My concern with mainstreaming drug use is that I distrust strangers to use them responsibly, where responsibly means not affecting me in any way.
exactly. hell, people (according to the current laws) shouldn't have coke or acid etc. etc. but they still get it and on occasion manage to hurt themselves and/or others. If every tom, dick, and jane had easy access to some more potent drugs I'd hate to see the state of things.
Because the world is filled with weak willed people that don't know when to say no? Why would it be any different than alcohol? People seem to be able to judge their alcohol consumption for the most part, there are irresponsible people out there but that's going to happen. This fear that the world would go to hell because people had a choice on what to put into their body is baseless as far as I can tell. Chances are if people want to try something, they will. For the most part people do have easy access to drugs these days, and it's not the every tom dick and jane that you need to be worried about, it's the unstable ones that are getting it right now.
ehh.... there is easy access, and then there is not being able to buy gas in the morning(before having coffee) without walking up to a counter with hundreds of packs of smokes staring back at you.
Honestly, I'd say that has made it significantly harder to quit smoking. The same kind of availability probably has a lot to do with why drugs cause so much more damage in the 'getto'. or whatever. People are weak willed and if drugs were totally legal and as widely available and acceptable as smoking and drinking are, it would make it much harder for those inclined to quit to do so.
the argument was that they shouldn't be legal because they're physically addicting
hence my cigarette comment, mr. overly sensitive smoker
hurr, just pointing out that putting cigarettes in the same league as hard drugs is ridiculous, hurr
hurr, I don't smoke, hurrrrrrrr
How so? Cigarettes account for far more death than any illegal drugs. Hell, it's almost worse, since they let you stick around long enough to kill some other people too
They don't actually kill you, though. They increase your chance of developing certain medical conditions. Restrictions on cigarette use is fine by me, honestly; smoking in public should be banned. Similarly, I don't think people should be allowed to smoke around children. At the same time, price manipulation via taxation can effectively control cigarette use to make it less hazardous to everyone (the less you smoke, the better off you are) without making it illegal. Essentially, cigarettes can be used casually so there are better methods of controlling use without simply banning it.
This is in direct opposition to what we know about, say, crack.
No, they really do kill you.
At a rate of the number of people who are smokers multiplied by the the sum of differences in the rates of deaths of the people who do not smoke to those who do.
Such, if 2% of people die from lung cancer, and 4% of smokers die from lung cancer and there are 200,000k smokers that die per year, then 2% of those died from smoking.
Then you start figuring in all the other things like heart disease it gets pretty high.
Smoking roughly doubles your risk of heart disease and cancer. CDC gives about 2.4 million deaths per year in the U.S. 400k of those are directly caused by smoking. Or rather, accelerated an average of 12 years due to smoking.
Smoking roughly doubles your risk of heart disease and cancer. CDC gives about 2.4 million deaths per year in the U.S. 400k of those are directly caused by smoking. Or rather, accelerated an average of 12 years due to smoking.
But it also makes you look cool so it's a trade off.
Smoking roughly doubles your risk of heart disease and cancer. CDC gives about 2.4 million deaths per year in the U.S. 400k of those are directly caused by smoking. Or rather, accelerated an average of 12 years due to smoking.
But it also makes you look cool so it's a trade off.
You ever kiss a smoker?
That alone should make people stop smoking. You buy a pack you should have to pucker up to a 40 year old counterpart that smokes two packs a day.
Oddly, I have not found this distinct taste from people who just smoke pot.
Smoking roughly doubles your risk of heart disease and cancer. CDC gives about 2.4 million deaths per year in the U.S. 400k of those are directly caused by smoking. Or rather, accelerated an average of 12 years due to smoking.
But it also makes you look cool so it's a trade off.
You ever kiss a smoker?
That alone should make people stop smoking. You buy a pack you should have to pucker up to a 40 year old counterpart that smokes two packs a day.
Oddly, I have not found this distinct taste from people who just smoke pot.
Agreed. I've never noticed it on potheads. Although, people who were the same damn things when they smoke weed tend to have clothes that smell a very particular way (although it doesn't bother me).
Although, people who were the same damn things when they smoke weed tend to have clothes that smell a very particular way (although it doesn't bother me).
Although, people who were the same damn things when they smoke weed tend to have clothes that smell a very particular way (although it doesn't bother me).
We like the term "aromatic".
I used to smell of Febreeze. To this day when I smell it I get a little lightheaded.
