one you should) and MDMA, and so on in ascending order of potential harmfulness.  By the time we're ready to look at meth and crack cocaine, we'll know infinitely more about the pros and cons of legalization than we do now, and any argument either side can make at this point will probably look hilariously naive.

[G-Flex]

I don't think you can compare huffing glue to the problems posed by drugs like heroin, crack-cocaine, or methamphetamine. Please. It's not as if glue is regulated to be safe to inhale.

So wait, if I'm following you correctly, the fact that inhalants are legal doesn't imply that the consequences of legalizing harmful drugs would be less dire than people think because... inhalants are so much worse than other drugs?  You're gonna have to spell yourself out a little more here.

Inhalants are unhealthy to abuse, and legal. Actually, you know what? For a lot of those products, inhaling them isn't legal; for a lot of those, there are specific labels stating that it's illegal to use them for purposes other than what's intended, or something similarly vague.

At any rate, I was saying: Inhalant abuse is bad. The inhalants mentioned are not intended to be used for that in the first place, are not regulated to be safe for that purpose, and in some cases using them for that purpose isn't even legal, so it's not fair to use them as an example of a "legal drug". Inhalant abuse is just an unintended consequence of those products existing; it is not the purpose of their manufacture, nor are they addictive in the manner of most "harder" drugs. It simply isn't a good comparison to make.

Although I do legalization is a good idea for all drugs, and certainly have never met anyone who refuses to do hard drugs because and only because they're illegal, I do think the discussion of them is utterly beside the point.  If we do manage to start down the path of legalization, it is a political reality that it will come piecemeal.  First we'll get pot, then we'll get psilocybin mushrooms, then probably LSD (despite the fact it's essentially equivalent to psilocybin, but you go to war with the reputation you have, not the one you should) and MDMA, and so on in ascending order of potential harmfulness.  By the time we're ready to look at meth and crack cocaine, we'll know infinitely more about the pros and cons of legalization than we do now, and any argument either side can make at this point will probably look hilariously naive.

I still don't think those are fair comparisons, as a lot of those drugs are pretty qualitatively different, especially as you get into the horribly addictive stuff like opiates... which we already more-or-less know the effects of, since people get legally-regulated varieties of that pretty regularly, both for legitimate and illegitimate purposes, from doctors (and pill mills in the case of people who don't actually need them); and those are regulated for safety and efficacy and purity and all that.

At any rate, yes, I agree that if we're going to legalize anything, it would be both wiser and more practical to do it a step at a time. I personally have no problem with marijuana being made legal as long as growing operations are restricted or there are other restrictions in place to prevent it from becoming the latest corporate mass-commodity. What we had with alcohol and tobacco companies advertising to kids was bad enough, and in some ways still is.




EDIT: stop misattributing quotes to yourself, g-flex

[inteuniso]

Signed. Despite my objections to hard drugs, and don't do any drugs, I can't support wasting money by trying to stop people from doing something they are either addicted to or don't even know the effects. I would love to see stuff like the Three Strike rule ended for drugs such as Marijuana. Again, I don't smoke Marijuana, but I don't see the point in jailing someone for life for smoking something that does less harm than smoking tobacco.

[G-Flex]

Signed. Despite my objections to hard drugs, and don't do any drugs, I can't support wasting money by trying to stop people from doing something they are either addicted to or don't even know the effects.

Wait, so you don't support spending money to prevent people from unknowingly harming themselves by ingesting harmful substances because they don't even know they're harmful? Isn't that kind of what half the regulatory power of the US federal government is based on?

Legalization (and any other sort of pure "free-market" capitalism) relies heavily on the individual being able to make informed choices; you're digging yourself into a hole by admitting that some people who take drugs might not be aware of what the effects are.

[lordcooper]

Signed. Despite my objections to hard drugs, and don't do any drugs, I can't support wasting money by trying to stop people from doing something they are either addicted to or don't even know the effects.

