If you weren’t so asininely obstinate, you could’ve actually looked at any of the science on the matter, which shows that drug decriminalisation and drug legalisation REDUCES overdose deaths, drug abuse, and all the adjacent crime.

“We should rely on everyone’s self-control and nothing else.”

Ah, so you think fast food should be banned, right? It causes MASSIVE issues on the national scale, costing billions to the healthcare system. The number of people dying of obesity related disease is incredibly high and constantly rising. So… ban fast food, ban candy, ban anything that isn’t a beige, flavourless nutrition drink? (See this is how it felt like when you wrote your idiotic nuclear weapon comparison. It’s known as a strawman.)

We should rely on the methods we can use. Which methods of control are there when there’s total prohibition? Oh, right, none. And who is selling the drugs? Responsible salesmen who follow laws? No? People who don’t give a fuck about the age or addictions of the person they’re selling to? Huh?

It’s much easier to buy illegal drugs than it is to buy illegal booze. Why? Is it because illegal booze isn’t really made, because it’s vastly shittier than actually commercial products, and it might have methanol, and no-one in their right mind would ever drink such shit? Is it because the black markets have gone away when we the prohibition of alcohol was lifted? Oh they did? Wow. Was alcohol safer and were people abusing it less during the prohibition? No, they abused more and there was just so much more crime and alcohol abuse.

You do not understand that the only way to impose any sort of control to the thing that WONT GO AWAY NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU HIGHROAD ANYONE, is legalising it.

I’m not gonna write any more actual replies. Something snarky probably, because you’ll feel like responding, out of some juvenile compulsion to “get the last word”, but you just aren’t a big enough person to actually read any of the links I’ve posted, which would reiterate everything I’ve said (albeit in a nicer fashion) and you could actually learn something that would stop you hindering societal progress. You just won’t. So I won’t reply in good faith any more either. Goddamn I’m tired of people like you. Like seriously. If you can’t question a stance you have, then that stance can’t really be that strong, can it? Any stance I hold, I can defend. I can’t say the same for you. Well, you pretend to. You keep repeating these bullshit drug war slogans (in your own words, though), not realising just how counterproductive it is if you actually cared about helping people with substance abuse issues.

I really had faith in you man. Why couldn’t you just accept that you might be wrong, and that the things you claim to strive for are actually accomplished by the things I propose. You do not need to take my word for it. That’s why I left all the links.

But no… you have to be the dime in a dozen pseudointellectual. You don’t understand that decriminalisation and legalisation REDUCE ABUSE, which is what is what is dangerous about drugs. Responsible use is not really risky, as long as it truly is responsible. You don’t understand that the VAST MAJORITY of users of illegal drugs are more or less responsible users. You never see them, because they don’t admit to it, because of the social implications.

ALL the science shows that drug abuse, overdose deaths, dependence rates and usage rates for the worst substances go down with decriminalisation and legalisation. This isn’t debatable. It’s a verifiable fact.

Alcohol is incredibly destructive, and on a wider scale, because it’s legal and available

Oh because it’s legal and available? You dumb mf, it’s MUCH more destructive and available when it’s illegal. Legalising and regulating drugs would make it HARDER to get them, not EASIER. In any prison pretty much anywhere in the world, there are drug markets. They’re incredibly expensive, but the one place where you’re supposed to not be able to get drugs is probably literally the easiest. You simply do not understand the subject. I had (past tense) the faith that you would take the reasonable position once you inform yourself on the matter, but you simply refuse to even consider that you might be wrong.

You’re like an ammosexual who doesn’t understand why 5-year olds shouldn’t open carry.

You’re the person who’s advocating for 2A rights because you think the government will try to attack you and you’ll have to defend your freedums from a nuclear bunker with your handguns, because you don’t realise what the science actually says about gun control.

Gun control, just like legalising drugs, achieves the same thing. Guns need more regulation (in the US that is, our country is fine, because we have actually reasonable gun laws, while still being in the top10 for gun ownership). Drugs also need more regulation. The only way to achieve that regulation is to take control of the black market, because there’s ZERO regulation in the black market.

I could write more on exactly why you’re being utterly stupid about this, but since you didn’t respond to a single point (which literally proves your points wrong), why would I bother writing more? I had high hopes for you, but no, you had to be another childish cockwomble who can’t take a moment to actually think and that’s why YOU are indirectly (but strongly) supporting people dying to drug overdoses, destroying their lives with hard drugs, and all the cartel violence. That’s on you, for refusing to inform yourself of this GLOBAL issue.

I actually have a conscience and want to help substance abusers, so I actually read what the literature says, what experts think, what the statistics show. I know. And I support what helps with this issue, while asinine idiots like you can’t do anything but try to yell “druggie” when someone brings up the subject. How’d you miss the fact that I don’t use drugs? Oh right, because you didn’t read the comment you replied to, because you’re just on Lemmy to try to “win” debates and not actually have conversations.

Honestly, I’d absolutely do coke if it were legal, and it would almost surely fuck me up.

So you assume that because you have addictive tendencies you wouldn’t be able to control, no-one else could do that either?

