[jupiter2]

> war on drugs has been a huge disservice to humanity in so many ways. ... All for what? Some sense of moral purity?

I was, and still remain to a great deal, very anti-drug. Unless there's a system to manage it effectively, people will abuse drugs. It will destroy their lives. Let's not downplay the impact here.

I've seen the negative effects far too often - from destruction of families to young girls prostituting themselves for their next fix to brutal crimes. It's horrific.

The actual "War on Drugs" has always been a half-hearted effort. It has served as a political talking point and a means to control/surveil the population through fear-mongering. In much the same way that terrorism is being used to increased the powers of the surveillance state.

I do agree with its' usage related to medical purposes or in any way that it can be effectively managed as a recreational activity (but I have doubts about the general population being able to manage harder drugs).

Having said this, there is great value in research. I saw the value of research for the first time when I read 'DMT: The Spirit Molecule' by Rick Strassman, M.D.[1]. It was truly an eye-opening experience for this particular (naturally occurring) drug.

It led me to read (for a while, many years ago) about other psychedelics as well as the research and personal stories related to their usage. Amazing stuff when managed correctly.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0892819278?redirect=true&p...

[Nursie]

You've fallen into several traps there. The major one is that you, like those that wage the war, always leap to the hardest and worst examples and paint broad strokes about all drugs from a few stories of the depths of addiction, usually to opiates or methamphetamine.

The second is that you look at lives destroyed by 'drugs' without looking at the lives destroyed by the war, which pushes profits to cartels, destabilises entire countries and actually harms the people it claims to help.

Ending the war on drugs doesn't mean having a free for all, it means using evidence to weigh up the best course of action. With some substances that's likely legalisation and sale to adults under license. With others it may be medical supervision.

Banning anything psychoactive is not an evidence-based action towards harm reduction.

[jupiter2]

It was you who generalized about ALL drugs. I responded to that in the same general way. Then, despite my temperate and reasonable response (open to discussion about psychedelics, not psychoactives), you proceeded to create a strawman and burn it down. This, despite the fact that, under certain circumstances, I agree about some of the benefits of legalization - as I very clearly stated.

You can go on talking to yourself and the imaginary puppet you created but I'll follow up with this:

Like the other responses I've received that seem to come from children with NO real world experience. I ask you too: have you any experience with addicts? Have you ever asked a recovering addict if he/she would ever start using (psychoactive) drugs again if they were legal?

Of course not. The safe place where you're writing from is painful to interact with. Your response is practically a copy/paste from some hot trending topic from the pages of a marijuana user.

Don't presume to know where I formed my opinion. Some of us aren't children jumping on the latest hot topic with the fervor of an ignorant SJW. Some of us have lived through decades of this. fucking. shit.

Do NOT clump all drugs together in some ignorant Shangri–la dance. Unless you've experienced the effects of drugs in your own personal life, don't diminish their effects on people you probably never interact with. I doubt you care through your pseudo-cognitive dissonance.

You state that "sale to adults" would somehow, magically make addiction a non-issue with some legislation. For the love of Spock! People can't control the food they eat but they can somehow manage addictive drugs? That has NEVER happened. The naivete you engage in is far more dangerous than laughable.

You think for a second that even the least harmful drug isn't going to get taxed through the roof - creating yet another black market. The government can't control itself. You have to have seen it with cigarettes and now sugary drinks being taxed out of reach. Are you even living in the same world as everyone else?

Discuss a solution that makes sense. Talk real research. Separate the drug types. Some can be legalized, some should never see the light of day. And for God's sake - use some critical thinking: it's one hell of a drug.

[Nursie]

I certainly didn't generalise about all drugs, I made a point about the war on drugs.

Straw man yourself.

The rest of your post is barely more than hysterics.

[MaxfordAndSons]

As a sib points out, it's unfair to attribute the destructive negative effects you're describing to the drugs themselves.

Think about it this way: the two main ways people are harmed in relation to drugs is via a) addiction, and b) the illegal drug trade. The latter only exists because of prohibition (ok, even if all drugs were legalized, there might still be an illegal trade, but imo it would likely be a b2b black market rather than street based retail, so the violence would still be significantly lowered). As for addiction, it's thornier, obviously many people are addicted to legal drugs, but the criminalization of addicts severely exacerbates many addicts problems: they don't seek medical help due to fear of legal repercussions, they're forced to interact with illegal drug dealers, they often hide their addiction even from their friends/family because of the social stigma attached to criminality.