Although, people who were the same damn things when they smoke weed tend to have clothes that smell a very particular way (although it doesn't bother me).
We like the term "aromatic".
I used to smell of Febreeze. To this day when I smell it I get a little lightheaded.
I went through almost an entire bottle in the two days before my landlord ame round for a propety inspection. According to my contract, I'm not even supposed to be smoking cigarettes in there.
ehh.... there is easy access, and then there is not being able to buy gas in the morning(before having coffee) without walking up to a counter with hundreds of packs of smokes staring back at you.
Honestly, I'd say that has made it significantly harder to quit smoking. The same kind of availability probably has a lot to do with why drugs cause so much more damage in the 'getto'. or whatever. People are weak willed and if drugs were totally legal and as widely available and acceptable as smoking and drinking are, it would make it much harder for those inclined to quit to do so.
Actually, there's a not unreasonable school of thought that holds it's the illegality of drugs that makes them so destructive, not their addictive properties. Since making it illegal clearly hasn't (and any objective assessment has to admit it's likely will not) stop people from using drugs, then all it's done is create a highly profitable market outside the law.
That has a two fold effect, and both are destructive. The first is the price of drugs is wildly inflated (to account for the difficultly in providing the good and counterbalance the risk of legal trouble) so the users suffer a huge economic burden well out of proportion with what they "should". I can't remember the exact numbers, but a significant fraction of violent crime and theft is directly tied to users trying to support their habit. If the price of drugs was lower by orders of magnitude, then the motivation for a large chunk of crime in society would go away.
The second, and possibly the more criminally destructive, is the people who supply drugs already act outside the law as a day to day part of their lives and now have an immensely valuable resource to protect. The other large source of crime in high drug areas is drug dealers protecting lucrative territories. There's a clear connection between a group providing a illegal substance and the crime rate in that area (think prohibition and gangsters).
I'm honestly still amazed people look at drug laws and think they're a good idea. Beyond the idealistic libertarian principles of what I eat/drink/etc is no one's damn business, it couldn't possibly be any clearer that the entire Drug War idea is doomed to fail in every possible respect. I understand people determine societies laws and beliefs, but it's depressing to get so blatant a reminder people are stupid.
And that's not even taking into account the amount of drugs that're mixed with other cheaper, deadlier substances to further stretch the income they can supply a given dealer/supplier. Presumably, legal weed/coke/heroin/E/etc would be much purer, and not varying so much in both strength and possible additives.
The first is the price of drugs is wildly inflated (to account for the difficultly in providing the good and counterbalance the risk of legal trouble) so the users suffer a huge economic burden well out of proportion with what they "should". I can't remember the exact numbers, but a significant fraction of violent crime and theft is directly tied to users trying to support their habit. If the price of drugs was lower by orders of magnitude, then the motivation for a large chunk of crime in society would go away.
Although, on the plus side, there's no inflation on pot. In fact solid prices have actually dropped, mainly due to there being more green around.
A third problem is that a lot of the drug trade works on credit and the threat of violence is often the only thing that makes people pay their bills. Legalisation and regulation would allow sellers a legal recourse to collect their money from bad debtors.
Pot prices are still inflated since it's a bloody weed that will grow jsut about anywhere.
But it's not year-on-year inflation - an eighth of weed costs me the same now as it did ten years ago - and the really good stuff does require some outlay on lighting and fertiliser etc.
Pot prices are still inflated since it's a bloody weed that will grow jsut about anywhere.
But it's not year-on-year inflation - an eighth of weed costs me the same now as it did ten years ago - and the really good stuff does require some outlay on lighting and fertiliser etc.
But the important thing in terms of the societal downside is that the price is higher by what is likely orders of magnitude due to it's illegality. While it's good in the short term the price isn't spiking (though I'm dubious on the society ills if it was, since there aren't a lot of strung out pot junkies) in the long term society is still suffering due to the needless wasting of resources here.
Pot prices are still inflated since it's a bloody weed that will grow jsut about anywhere.
Heh, yeah. I know damn well, were it legal, I'd have some growing in a garden out back...I mean shit, why not?
I'd be planting it all over the city. In fact someone once managed to plant some in the flower boxes outside of the police station in the centre of town. God damn hilarious when they finally noticed.
Pot prices are still inflated since it's a bloody weed that will grow jsut about anywhere.
But it's not year-on-year inflation - an eighth of weed costs me the same now as it did ten years ago - and the really good stuff does require some outlay on lighting and fertiliser etc.