I’m a pretty extroverted and confident person. I’ve done cocaine more than a dozen times. I understand that for some it’s incredibly attractive, but for me, I just don’t need the extra energy or confidence, so it doesn’t do much for me, which is why I don’t see it as being worth it.

I’ve driven a taxi for years in Finland. Most of those people were less responsible with a more debilitating substance than this one person who I visited whole in the Netherlands. A family of four my friend knew. We spent the evening with them, lovely kids. They put them to bed after a few hours. We smoked some weed with a friend, drank beer. The wife drank a glass of wine, no more, the husband none. Once the kids were put to bed, they got a bag of coke, we did a few lines, talked for a few hours, and then they went to bed before 1am and we left to continue our evening.

My point being it isn’t the substance which magically makes someone irresponsible. People with a debilitating alcohol addiction aren’t much less irritating or less dangerous than people seriously addicted to say, opiates, crack or meth. They’re usually annoying in different ways, but there’s not much more difference.

I might not do opiates, but honestly, if I had back pain or surgery and they gave me opiates, I probably would take it up after.

So again, you recognise there is a need for painkillers, they’re really important afterwards orthopedic surgery (I broke my arm last year, didn’t want to do any opiates but they’re explained why taking them for the first few days was actually beneficial), but you’d… like for there not to be prescription meds?

Or perhaps you should seek help for addiction? (It’s a psychological disorder, different from dependence to a substance. Medically different. Different diagnosis.)

Because that’s how a LOT of people take up drugs.

A lot of people in the US got dependent on opiates because of the massive overprescribing by doctors. The whole Sackler thing? https://www.congress.gov/event/116th-congress/house-event/LC65831/text

They basically abused the prohibition and the legal systems to push one of the most dependence causing substances while actively lying about it being dependence causing.

These are the exact type of issues legalising and being able to regulate would help with. Check this system : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bratt_System

That instead of doctors pushing Oxy prescriptions of several weeks for light sprains, and youre much better off.

Drugs aren’t good, you just like them

I don’t. I hate drug abuse, which is why I’m so passionately advocating for the only fucking thing that would help with it. I don’t do “harder” substances. I don’t really or have ever really liked getting drunk. I like to get a bit lubricated, but I hate drinking so much as most people do. (I’m Finnish, we have a heavyweight drinking culture.) I had several friends abuse alcohol as young people, but got over it never really went that bad. I’d say the only reason they “recovered”, and never went overboard in the first places is that alcohol is heavily regulated. If it weren’t, I’d say several of them would have drunk themselves to death several times over with shitty moonshine.

Some other friends on the other hand, developed amphetamine or other substance abuse issues. And despite trying our damndest to intervene, even calling their parents and trying to talk about it, there was nothing we could do. Calling the cops on them would have been counterproductive.

I advocate for a system that would be able to help those, and afford responsible users the freedom to not be ostracised for choosing to get slightly inebriated with something else than alcohol.

I only smoke weed, occasionally have a drink (up to like four), but it’s been years since I did anything else. I did experiment with lots of substance. Never shot up anything. Opiates only in the hospital, but I know the effects. My favourite ones are definitely mild psychedelics, ecstasy and laughing gas. All very harmless when compares to other substances. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/06/25/what-is-the-most-dangerous-drug

And those are all substances you can get addicted to, but, not really dependent on them. Serotonergic substances (lsd, shrooms, ecstasy) don’t really work after two days of using them. You have to have a break of several days. There are obviously people who go clubbing everywhere weekend, but if they only do ecstasy and don’t drink, they’re really aren’t that much worse for wear, unless they do like a dozen e’s. When I went to events with mostly ecstasy users, it was incredible. No-one ever fought or was mad, everyone was friends and trusting, but not like in a stupidly trusting way. Just every kind and chill and honest people for the most part. Because of the ecstasy, ofc, and that’d wear off the next day, but made some of my best friends from those gigs, and still never done “drugs” outside of those events, and a large part of the honesty and directness remained in those relationships.

So I really do think society would benefit from (young) people being able to spend their weekend dancing and actually socialising with mild and good quality MDMA (and having milder pills you would know the exact mg amount on would help a ton with that).

The evidence of MDMA and psychedelic assisted therapy is pretty amazing.

https://maps.org/mdma/

You need to understand the distinction between really easily abusable drugs from those though. Such as coke, opiates, meth, alcohol, etc.

they break assumptions evolution made, and we’re not quite ready for that yet.

They don’t actually, and I could write a several page thesis for you why it’s actually the opposite of that.

If nukes were legal, do you think everyone could be trusted with them?

Lol this is completely different; affecting yourself with some substance, something humanity has done for as long as we can imagine (there’s evidence of opium, weed, beer for thousands of years) or weapons of mass destruction which can wipe out the planet and make it I habitable for centuries? Have you ever heard of what a strawman fallacy is?

Because most people have self-control, but not all, and before you say “Drugs don’t hurt other people!”, yes, they absolutely do, you just don’t give a shit about them.

Fuck you. You pretend to care about them, but don’t, and I bet my left testicle that I’ve done a while bunch more for substance abuse issues and substance abusers than you ever will.