Wait, so you don't support spending money to prevent people from unknowingly harming themselves by ingesting harmful substances because they don't even know they're harmful? Isn't that kind of what half the regulatory power of the US federal government is based on?

Legalization (and any other sort of pure "free-market" capitalism) relies heavily on the individual being able to make informed choices; you're digging yourself into a hole by admitting that some people who take drugs might not be aware of what the effects are.

[nil]

Inhalants are unhealthy to abuse, and legal. Actually, you know what? For a lot of those products, inhaling them isn't legal; for a lot of those, there are specific labels stating that it's illegal to use them for purposes other than what's intended, or something similarly vague.

At any rate, I was saying: Inhalant abuse is bad. The inhalants mentioned are not intended to be used for that in the first place, are not regulated to be safe for that purpose, and in some cases using them for that purpose isn't even legal, so it's not fair to use them as an example of a "legal drug". Inhalant abuse is just an unintended consequence of those products existing; it is not the purpose of their manufacture, nor are they addictive in the manner of most "harder" drugs. It simply isn't a good comparison to make.

I don't see how the intended use of the manufacturer is relevant (so long as we prohibit advertising of any newly legal drugs, which as far as I'm concerned goes without saying), and inhalants can certainly be addictive.  I simply don't see how the preposition that drugs need to be illegal or else everyone will do them can be maintained in light of the fact that a variety of these incredibly powerful and dangerous intoxicants can be found at any gas station or hardware store.  Surely you aren't saying that some label no one reads combined with a nearly impossible-to-enforce law is the decisive factor for anyone when they choose whether or not to huff paint, glue, or gasoline?

I don't think you can compare huffing glue to the problems posed by drugs like heroin, crack-cocaine, or methamphetamine. Please. It's not as if glue is regulated to be safe to inhale.

So wait, if I'm following you correctly, the fact that inhalants are legal doesn't imply that the consequences of legalizing harmful drugs would be less dire than people think because... inhalants are so much worse than other drugs?  You're gonna have to spell yourself out a little more here.

I still don't think those are fair comparisons, as a lot of those drugs are pretty qualitatively different, especially as you get into the horribly addictive stuff like opiates... which we already more-or-less know the effects of, since people get legally-regulated varieties of that pretty regularly, both for legitimate and illegitimate purposes, from doctors (and pill mills in the case of people who don't actually need them); and those are regulated for safety and efficacy and purity and all that.

At any rate, yes, I agree that if we're going to legalize anything, it would be both wiser and more practical to do it a step at a time. I personally have no problem with marijuana being made legal as long as growing operations are restricted or there are other restrictions in place to prevent it from becoming the latest corporate mass-commodity. What we had with alcohol and tobacco companies advertising to kids was bad enough, and in some ways still is.

Well, then lets stop getting sidetracked by heroin and meth and look at the drugs that occupy the middle ground.  I think psychedelics should be legal, not just for the anti-black-market reasons most drugs should be (and, to be honest, there's not a lot of crime associated with the LSD/mushrooms trade anyway), but because they offer profound, often spiritual experiences that every human being should have the opportunity to try.  I recognize there are psychological dangers, and think it would be perfectly reasonable to require a doctor's approval before being permitted to buy them.  I can even imagine some sort of requirement for a sober person to accompany the user when they "trip" to prevent those under the influence from engaging in self-harm, which has been known to happen...  but the utter lack of physical danger or damage plus the general lack of societal harm stemming from them are, for me, strong arguments against their criminalization.

I'm inclined to advocate the same thing for MDMA, but there should be more studies on long-term effects first (altho it should be noted that older studies indicating brain damage from long term use have had a lot of doubt cast on them) and there should be some accounting of the short-term overdose dangers.  On the other hand, at least it's not alcohol, and at the very least it should be made available for therapeutic use.

[G-Flex]

I don't see how the intended use of the manufacturer is relevant (so long as we prohibit advertising of any newly legal drugs, which as far as I'm concerned goes without saying), and inhalants can certainly be addictive.