But the important thing in terms of the societal downside is that the price is higher by what is likely orders of magnitude due to it's illegality. While it's good in the short term the price isn't spiking (though I'm dubious on the society ills if it was, since there aren't a lot of strung out pot junkies) in the long term society is still suffering due to the needless wasting of resources here.
The wasted resources are really just tax dollars. Money that goes into the black market doesn't fall into a black hole. It will probably work it's way back into the system eventually aside from the amount that gets funnelled out of the country.
Pot prices are still inflated since it's a bloody weed that will grow jsut about anywhere.
But it's not year-on-year inflation - an eighth of weed costs me the same now as it did ten years ago - and the really good stuff does require some outlay on lighting and fertiliser etc.
But the important thing in terms of the societal downside is that the price is higher by what is likely orders of magnitude due to it's illegality. While it's good in the short term the price isn't spiking (though I'm dubious on the society ills if it was, since there aren't a lot of strung out pot junkies) in the long term society is still suffering due to the needless wasting of resources here.
Do people ever investigate the social upside? Like how it's probably a good thing that people in this nation are sedated with weed or other drugs? I know drugs help placate me and let me deal with the dumb shit in the country without causing revolution.
Pot prices are still inflated since it's a bloody weed that will grow jsut about anywhere.
But it's not year-on-year inflation - an eighth of weed costs me the same now as it did ten years ago - and the really good stuff does require some outlay on lighting and fertiliser etc.
But the important thing in terms of the societal downside is that the price is higher by what is likely orders of magnitude due to it's illegality. While it's good in the short term the price isn't spiking (though I'm dubious on the society ills if it was, since there aren't a lot of strung out pot junkies) in the long term society is still suffering due to the needless wasting of resources here.
Do people ever investigate the social upside? Like how it's probably a good thing that people in this nation are sedated with weed or other drugs? I know drugs help placate me and let me deal with the dumb shit in the country without causing revolution.
I'm not sure about stifling revolutions, but I can't imagine it's great for society when a good portion are being told that something they enjoy doing is wrong and illegal and bad, and if we catch you, we'll ruin your life.
Pot prices are still inflated since it's a bloody weed that will grow jsut about anywhere.
But it's not year-on-year inflation - an eighth of weed costs me the same now as it did ten years ago - and the really good stuff does require some outlay on lighting and fertiliser etc.
But the important thing in terms of the societal downside is that the price is higher by what is likely orders of magnitude due to it's illegality. While it's good in the short term the price isn't spiking (though I'm dubious on the society ills if it was, since there aren't a lot of strung out pot junkies) in the long term society is still suffering due to the needless wasting of resources here.
The wasted resources are really just tax dollars. Money that goes into the black market doesn't fall into a black hole. It will probably work it's way back into the system eventually aside from the amount that gets funnelled out of the country.
From an economics point of view, all the money over what the price should be if it wasn't for government enforced scarcity and risk is wasted. People are pouring money into a section of the market needlessly (as in not in actual relationship to the value of the goods or their non-interfered with scarcity), and that means they have less resources to devote to other aspects of their lives.
It's certainly non-optimal, and considering the size of the distortion I don't think it's unreasonable to call it downright catastrophic.
Do people ever investigate the social upside? Like how it's probably a good thing that people in this nation are sedated with weed or other drugs? I know drugs help placate me and let me deal with the dumb shit in the country without causing revolution.
I'm not sure about stifling revolutions, but I can't imagine it's great for society when a good portion are being told that something they enjoy doing is wrong and illegal and bad, and if we catch you, we'll ruin your life.
That ties into the whole sociological/political downside, which is that once there are laws people regard as against their desires/interests/common sense and which they can flout with relative impunity the social contract is deteriorated. Why should they follow other laws when law X is so clearly wrong and they ignore it without any downside, and so on.
Do people ever investigate the social upside? Like how it's probably a good thing that people in this nation are sedated with weed or other drugs? I know drugs help placate me and let me deal with the dumb shit in the country without causing revolution.
It's still a taboo to suggest that drug use may be a good thing. Saying something along the lines of, "Moderate use of mind-altering drugs makes life fuller and more enjoyable and also enriches your personal growth," even though it's a perfectly reasonable statement, makes you sound like a druggie or a hippie.
