[llamataboot]

It is very successful in incarcerating a ton of people and providing lots of money for people involved in it. It's worse than useless (like negative net effect) in terms of protecting society and individuals from the harms of drug abuse.

[rhizome]

It's a national make-work program that builds broken lives.

[sfrailsdev]

Hey don't forget super cheap labor in the form of prisoners

[a3n]

Coincidentally, there's a measure on the Colorado ballot this year (I voted for it), that removes a state constitutional exception to allow slavery for punishment of convicted criminals.

Slavery, in the Colorado and many other state constitutions, is explicitly forbidden. Colorado, at least, allows an exception for convicted criminals.

I can't believe it's 2016 and I find myself having to say "yup, slavery is bad, let's not do that."

[JoeAltmaier]

Convicts have most of their rights abrogated. Its essentially slavery however you label it? Just like killing folks for high crimes is not 'murder', imprisoning folks and making them work for their keep is not 'slavery'.

[rhizome]

Killing people for high crimes is not murder, but it is listed as homicide on their death certificate.

I'm not sure of the distinction you're making, but you may be confused about categories of slavery, of which chattel slavery (what the US had until 1865) is only one. You may be thinking of indentured servitude, but even that doesn't map precisely to prison labor.

[dragonwriter]

Yes, it is slavery, which is why in order to not prohibit it, the 13th Amendment include an express exception for criminal punishment when otherwise abolishing slavery.

[a3n]

Here's 100 jobs in this building. It's 100 jobs that have to be done, that people will pay for the result. They aren't great jobs, say maybe $13/hour, but they're jobs.

Except no, we're not going to let 100 people have those $13/hour jobs. Instead, we're going to have 100 prisoners do those jobs for free, or next to nothing.

Sorry prisoner slaves. Sorry free citizens.

EDIT: And oh, we also have to pay guards to watch them do those jobs. So not free labor, not really.

[pizza]

13th amendment - indentured servitude and slavery permitted

[dgudkov]

It's hard to protect individuals from something that they're actively looking for. How can you fight drugs if there are so many people willing to buy them?

[xtian]

Start asking why so many people want to alter their subjective realities. If what you find extends beyond mere curiosity, then address those things.

[jamestnz]

> Start asking why so many people want to alter their subjective realities

Some years ago I read an interesting book on this, called The Pursuit of Oblivion[1]. In addition to providing a fascinating look at historical drug use across different cultures, the book also makes the general argument that the human drive to alter one's consciousness is as natural and inherent as the drives for food, sex, etc.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Pursuit-Oblivion-Global-History-Narco...

[beambot]

Lots of things alter your subjective reality: reading (books, news, Reddit), watching TV and movies, imagination, travel, drugs, art, music, meditation, diversity, etc. The reasons for why people seek them out are just as varied. Not sure why chemical substances used moderately and responsibly get a bad rap...

[dpc59]

Because people who don't use substances only see the people who don't use them responsibly as "substance users". They can't tell for all the other people, so to them drug abuse is inherent to drug use.

[pizza]

Probably related to the 'sacrifice' of the basically-exiled users who had nowhere to get external help for moderating use.

[xtian]

Right and so if the reasons are benign then there's nothing to be done. Sorry if that was unclear.

[ythl]

> It's worse than useless (like negative net effect) in terms of protecting society and individuals from the harms of drug abuse.

I wouldn't say that. For generally law-abiding citizens like me, the lack of availability has done wonders to protect me from drugs. At some point or another in my life, I've been tempted to experiment with the legal drugs (alcohol, tobacco, etc.). I've never been tempted to try LSD or cocaine (for example), because there is currently no legal way to obtain it and I definitely don't feel like engaging in risky activities just to try.

Making all drugs legal and accessible will definitely have a negative impact on one portion of the population (curious people like me). A certain percentage of curious but otherwise law-abiding people will destroy their lives once drugs are legalized.

[Broken_Hippo]

> Making all drugs legal and accessible will definitely have a negative impact on one portion of the population (curious people like me).

You aren't the same sort of curios. I'm the sort that goes to Amsterdam as a vacation spot. I tried out things when I was younger. Drug education? Mine was in the 80's and 90's. I figured it was a bit ... overblown. The only addictions I've truly had were to nicotine and caffeine, both of which I have today. Completely legal too.