Of course the intended use matters. If you're going to decide whether or not to criminalize something, you have to ask why you're criminalizing it and what other purpose it says. The possibility to misuse something shouldn't overshadow its useful properties when the two uses are completely distinct, especially when we're already warning people against doing so right on the bottle and, in some cases, criminalizing such use.

Also, I'm going to have to request a source regarding the physical addictiveness of an activity that does little but deplete oxygen to your brain.

I simply don't see how the preposition that drugs need to be illegal or else everyone will do them can be maintained in light

Good, because that's a ridiculous caricature that nobody is actually supporting.

Surely you aren't saying that some label no one reads combined with a nearly impossible-to-enforce law is the decisive factor for anyone when they choose whether or not to huff paint, glue, or gasoline?

More than that, it's the fact that it's seen as really goddamned stupid and dangerous and a misuse of the substance. There's a reason why inhalant abuse isn't actually all that popular; if something legally purchased works just as well, why buy illegal drugs and risk getting arrested for several times the price?

Well, then lets stop getting sidetracked by heroin and meth and look at the drugs that occupy the middle ground.  I think psychedelics should be legal, not just for the anti-black-market reasons most drugs should be (and, to be honest, there's not a lot of crime associated with the LSD/mushrooms trade anyway), but because they offer profound, often spiritual experiences that every human being should have the opportunity to try.  I recognize there are psychological dangers, and think it would be perfectly reasonable to require a doctor's approval before being permitted to buy them.

How would a doctor approve such a thing? How do you even assess the risk, just out of curiosity?

I can even imagine some sort of requirement for a sober person to accompany the user when they "trip" to prevent those under the influence from engaging in self-harm, which has been known to happen...  but the utter lack of physical danger or damage plus the general lack of societal harm stemming from them are, for me, strong arguments against their criminalization.

The possibility of harming yourself or the person with you constitutes a "physical danger". How high that danger is, and whether or not it's worth it, is another question.

[nil]

Of course the intended use matters. If you're going to decide whether or not to criminalize something, you have to ask why you're criminalizing it and what other purpose it says. The possibility to misuse something shouldn't overshadow its useful properties when the two uses are completely distinct, especially when we're already warning people against doing so right on the bottle and, in some cases, criminalizing such use.

I don't want to make them illegal though?  I'm just questioning the necessity of criminalization.

Also, I'm going to have to request a source regarding the physical addictiveness of an activity that does little but deplete oxygen to your brain.

Very sneaky of you to sneak in "physical" there, but if that's the standard almost none of the drugs we're talking about apply--cocaine and methamphetamine are not physically addictive either. (also: the effects of inhalants are not at all limited to oxygen deprivation)

Good, because that's a ridiculous caricature that nobody is actually supporting.

So if criminalization isn't to prevent use, what's it for?  I might have used hyperbole with "everyone" but I am confident that criminalization isn't a signifigant factor in deterring use, especially when it comes to hard drugs.

More than that, it's the fact that it's seen as really goddamned stupid and dangerous and a misuse of the substance.

Exactly.  Most people are perfectly capable of choosing to not huff on their own.  If they were illegal, with a black market and all the attendant problems, and you were arguing for their continued prohibition based on how criminalization was needed to prevent inhalant abuse, you'd be wrong.

There's a reason why inhalant abuse isn't actually all that popular; if something legally purchased works just as well, why buy illegal drugs and risk getting arrested for several times the price?

I can't really parse this part, from my reading you're totally contradicting yourself..?

How would a doctor approve such a thing? How do you even assess the risk, just out of curiosity?

General psychological stability.

The possibility of harming yourself or the person with you constitutes a "physical danger". How high that danger is, and whether or not it's worth it, is another question.

Fair enough, pretend I said "physical health."  And I'll admit a drug that can create temporary psychosis presents a unique set of problems..  but I don't think they're insurmountable.  It's definitely not that much more dangerous than alcohol.