No, we can't suggest that using mind-altering drugs might be beneficial. At best, we're supposed to pretend that it's a marginally socially acceptable distraction at best; a form of amusement that we don't really like all that much (unless the drug in question is alcohol or maaaaaybe caffeine) and can take or leave... despite it being a fundamental element of almost every culture and a defining element of an uncountable number of religions since the beginning of recorded history.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
They don't actually kill you, though. They increase your chance of developing certain medical conditions.
And these medical conditions kill you.
By your argument, nothing can kill you, because they only create conditions that kill you. Getting in a car crash that splits your Aorta didn't kill you, it created a condition that killed you.
They don't actually kill you, though. They increase your chance of developing certain medical conditions.
And these medical conditions kill you.
By your argument, nothing can kill you, because they only create conditions that kill you. Getting in a car crash that splits your Aorta didn't kill you, it created a condition that killed you.
I think he meant that it won't kill you immediately.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
edited July 2007
Marijuana should be available in the same way as alcohol.
LSD and Psilocybin mushrooms should be available by prescription. That way, a trained doctor can explain the drug and give advice as far as do's and don't's, as well as assess the user's mental state, history of psychosis, etc. that could carry a risk.
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned Meth in the addiction debate. According to some shit I saw on TV, smoking meth releases an amount of dopamine in the brain that makes an orgasm look like a pleasant sneeze.
Marijuana should be available in the same way as alcohol.
LSD and Psilocybin mushrooms should be available by prescription. That way, a trained doctor can explain the drug and give advice as far as do's and don't's, as well as assess the user's mental state, history of psychosis, etc. that could carry a risk.
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned Meth in the addiction debate. According to some shit I saw on TV, smoking meth releases an amount of dopamine in the brain that makes an orgasm look like a pleasant sneeze.
Heh, it's thanks to erowid that I shed all the misconceptions those DARE programs gave me. I've learned more useful stuff from erowid than probably any other website I can think of.
Marijuana should be available in the same way as alcohol.
LSD and Psilocybin mushrooms should be available by prescription. That way, a trained doctor can explain the drug and give advice as far as do's and don't's, as well as assess the user's mental state, history of psychosis, etc. that could carry a risk.
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned Meth in the addiction debate. According to some shit I saw on TV, smoking meth releases an amount of dopamine in the brain that makes an orgasm look like a pleasant sneeze.
Taco Bell does win the franchise war according to the tome of knowledge that is Demolition Man. However, I've watched Demolition Man more then a few times and never once did I see WoW. In conclusion Taco Bell has more lasting power then WoW.
Marijuana should be available in the same way as alcohol.
LSD and Psilocybin mushrooms should be available by prescription. That way, a trained doctor can explain the drug and give advice as far as do's and don't's, as well as assess the user's mental state, history of psychosis, etc. that could carry a risk.
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned Meth in the addiction debate. According to some shit I saw on TV, smoking meth releases an amount of dopamine in the brain that makes an orgasm look like a pleasant sneeze.
I'm curious as to how one would get prescribed psychedelics from a Doctor.
I guess he's suggesting it be like non-OTC birth control. As in, it's an entirely patient-driven choice, but the doctor is still there to make sure you know what you're getting, ensure you understand the risks/side-effects, and make sure there's nothing about it that will clearly harm you.
edit: Not that I'd support that. I want to be able to walk into a CVS and just pick up a sheet whenever I want.
Vincent Grayson on
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
edited July 2007
Obviously not in the traditional, "Ma back hurts, I needs ma Oxycottonz" sense.
And perhaps not a traditional family doctor, maybe just give a dreadlocked hippie some medical program to complete before he can legally vend the stuff in a professional setting. The idea is to make sure the user is educated, because 99% of the risk associated with hallucinogens is in people doing things like, eating a quarter of mushrooms and going to the amusement park.
Obviously not in the traditional, "Ma back hurts, I needs ma Oxycottonz" sense.
And perhaps not a traditional family doctor, maybe just give a dreadlocked hippie some medical program to complete before he can legally vend the stuff in a professional setting. The idea is to make sure the user is educated, because 99% of the risk associated with hallucinogens is in people doing things like, eating a quarter of mushrooms and going to the amusement park.
Man, that always struck me as something that'd be fucking awesome. What's the problem with an amusement park on shrooms?
Physicians are not the right people to do that, if anybody is. Part of their job is to dissuade recreational drug use, and there would be a lot of liability for discussing the risks of psychedelic drug use in a professional capacity.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Physicians are not the right people to do that, if anybody is. Part of their job is to dissuade recreational drug use, and there would be a lot of liability for discussing the risks of psychedelic drug use in a professional capacity.