If you actually cared, you’d consider what I’m saying, realise I’m advocating for the things you pretend to be for, because you don’t realise your attitude has been so vastly manipulated by drug war propaganda that you haven’t bothered to educate yourself on the issue. Read some of these links I’ve left, truly, and give it at least a day for your brain to mull it over, then hopefully realise I’m earnestly fighting against the prohibition, because I realise just how much getting rid of the war on drugs would help globally.

https://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/world-leaders-call-for-legalisation-of-drugs

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3202501/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_entheogenic_drugs

https://psychedelics.berkeley.edu/resources/entheogens-a-brief-history-of-their-spiritual-use/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_TV4GuXFoA&t=717 the entirety video is good, but with that timestamp is the author of “Good Cop, Bad War” stating their position on the drug war. And he’s been fighting with the police against drugs in special agencies and finally had enough.

You could listen to his entire audiobook even.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKoNuDWsd9Y

There’s honestly zero reasons to support the prohibition except for benefitting from illegally drug markets. I’m not saying you’re completely wrong, I honestly used to think exactly like you on the matter. But then I read, and read, and read. Took up this position because it was the only one which actually makes sense. The opposition doesn’t have any arguments we can’t already show that lifting prohibition and setting up legalised regulated system wouldn’t help with.

Please. I know that’s a lot of links, and because of my attitude and the some of the insults, you don’t want to check them. But I didn’t write them. Just don’t reply to me instantly. Give a bit of a browse to them. Maybe reply tomorrow, when both of us are less wound up and you be slept after having browsed some of the info.

Please?

edit wrote this on my phone, so many ducking auto cock rekts

Wait, one of the greatest musicians of [insert country] was gay?

This is shocking.

Next thing you’ll tell me is Elton John isn’t straight.

Hey hey hey.

You’re a smart feller. I only wish I knew people like you in real life. I’ve held these opinions for more than ten years, and during that time, a whole fucking bunch of my “friends” have stripped being in contact after I’ve talked to them about my views about prohibition.

Which is ironic, because their actions (or inaction, rather) and aversion to talking about the prohibition is what is actually holding up the prohibition, which is what enables most of drug abuse. So they thought I was defending drug abuse, while it’s their position which literally supports it’s existence.

I came up with a slogan some 15 years ago.

“Legalise, educate, tax and regulate.”

Shoutout to erowid.org.

Respect

The whole argument for legalizing weed was that it would cripple the cartels

Lol no it wasn’t.

So again, we have to legalize cocaine before the cartels are weakened?

Oh definitely. All drugs, actually, I’d say.

Here’s a question for you. Is the reason you don’t shoot up opiate that they’re illegal? If you could legally get them, you’d shoot up? (And please, don’t answer with “well I wouldn’t, but like others…”)

I’m in favor of legalizing weed, but this seems a lot like it’s actually not helping.

Have you read any science about legalising, decriminalising, etc?

Because it all shows it’s worth it.

as there were ruthless organizations before drugs, too

What were these organisations before drugs were illegal?

Neither of these things will be affected by someone quitting drugs. Stop building houses and stop eating avocado now.

“The cartels won’t be affected if their major source of income gets cut off.”

Yes, sure, they’ve diversified. But those legal operations aren’t their largest sources od income, not enough to sustain their current operations if it was just the legal ones. Most of the legal ones are used to clean some of the income from drugs.

And besides, I’m pretty sure the cartels are doing this for the money. Sure, it’s not all it’s about, but I’m sure it’s the largest motivator. If drugs we’re legal and the easiest ways for the cartels to keep in business was to do it legitimately, and they were actually allowed to, they could use the legal systems to actually enforce deals and debts, so the enforcement methods they use now would be obsolete and even counterproductive to profits.

People won’t stop using drugs. Just like they didn’t stop drinking during prohibition. But we can take the trade away from the gangsters and put it in legal markets and regulate the product and business to make it safer for users.

Exactly.

All of the most common drugs have to be legalised. It’s the only way to get rid of the black markets, which can not be regulated.

Just like with alcohol, prohibition simply does not work.

The time-keeping in Central Europe is a bit different than ours here in the Nordics I see.

Either I’m so high that I’ve forgotten, or I learned something new from reading that. Thanks. TIL.

Digital in sense of how they displayed time, sure, but not digital in how they update it. Not connected.

Not online. Offline clocks, I should’ve said.

Who would think digital clocks are newer than the Internet wth

Aye you can. But I just don’t believe in a whole family pretending to live in a different time than everybody else’s for 4 months.

I do believe in lazy shits who don’t manage to change all the clocks which don’t get automatically updated, but for that person to actually put in effort to dodge the Daylight savings time? Not believable imo. You’d have to be really fucking obstinate. And you’d have to get yourself wife and children to do it as well.

Sure he does, becsuse all time-measuring devices of any sort in his house are analogue and have to be changed manually, and none them have phones which automatically corrects the time.

So in essences they have some clocks in theirs houses which are off by an hour for four months a year. They still use the time everyone else uses, because that’s how time works.