The thing is that it was possible for me to combine the anti-drug propaganda, tone it down some, and balance it with what I saw around me. I asked folks questions about stuff. We can educate, control strength and purity, and invest in treatment programs. We can educate on safety like say we do with alcohol. We can invest in much improved public transportation. And so on.

> A certain percentage of curious but otherwise law-abiding people will destroy their lives once drugs are legalized

I actually think the small percentage whose lives get ruined due to drugs will be smaller than the percentage of lives that are ruined and uprooted due to the war on drugs. Folks have lost houses and their children for pot - or lsd, even if they are as responsible as you can be with kids (relative babysitting for example, or they are at their mom/dad's house). Many have went to jail or prison and this is pretty common.

Most folks don't get addicted to drugs - a few have higher addiction rates, and I think we can minimize that with proper education and investment.

[MaysonL]

Interesting side note: anesthesiology has the highest substance abuse rate of any medical specialty: over 25% will experience abuse at some point in their career.

from http://www.vice.com/read/the-first-fentanyl-addict

"Roughly 10 to 14 per cent of all physicians will be substance-dependent over their lifetime, and the incidence in anesthesia providers is 2.5 times higher than other physicians, according to a five-year outcome study from 16 physician health programs in the US."

[Broken_Hippo]

I have read that before and I still find it intriguing. I know the rates are high with nursing as well.

I often think it has something to do with the work or work environment when there are such trends, and start working to figure out why or if anything relieves it.

[gonehome]

I'd suspect in the case of anesthesia it's just a matter of having easy repeat access to opiates.

[Broken_Hippo]

That would help to keep addiction going, sure - and it is much the same as a nurse getting addicted to opiates (albeit in a different form).

But I'd expect the trend to trickle down to pharmacists and pharmacy techs, who handle the drugs quite often. It does happen, but I don't know if it happens as much as physicians.

The main curiosity to me is what leads these professions to develop a substance abuse problem in the first place? It isn't just opiates: If I remember correctly, nurses have a high rate of alcoholism. I nearly always have access to alcohol, and I don't drink regularly. Access in itself isn't nearly enough to cause addition or even use.

[chimeracoder]

> At some point or another in my life, I've been tempted to experiment with the legal drugs (alcohol, tobacco, etc.). I've never been tempted to try LSD or cocaine (for example), because there is currently no legal way to obtain it and I definitely don't feel like engaging in risky activities just to try.

There are a lot of assumptions in there - the biggest one is that, in a legal market, drugs which are currently illegal today would still be more dangerous than drugs which already are legal. That's a big assumption, and there's plenty of evidence to suggest the opposite. For example, the success of diacetylmorphine maintenance strongly suggests that it is just as possible to be a regular user of heroin as it is to be a person who drinks regularly in the evenings but otherwise lives a 'normal' life.

On that note, we dramatically overestimate the danger of drugs like cocaine and dramatically underestimate the danger of drugs like alcohol and caffeine. Alcohol, incidentally, is one of the only drugs for which the withdrawal can literally be fatal[0]. (By contrast, while heroin withdrawal can cause dehydration and other problems, as long as those are treated correctly, the direct effects of the withdrawal are non-fatal)[1].

[0] Benzodiazepines can also cause the same effect.

[1] This does not mean that heroin detoxification is easy or should be taken lightly. Lots of things can still go wrong, and it's one of the reason why detox programs exist. But partly due to the legal status of heroin, we ascribe these to the 'danger' of heroin as a drug, all the while ignoring that alcohol detoxification shares all of these same challenges and many more.

[thrownblown]

methadone gets you just as high as heroin. the only difference is that its made by in a lab pharmaceuticals companies and controlled by the government. and methadone withdrawal is fatal too.

this recent John Oliver piece on opiods holds a lot of truth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pdPrQFjo2o

Benzodiazepines are far more addictive than opioids, and while their abuse has declined a bit, a lot of people still abuse xanax and klonopin, and before that valium. that' a lot of doctors directly and indirectly enabling all those addicts.

why hasn't the war on drugs taken on the opioid and benzo manufacturers? it makes me wonder why pharmaceutical companies and their executives aren't locked up like the drug kingpins they are?

[mveety]

Methadone withdrawal isn't fatal. No opioid has fatal withdrawal symptoms. Anyone that tells you that doesn't know what they're talking about or is actively lying to you. And frankly, it's a lot better that people use pharmaceuticals recreationally. They're of known purity and strength, which makes overdoses less likely, and for opioids, protects the user from long term effects. Most opioids are safe to use basically indefinitely and have few, if any, long term detrimental effects for your average person.

