[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.

[jjawssd]

Krokodil isn't a real drug, unless you consider mixing heavy metal salts with prescription pills a new drug.

[pstuart]

And "drugs" like that would be less likely used if there was regulated access to safer alternatives.

[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.

[ythl]

> That said, I think there's a lot of unhealthy gun fetishization and lots of tragic deaths from irresponsible gun owners.

Right, but my point was that cost is worth the freedom. There's a lot of unhealthy drug fetishization and tragic deaths from irresponsible drug users too, and I think you already said the cost is worth the freedom.

> 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.

If the world worked like that, I would agree with you whole-heartedly. But in real life, drug users end up killing or otherwise abusing people around them (whether it be through DUIs, child neglect, safety mistakes, etc.). So along with drug legalization there have to be dozens of secondary laws that outline what you can and can't do under the influence, where you can and can't go, etc. And people (of course, not thinking clearly while under the influence), will break these laws anyway and end up killing people, destroying property, etc.

> Do you think we should make junk food illegal to protect those that can't control themselves.

Completely illegal? No. But I see the value in limiting accessibility to junk food, especially in schools and such, where kids are still developing self-discipline. So maybe that's where I can agree with you.

[pstuart]

You ignore the cost of the War itself. Billions of dollars. Massive corruption. Drug gangs. Abusive Policing. Crowded courts and prisons.

Legalize them. Regulate them. Treat their abuse as a health issue, not a criminal one.

When my brother overdosed on heroin, the police laughed about just another dead junkie. Yeah, I feel so much safer.

[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..?

[pstuart]

Seems to be stubbornness and naiveté rather than trolling. Clearly needs a way to go in the "learning to think" department.

[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.

[reddytowns]

Define addiction