Why? How is educating someone on the reality of a drugs effects (both good and bad) creating a liability issue?
Physicians are not the right people to do that, if anybody is. Part of their job is to dissuade recreational drug use, and there would be a lot of liability for discussing the risks of psychedelic drug use in a professional capacity.
Even when the persciption drugs they'll give you without even talking about side effects are more dangerous?
This is a part of the prpble here. Legal presciption drugs are much more prone to abuse these days than illegal drugs. Nobody shoots up herion anymore they get a Viciodin persciption. Presciption drug abuse is more socially acceptable but lots of the drugs are pretty much the same thing(albiet safer due to more controlled dosages) as street drugs.
Obviously not in the traditional, "Ma back hurts, I needs ma Oxycottonz" sense.
And perhaps not a traditional family doctor, maybe just give a dreadlocked hippie some medical program to complete before he can legally vend the stuff in a professional setting. The idea is to make sure the user is educated, because 99% of the risk associated with hallucinogens is in people doing things like, eating a quarter of mushrooms and going to the amusement park.
Man, that always struck me as something that'd be fucking awesome. What's the problem with an amusement park on shrooms?
There are people who aren't on shrooms who will approach you the wrong way.
Obviously not in the traditional, "Ma back hurts, I needs ma Oxycottonz" sense.
And perhaps not a traditional family doctor, maybe just give a dreadlocked hippie some medical program to complete before he can legally vend the stuff in a professional setting. The idea is to make sure the user is educated, because 99% of the risk associated with hallucinogens is in people doing things like, eating a quarter of mushrooms and going to the amusement park.
Man, that always struck me as something that'd be fucking awesome. What's the problem with an amusement park on shrooms?
There are people who aren't on shrooms who will approach you the wrong way.
I suppose it depends on the person. Granted, I don't much care for large social situations when shrooming, but I don't "freak out".
Shit, if I can handle sitting in emergency room while I'm peaking, I think I can handle an amusement park.
So you want to make psychedelics more like the purchase of alcohol, Vincent?
I think my qualm with making substances like that extremely easy to acquire is the amount of irresponsible use of the substance. I mean we already have a world of irresponsible alcohol users, a world of irresponsible shroom users just makes me nervous.
Taco Bell does win the franchise war according to the tome of knowledge that is Demolition Man. However, I've watched Demolition Man more then a few times and never once did I see WoW. In conclusion Taco Bell has more lasting power then WoW.
Physicians are not the right people to do that, if anybody is. Part of their job is to dissuade recreational drug use, and there would be a lot of liability for discussing the risks of psychedelic drug use in a professional capacity.
Why? How is educating someone on the reality of a drugs effects (both good and bad) creating a liability issue?
Because psychedelics are, by nature, very unpredictable. Personally, I consider them unpredictable but not dangerous - somebody who freaks out and injures himself or somebody else on LSD/shrooms is still responsible for his own actions IMO - but I don't think the courts would see it my way.
Even when the persciption drugs they'll give you without even talking about side effects are more dangerous?
The idea is a prescription drug is being used to treat a disease, therefore the risk of not taking it is believed to be greater than the risk of taking it. The risk of not taking a psychedelic is, from a medical perspective, zero - so the only "right" answer for a doctor to the question, "How do I safely take a psychedelic" is "You shouldn't take psychedelics." If the discussion of the risk and ways to mitigate the risk happen in an informal, private capacity, that's one thing... nobody's going to get sued for that. If that doctor gives his permission or a recommendation to take that drug, then the doctor is partially responsible for what happens to that patient.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Posts
Because the world is filled with weak willed people that don't know when to say no? Why would it be any different than alcohol? People seem to be able to judge their alcohol consumption for the most part, there are irresponsible people out there but that's going to happen. This fear that the world would go to hell because people had a choice on what to put into their body is baseless as far as I can tell. Chances are if people want to try something, they will. For the most part people do have easy access to drugs these days, and it's not the every tom dick and jane that you need to be worried about, it's the unstable ones that are getting it right now.
Honestly, I'd say that has made it significantly harder to quit smoking. The same kind of availability probably has a lot to do with why drugs cause so much more damage in the 'getto'. or whatever. People are weak willed and if drugs were totally legal and as widely available and acceptable as smoking and drinking are, it would make it much harder for those inclined to quit to do so.