You can't make the claim that drug A is more or less addictive that drug B. Addiction has little to do with the substance used as far as is known and there is no way to measure addictiveness objectively.

Also, methadone is used because it's legal, politically safe, and has a long half-life. The long half-life is useful because the person using it doesn't need to dose as frequently and it lets politicians and addiction treatment professionals pat themselves on the back because they got the patient off of heroin.

[not_kurt_godel]

> why hasn't the war on drugs taken on the opioid and benzo manufacturers?

Probably because it has little to do with what would actually be good for society, and more to do with filling the pockets of people who maliciously abuse moral rhetoric to their own advantage.

[pstuart]

Or maybe you'd try LSD in the right setting and frame of mind and have your consciousness expanded.

Your argument is offensive. If you need to be protected from your lack of self control then to make the rest of the world suffer is depraved.

[ythl]

> Your argument is offensive.

My argument is not offensive, you simply chose to be offended.

> If you need to be protected from your lack of self control then to make the rest of the world suffer is depraved.

Yeah, let's get rid of all the guard rails on mountain roads too. Some of us like the adrenaline of getting near the edge and if you need to be protected from your lack of self control, too bad. My desire to ride the edge should trump your desire for guard rails... right?

[losteric]

No, your argument is pretty offensive.

The difference between your example and drug policy, is that guard rails are there to prevent accidents. Same with laws on speeding (protects others from speeders). American drug policy doesn't prevent accidents, it restricts individual freedoms under the guise of protecting society.

My family has serious problems with alcoholism. As a result, I don't drink because it would be a very risky personal choice. Statistically I'd probably be dead before retirement. However, I don't have a problem with weed or LSD. They're fun and I know how to use them safely, so I do.

Why do we have guardrails for LSD? Works fine for me! Why do we have national guardrails for weed? It's legal in my state and works fine for me! And why in the world is alcohol legal? This is a toxic substance, it's seriously risky for me, and putting it out in the open could lead to bad decisions on my part. We should ban it!

No. We shouldn't ban alcohol. Nor weed or LSD. These aren't guardrails protecting us from the cliff. These law are baby fences, presuming that some government official needs to protect us from ourselves.

[ythl]

> Why do we have guardrails for LSD? Works fine for me! Why do we have national guardrails for weed? It's legal in my state and works fine for me! And why in the world is alcohol legal? This is a toxic substance, it's seriously risky for me, and putting it out in the open could lead to bad decisions on my part. We should ban it!

Why should we have guardrails for guns? Works fine for me! It's legal in my state and I use mine responsibly! To suicide prone and mentally unstable people this is a deadly tool, it's seriously risky them. We should ban it!

Your and my ideas of individual freedoms are different. You (probably, based on your political leanings) believe that guns are bad and should be banned. You believe that particular freedom should be taken from individuals (but retained by governments). You believe that drugs are good and should not be banned. And the faulty logic you use is... "people should be able to harm themselves and that's why drugs should be legal. Guns harm others therefore they should be illegal." The elephant in the room, of course, is the death and damage caused accidentally to others by people under the influence of drugs.

[losteric]

You're just attacking straw-men. We don't ban all guns for everyone because some people are mentally ill. We add regulations to keep them out of unsafe hands. I am mentally sound, I can go buy a gun and the law will not/should not stop me from being unsafe and shooting my own foot.

Also, I suggest you stop stereotyping people. You're not good at it, and your argument attacks thing I never even implied. I believe in a collective-oriented society with strong individual freedoms.

Schizophrenics should not be allowed to buy a pocket pistol, but mentally sound citizens should be essentially unrestricted... no current military hardware or classified technology, the rest is fair game. Buy a tank if you want.

Same with drugs or any other policy. Blatantly addictive or destructive drugs like krokodil should not be allowed, but safe drugs like LSD/weed/mushrooms (and others) should be at least as legal as alcohol.

[meowface]

By your gun analogy, one could get a prescribed LSD dose every few weeks after passing a few tests and signing some agreements. This is not the current situation.

People in favor of universal drug legalization are all for drug control in the same sense as gun control, plus higher taxes for narcotics. But control is different from prohibition.

So, yes, drugs should have safety rails provided by the government. It's one of many public services governments should provide. But right now, that "safety rail" is an electric fence with thousands of security guards watching it.