[G-Flex]

So if criminalization isn't to prevent use, what's it for?  I might have used hyperbole with "everyone" but I am confident that criminalization isn't a signifigant factor in deterring use, especially when it comes to hard drugs.

The hyperbole is what I was criticizing.

When it comes to hard drugs, my probably-flawed perspective is that it deters use except when socioeconomic factors create conditions overshadowing those proscriptions or deeming them irrelevant; basically the same reason why gun control might prevent your average Joe out in the suburbs from owning a gun, but doesn't work in violent inner-city areas.

To me, this is what creates much of the current black-market situation. If we would actually tackle the forces that cause people to resort to cooking/taking meth and shooting up heroin in the first place (and let's face it, many of these causes are quite visible), then, depending on your perspective, either criminalization wouldn't be necessary to begin with, or criminalization could work without resulting in so much of a black market for the product.

If they were illegal, with a black market and all the attendant problems, and you were arguing for their continued prohibition based on how criminalization was needed to prevent inhalant abuse, you'd be wrong.

I would be wrong because they serve useful purposes beyond the illicit ones, and throwing the baby out with the bathwater is a generally bad idea, and it would be completely impossible to criminalize anything that you could huff to get high. You can also discourage that kind of usage in other ways, such as by adding a bitterant, although that's kind of beside the point.

I can't really parse this part, from my reading you're totally contradicting yourself..?

In case it wasn't clear, I meant that if inhalants were really comparable to the hard drugs the country has a problem with, more people would be doing those as opposed to choosing options that could land them in jail and are sold on the black market for several times the price.

Fair enough, pretend I said "physical health."  And I'll admit a drug that can create temporary psychosis presents a unique set of problems..  but I don't think they're insurmountable.  It's definitely not that much more dangerous than alcohol.

The problem with comparing these drugs to alcohol is that alcohol serves a prominent and powerful purpose even when people aren't using it to the point where it's screwing up their psychological state enough to be comparable to a hallucinogen, and the effects are generally more predictable.

I'm not saying I'm totally against legalizing hallucinogens, but comparing things to alcohol is a little tricky since alcohol has an extremely wide range of risk depending on how it's taken and under what circumstances. To some degree, that applies to other drugs as well, but not nearly to the same degree.

[lordcooper]

Well, it seems the support petition hit the 500k mark and the target has now been raised to 750k.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It also means that they're going to deliver the first copy now. Hopefully a major news network will pick up the story.

[nil]

In case it wasn't clear, I meant that if inhalants were really comparable to the hard drugs the country has a problem with, more people would be doing those as opposed to choosing options that could land them in jail and are sold on the black market for several times the price.

Ah, I see--thanks.  But why don't you think they are comparable?  Because I'm pretty sure it's because people realize that, as bad an idea as it is do shoot heroin or smoke meth, it's still a way better idea than huffing paint, and moreover that the illegal status of the former have very little deterrent value.

The problem with comparing these drugs to alcohol is that alcohol serves a prominent and powerful purpose even when people aren't using it to the point where it's screwing up their psychological state enough to be comparable to a hallucinogen, and the effects are generally more predictable.

I'm not saying I'm totally against legalizing hallucinogens, but comparing things to alcohol is a little tricky since alcohol has an extremely wide range of risk depending on how it's taken and under what circumstances. To some degree, that applies to other drugs as well, but not nearly to the same degree.

I disagree on that last part, and especially in a hypothetical legal market where doses were standardized.  Most people can retain more control than you might think on hallucinogens, especially at regular doses... Moreover, psychedelics are more-often-than-not dosed all at once, which means you aren't making decisions as to whether or not to consume more while your judgement is compromised by intoxication like often happens with alcohol.    It's probable we'll have to agree to disagree on this one though, and I'll certainly agree that they're not comparable beyond a very generalized "danger to individuals, harm to society" sort of thing.