No, they really do kill you.
At a rate of the number of people who are smokers multiplied by the the sum of differences in the rates of deaths of the people who do not smoke to those who do.
Such, if 2% of people die from lung cancer, and 4% of smokers die from lung cancer and there are 200,000k smokers that die per year, then 2% of those died from smoking.
Then you start figuring in all the other things like heart disease it gets pretty high.
linky
Smoking roughly doubles your risk of heart disease and cancer. CDC gives about 2.4 million deaths per year in the U.S. 400k of those are directly caused by smoking. Or rather, accelerated an average of 12 years due to smoking.
But it also makes you look cool so it's a trade off.
You ever kiss a smoker?
That alone should make people stop smoking. You buy a pack you should have to pucker up to a 40 year old counterpart that smokes two packs a day.
Oddly, I have not found this distinct taste from people who just smoke pot.
Agreed. I've never noticed it on potheads. Although, people who were the same damn things when they smoke weed tend to have clothes that smell a very particular way (although it doesn't bother me).
We like the term "aromatic".
I used to smell of Febreeze. To this day when I smell it I get a little lightheaded.
I went through almost an entire bottle in the two days before my landlord ame round for a propety inspection. According to my contract, I'm not even supposed to be smoking cigarettes in there.
Actually, there's a not unreasonable school of thought that holds it's the illegality of drugs that makes them so destructive, not their addictive properties. Since making it illegal clearly hasn't (and any objective assessment has to admit it's likely will not) stop people from using drugs, then all it's done is create a highly profitable market outside the law.
That has a two fold effect, and both are destructive. The first is the price of drugs is wildly inflated (to account for the difficultly in providing the good and counterbalance the risk of legal trouble) so the users suffer a huge economic burden well out of proportion with what they "should". I can't remember the exact numbers, but a significant fraction of violent crime and theft is directly tied to users trying to support their habit. If the price of drugs was lower by orders of magnitude, then the motivation for a large chunk of crime in society would go away.
The second, and possibly the more criminally destructive, is the people who supply drugs already act outside the law as a day to day part of their lives and now have an immensely valuable resource to protect. The other large source of crime in high drug areas is drug dealers protecting lucrative territories. There's a clear connection between a group providing a illegal substance and the crime rate in that area (think prohibition and gangsters).
I'm honestly still amazed people look at drug laws and think they're a good idea. Beyond the idealistic libertarian principles of what I eat/drink/etc is no one's damn business, it couldn't possibly be any clearer that the entire Drug War idea is doomed to fail in every possible respect. I understand people determine societies laws and beliefs, but it's depressing to get so blatant a reminder people are stupid.
Although, on the plus side, there's no inflation on pot. In fact solid prices have actually dropped, mainly due to there being more green around.
A third problem is that a lot of the drug trade works on credit and the threat of violence is often the only thing that makes people pay their bills. Legalisation and regulation would allow sellers a legal recourse to collect their money from bad debtors.
But it's not year-on-year inflation - an eighth of weed costs me the same now as it did ten years ago - and the really good stuff does require some outlay on lighting and fertiliser etc.
But the important thing in terms of the societal downside is that the price is higher by what is likely orders of magnitude due to it's illegality. While it's good in the short term the price isn't spiking (though I'm dubious on the society ills if it was, since there aren't a lot of strung out pot junkies) in the long term society is still suffering due to the needless wasting of resources here.
Heh, yeah. I know damn well, were it legal, I'd have some growing in a garden out back...I mean shit, why not?
I'd be planting it all over the city. In fact someone once managed to plant some in the flower boxes outside of the police station in the centre of town. God damn hilarious when they finally noticed.
The wasted resources are really just tax dollars. Money that goes into the black market doesn't fall into a black hole. It will probably work it's way back into the system eventually aside from the amount that gets funnelled out of the country.
Do people ever investigate the social upside? Like how it's probably a good thing that people in this nation are sedated with weed or other drugs? I know drugs help placate me and let me deal with the dumb shit in the country without causing revolution.
I'm not sure about stifling revolutions, but I can't imagine it's great for society when a good portion are being told that something they enjoy doing is wrong and illegal and bad, and if we catch you, we'll ruin your life.
DEA Chief Thomas Constantine, July 1, 1998
From an economics point of view, all the money over what the price should be if it wasn't for government enforced scarcity and risk is wasted. People are pouring money into a section of the market needlessly (as in not in actual relationship to the value of the goods or their non-interfered with scarcity), and that means they have less resources to devote to other aspects of their lives.