[hrehhf]

Why do you keep bringing up guns in comparison to drugs? Millions of Americans say yes to legal gun ownership; similarly millions say yes to legal drug ownership and use. That is a consistent attitude towards personal responsibility.

[pstuart]

Apples and oranges. Drug use is a personal choice and the government has already indicated they're ok with people killing themselves with alcohol and tobacco.

I'm offended by your reasoning and lack of insight into the overall societal cost of having certain temptations kept out of your reach. This not just about getting high, it's about the crime, corruption and death that comes from this madness.

I'm guessing you are a relatively intelligent person - try thins thought experiment: Do you drink alcohol? Can you control your intake? Know anybody who does? Know anybody who is an alcoholic? Do you accept that most people who use it can enjoy it but there are some unfortunates who can't and that's just the price of the freedom to drink?

Now replace the word "alcohol" with "drugs". Because guess what? Alcohol is a drug too, except it's socially acceptable.

I'm not trying to be an asshole, but your original premise comes off as "sure, other people may be fucked by the system now, but it works pretty ok by me so I see no need to change it"

[ythl]

> Do you accept that most people who use it can enjoy it but there are some unfortunates who can't and that's just the price of the freedom to drink?

Do you accept that most people who own and use guns do so responsibly but that there are some unfortunates who can't and that's just the price of the freedom to own and use guns?

[pstuart]

I'm not pro-gun but I recognize the effective "right" to own them (not going to debate the Second Amendment with you). That said, I think there's a lot of unhealthy gun fetishization and lots of tragic deaths from irresponsible gun owners.

I believe in personal freedom up to the point where that freedom impedes on that of another. What you put in your body is your own god damn business.

One more argument in my favor: obesity is reaching epidemic levels in America and has a great societal cost. Do you think we should make junk food illegal to protect those that can't control themselves.

Every one of your arguments has been inadequate. Ignore the hurt of me calling you out and think about my point. The War on Drugs has done far more harm than good. It's bad policy and if you research it, did not have any good intentions behind it.

[jjawssd]

Do you accept that most people who own and use cars do so responsibly but that there are some unfortunates who can't and that's just the price of the freedom to own and use cars?

[givinguflac]

Your post just comes off as self-centered and ignorant to me. What world do you live in where people's lives aren't being destroyed MORE by these drug laws then using that drug legally would do? This is just a silly statement that honestly makes no sense. Portugal has legalized all drugs over a decade ago, and you know what happened? Reduction of addiction and people getting the help they need rather than dying alone from OD'ing. Do some research please, your analogy with guard rails is just ridiculous.

[funnyfacts365]

Portugal DECRIMINALIZED drug use. Stop spreading the legalization myth once and for all. Your arguments hold more weight when you know what the fuck you're talking about, and in this case you don't.

[Lawtonfogle]

Uh... you can make your own roads without guard rails. But if I grow the wrong plants on my private property the government will do some really evil things to me. But they won't touch you for not adding guard rails to your private roads.

[ythl]

> But they won't touch you for not adding guard rails to your private roads.

So I'm not liable for what happens to people on my property?

[pizza]

My god, can you at least pretend you're trying to reach a helpful common solution with those who are trying to engage in useful conversation with you..?

[andrei_says_]

Are you comparing a militarized police force killing thousands of people and ruining the lives of millions created as an organized effort to oppress people of color and dissidents to a guardrail on the edge of a canyon?

Do you truly believe that you haven't tried controlled substances because they are hard to get?

And, do you believe you are law-abiding?

[legodt]

>My argument is not offensive, you simply chose to be offended

Although not personally offended myself, it is almost never appropriate to say this to somebody hurt by an action or comment you have made. Please respect the feelings and opinions of others, even when you find it difficult or nigh impossible (such as in this case) to relate to the perspective of the hurt party.

[reddytowns]

I love this argument. If you take the drug the proper way, everyone gets high and has a good time, and it'll be a memory, you'll be convinced it's safe, and you'll treasure for a lifetime.

And see, so drugs are good, right? Only such experiences lead to more such experiences, and on and on.

Addiction doesn't stem from initial bad experiences, but exceptionally good ones. You should fear the latter many times more than the former.

[function_seven]

Parent comment was referring to LSD specifically. It’s not addictive.

[reddytowns]

Not physically.

[function_seven]

Nor psychologically.

[chillingeffect]

> protect me from drugs. > definitely have a negative impact

What would you forecast the expected effects of you trying LSD or cocaine would be?

A night of amusing delusions? Heightened spiritual awareness? A one-way ticket to pus-oozing blowjobs in bus station parking lots?

Part of the effectiveness of the Drug War has been to implant a binary perspective on the dangers of drugs: uncompromising, guaranteed, full-scale disaster. They manage to re-arrange everyday peoples' notions of cause and effect to make it seem as if the drugs are the problem leading to emotional disaster. This is a convenient scapegoat.

The real situation is the breakdown and loss of faith in the fully industrialized world is causing more people to want to escape than ever, breakdowns in family structure, financial stress, physical stress, loss of freedom and so on. These things can't be fixed easily and despite all of the drug arrests, people are continuously becoming more desperate.

[ythl]

> What would you forecast the expected effects of you trying LSD or cocaine would be?

For me? Probably not much. But who knows, maybe I'll try it the first time, nothing happens. 10 years later I fall on hard times and then I try it again to try and deal with my situation, this time become addicted, and then make my problems an order of magnitude worse.

That's how alcoholism generally works.

[chillingeffect]

But control of your body is your responsibility. I don't like being restricted in my life, because others can't control yourself. If someone takes those things in "hard times," that's not proper use and they're bring irresponsible.

In fact, you probably can control yourself (how is your record so far?), it's only a fear that you can't. I don't like being restricted in my life, because you're afraid you won't be able to control yourself.

Furthermore, the law has not eliminated drugs: If you run into hard times and seek something to self-destruct with, you can still easily find LSD or cocaine. It would just take you more effort because of the law.

So the law has put up a small barrier around you so you can get away with exercising less responsibility, making you weaker, yet your threat from the substances persists.

Meanwhile it has endangered me and millions of others in our quest for spiritual enlightenment. (I don't care about cocaine, only LSD). There are other ways to learn enlightenment of course, but in the meantime if we want LSD we run the risks of arrest in the act of purchasing, holding and consuming. We also risk poisoning because it comes from the black market. And we have to endure greater surveillance in our daily lives and at the borders. And we have to pay greater taxes for all the law enforcement and surveillance equipment.

While the benefits of millions of people attaining spiritual enlightenment are tremendous. There would be less fighting, less greed, less anxiety, more sharing, more volunteering and less fear. Having a connection to our spirit, environment and world means less waste, stress and pollution.

Imagine if 50% of the people in your life were as giving and kind and generous as your first-grade teacher. Don't let a vague fear of distant self-destruction control you. Just by posting and exchanging information on this forum, you're adding momentum to the process of cooperation on a grand scale. Don't restrict access to spiritual substances. Let the people who want to chill out, see the big picture and cooperate on a grand scale figure out how to do it.

[marcos123]

Ah, I see. According to you, the world needs laws on the books to keep dunces from harming themselves in all the different ways possible. Ythl, I don't mean to scare you, but did you know you can die from drinking too much water? And can you believe there aren't yet any laws preventing this?! Scary, right?

Source: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/CHICO-Fraternity-pledg...

[chillingeffect]

I kinda agree with you, but I think it's a bit harsh (and unpersuasive) to call him a dunce. Take a look at my post where I analyze his reaction a bit more charitably/emotionally.

It's not stupidity on his part at all, it's just fear. And it's understandable that there's fear, because look at the world we're in! Fear is generated constantly. It takes effort and a gentle intervention to snap people out of it and encourage them to grow and become responsible and let others live freely.

[marcos123]

Touché. I figured since I didn't call ythl a dunce directly that I wasn't being overly harsh, but your comment is much more eloquent than mine and has effectively reminded me that one can attract more bees with honey than with vinegar.

[mcbits]

Right now a percentage of otherwise law-abiding people have had their lives destroyed by the justice system because they got a little too curious about drugs, and still more by all the crime and conflict that's fueled by prohibition and artificially high prices. And another percentage of people overdose or ingest toxic adulterants because the purity of street drugs is unstable and unregulated.

[ythl]

> Right now a percentage of otherwise law-abiding people have had their lives destroyed by the justice system because they got a little too curious about drugs, and still more by all the crime and conflict that's fueled by prohibition and artificially high prices

That's an argument for decriminalization, not legalization.