It's certainly non-optimal, and considering the size of the distortion I don't think it's unreasonable to call it downright catastrophic.
That ties into the whole sociological/political downside, which is that once there are laws people regard as against their desires/interests/common sense and which they can flout with relative impunity the social contract is deteriorated. Why should they follow other laws when law X is so clearly wrong and they ignore it without any downside, and so on.
It's still a taboo to suggest that drug use may be a good thing. Saying something along the lines of, "Moderate use of mind-altering drugs makes life fuller and more enjoyable and also enriches your personal growth," even though it's a perfectly reasonable statement, makes you sound like a druggie or a hippie.
No, we can't suggest that using mind-altering drugs might be beneficial. At best, we're supposed to pretend that it's a marginally socially acceptable distraction at best; a form of amusement that we don't really like all that much (unless the drug in question is alcohol or maaaaaybe caffeine) and can take or leave... despite it being a fundamental element of almost every culture and a defining element of an uncountable number of religions since the beginning of recorded history.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
By your argument, nothing can kill you, because they only create conditions that kill you. Getting in a car crash that splits your Aorta didn't kill you, it created a condition that killed you.
I think he meant that it won't kill you immediately.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
LSD and Psilocybin mushrooms should be available by prescription. That way, a trained doctor can explain the drug and give advice as far as do's and don't's, as well as assess the user's mental state, history of psychosis, etc. that could carry a risk.
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned Meth in the addiction debate. According to some shit I saw on TV, smoking meth releases an amount of dopamine in the brain that makes an orgasm look like a pleasant sneeze.
Also, www.erowid.org is THE online drug reference.
Heh, it's thanks to erowid that I shed all the misconceptions those DARE programs gave me. I've learned more useful stuff from erowid than probably any other website I can think of.
I'm curious as to how one would get prescribed psychedelics from a Doctor.
I guess he's suggesting it be like non-OTC birth control. As in, it's an entirely patient-driven choice, but the doctor is still there to make sure you know what you're getting, ensure you understand the risks/side-effects, and make sure there's nothing about it that will clearly harm you.
edit: Not that I'd support that. I want to be able to walk into a CVS and just pick up a sheet whenever I want.
And perhaps not a traditional family doctor, maybe just give a dreadlocked hippie some medical program to complete before he can legally vend the stuff in a professional setting. The idea is to make sure the user is educated, because 99% of the risk associated with hallucinogens is in people doing things like, eating a quarter of mushrooms and going to the amusement park.
Man, that always struck me as something that'd be fucking awesome. What's the problem with an amusement park on shrooms?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Why? How is educating someone on the reality of a drugs effects (both good and bad) creating a liability issue?
Even when the persciption drugs they'll give you without even talking about side effects are more dangerous?
This is a part of the prpble here. Legal presciption drugs are much more prone to abuse these days than illegal drugs. Nobody shoots up herion anymore they get a Viciodin persciption. Presciption drug abuse is more socially acceptable but lots of the drugs are pretty much the same thing(albiet safer due to more controlled dosages) as street drugs.
There are people who aren't on shrooms who will approach you the wrong way.
I suppose it depends on the person. Granted, I don't much care for large social situations when shrooming, but I don't "freak out".
Shit, if I can handle sitting in emergency room while I'm peaking, I think I can handle an amusement park.
I think my qualm with making substances like that extremely easy to acquire is the amount of irresponsible use of the substance. I mean we already have a world of irresponsible alcohol users, a world of irresponsible shroom users just makes me nervous.
Edit: Clarity
Because psychedelics are, by nature, very unpredictable. Personally, I consider them unpredictable but not dangerous - somebody who freaks out and injures himself or somebody else on LSD/shrooms is still responsible for his own actions IMO - but I don't think the courts would see it my way.
The idea is a prescription drug is being used to treat a disease, therefore the risk of not taking it is believed to be greater than the risk of taking it. The risk of not taking a psychedelic is, from a medical perspective, zero - so the only "right" answer for a doctor to the question, "How do I safely take a psychedelic" is "You shouldn't take psychedelics." If the discussion of the risk and ways to mitigate the risk happen in an informal, private capacity, that's one thing... nobody's going to get sued for that. If that doctor gives his permission or a recommendation to take that drug, then the doctor is partially responsible for what happens to that patient.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.