[mcbits]

It's an argument for any policy that would reduce harm to drug users without causing additional, worse harm of its own. Decriminalization, as it's usually conceived, still sends billions of dollars flowing into underground markets and criminal subcultures.

[Johnny555]

I wouldn't say that. For generally law-abiding citizens like me, the lack of availability has done wonders to protect me from drugs. At some point or another in my life, I've been tempted to experiment with the legal drugs (alcohol, tobacco, etc.) I've never been tempted to try LSD or cocaine (for example), because there is currently no legal way to obtain it

Is the law really the only thing that keeps you away from harder drugs? Don't you think that it's your own willpower?

Like you, I'm generally law abiding, but thanks to certain friends, I have easy access to a number of illegal drugs - and it's in an relatively safe environment where my chance of getting caught is quite low.

But despite that access, the only drugs I've ever used in my life are alcohol and marijuana (well ok, I'm literally addicted to caffeine). I've never even tried cigarettes.

It's not the law that keeps me away from certain drugs, I just don't want to do them.

[loeg]

I agree in general. Criminalization keeps a substantial population from using drugs.

> people will destroy their lives once drugs are legalized

I don't think this statement is really a good summary of that, though.

The better example is prohibition. I wouldn't say most people who consume alcohol are destroying their lives, but alcohol has a moderate impact on the liver. Regular use increases liver-related disease. And during the prohibition, liver disease went down starkly.

Say we legalize everything. Even if the additional addiction is negligible, any minor to moderate health detriment spread across a larger population (due to legalization) is a big societal cost.

Anyway, I think there is still a decent argument to be made about individual freedom being worth the cost, and a decent argument to be made about a substitution effect (given how bad we already know alcohol to be, a legal drug just needs to be no worse than alcohol).

[WalterBright]

> Criminalization keeps a substantial population from using drugs.

Alcohol consumption went up during Prohibition, and went back down after it was repealed.

[loeg]

I don't believe that is true. Do you have a citation for that claim?

E.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_Stat...

> Scholars estimate that consumption dropped to a low of about 60% of pre-prohibition levels around 1925, rising to almost 80% before the law was officially repealed.[citation needed] After the prohibition was implemented, alcohol continued to be consumed. However, how much compared to pre-Prohibition levels remains unclear. Studies examining the rates of cirrhosis deaths as a proxy for alcohol consumption estimated a decrease in consumption of 10–20%.[96][97][98] However, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism's studies show clear epidemiological evidence that "overall cirrhosis mortality rates declined precipitously with the introduction of Prohibition," despite widespread flouting of the law.[99] One study reviewing city-level drunkenness arrests came to a similar result.[100] And, yet another study examining "mortality, mental health and crime statistics" found that alcohol consumption fell, at first, to approximately 30 percent of its pre-Prohibition level; but, over the next several years, increased to about 60–70 percent of its pre-prohibition level.[101]

[WalterBright]

> Do you have a citation for that claim?

From the Ken Burns PBS "Prohibition". I don't have a transcript of it, but here's a quote from PBS:

"The solution the United States had devised to address the problem of alcohol abuse had instead made the problem even worse. The statistics of the period are notoriously unreliable, but it is very clear that in many parts of the United States more people were drinking, and people were drinking more." http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition/unintended-consequen...

Alcohol related deaths in the US are currently 2.75%. They were 3.2% in 1923.

https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-co...

http://www.census.gov/popclock/

Consumption did decline initially, but then rose steadily.

"Prohibition" by Eward Behr, pg. 148

More: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html

[rwmj]

Apart from anything else it seems very naive to imagine that you have no access to (currently) illegal drugs. Your son / friend / neighbour / university pal / co-worker could probably supply you with many common substances. Asking a friend or relative isn't normally a "risky activity".

[khedoros1]

Not to agree with yhtl's general line of argument, but right now, I'm not sure that I know anyone I could ask, especially if part of the implied goal is to get it quickly. In college, I knew half a dozen people, and I'm positive that someone among my coworkers has access (and would be discreet), but I have no idea who. Not knowing who to ask is a practical equivalent of having no one that I can ask.

[beedogs]

> I've never been tempted to try LSD or cocaine (for example), because there is currently no legal way to obtain it and I definitely don't feel like engaging in risky activities just to try.

That's a real shame. LSD is incredible.

[alasdair_]

Legality aside, if you are able to post on HN right now, you're likely able to go on one of the many tor-enabled drug marketplaces and buy anything you wish with bitcoins.