[jupiter2]

> it's unfair to attribute the destructive negative effects you're describing to the drugs themselves.

I can't believe some of the responses. I have to ask you too, have you any real-world experience with addicts? Have you ever lived in a community with a drug epidemic? Neighbors, mothers, friends, family on heroine or crack?

Are you suggesting that making drugs like heroine, cocaine, amphetamines, crack, inhalants and others available to adults (let's say, 21 years and older) is a solution? People can't even control their fast food intake or alcohol consumption but somehow heroine wouldn't be a problem.

I've seen the damage this has caused, first hand, more times than I can recall - in the real world, in the inner-cities. I did not pick up my opinion in a trending topic.

I've talk to ex-drug users. Not a single one would ever do drugs again. I've seen families destroyed and not a single one effected would want (psychoactive) drugs to be a part of their lives.

Now if we're talking about marijuana or well-researched psychedelics (not psychoactive), that's a different topic.

[abandonliberty]

The evidence is mounting that we are confusing cause and effect with drug addiction. Here's a good video about it from Kurzgesagt [1].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8L-0nSYzg

Other than your initial point or two I agree with your post. I can understand why a society would have wanted prohibition; people are more generally more productive without drugs.

We can barely manage tobacco and alcohol. Drug abuse continues to exist everywhere facilitated by prescription abuse.

I don't believe we should mandate what people can and cannot do with their bodies, but I am concerned about our increasing desire to escape the real world through pharmaceuticals or entertainment.

[jupiter2]

Thanks for a well thought out response that adds value to the discussion. Some of the other responses irked me because of how little thought was given to these harsh realities and I responded in kind. Don't be put off if you read those responses.

I just watched the video. I would love to agree but I can't. Mind you, I'm speaking as someone who grew up in the inner-city. This doesn't mean that people there were unhappy, disconnected - something the video seems to think is the root cause. In fact, it was usually the opposite. Parties, strong family bonds, lots of strong personal connections, outgoing - and still... drug-addicts. Fact is, I was one of the few that was introverted and disconnected (geek).

The Vietnam sample given in the video doesn't speak to how often the users were taking drugs, how often they went cold turkey, how difficult it was to attain drugs. They played a section of a lonely and scared soldier but did not discuss situations where a group of soldiers, in a welcoming environment, shared the experience.

What a person needs to do to get drugs (not having the resources) and how it changes them over time isn't dealt with in the video at all. They slowly become accustomed to the new changes (theft, prostitution, assault) and work from there.

The very same people I have known in life who have been drug-addicts have only changed their lives when they hit rock-bottom as a result of tough love or jail time. Some never manage it despite all the effort in the world.

Nothing else changed in their lives - not their personal connections, not their work situation, nothing. This is at odds with the message of the video. In fact, love and compassion along with strong friendly bonds led to enabling in every case that I witnessed.

I don't want to sound like some kind of expert. The topic, which I never should have engaged in, brings back many bad memories. Mothers leaving & destroying their families, two cases where a baby was thrown out a window (once during a party), a son killing their mother, a heterosexual male teen engaged in homosexual sex for money, overdose ending in death, young suburban girls living on the streets, the wife of a friend leaving her husband for weeks at a time to prostitute for money. Sigh... And more...

I am a firm believer that even the nicest person will willingly engage in the worst kinds of crimes under the right conditions. We can all be broken. We should always be on guard to protect ourselves from situations that can break us. Drugs are one of these devices.

> I don't believe we should mandate what people can and cannot do with their bodies

I agree with this 100%. Suicide, daredevil acts, tats, all-night gaming sessions... whatever. So long as it doesn't hurt anyone else: My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.

This has never been the case with drug addicts, in my experience. Every drug addict effects those around them in negative and often dangerous ways.

[mercer]

While I'm not a fan of your approach to this topic, understanding why you feel so strongly about this helps me understand it a little better.

Personally I think decriminalization (Portugal-style) is the best approach. I agree with you that many substances are too powerful to be left to the 'free market', and some pro-legalization people don't seem to acknowledge that.

That said, I think any conversation on the topic is bound to be problematic as long as we use 'drugs' as a catch-all, because our current thoughts on the matter, as a society, are so muddled.

For example, most people would who use the term 'drugs' are not referring to alcohol or fast food, while I think alcohol use is in many cases more likely to become problematic than, say, marijuana or lsd use. But when it comes to heroin or crystal meth, most people would probably agree that these should not be 'fully' legalized.

[pmoriarty]

Wait until you actually try some really good drugs. You might change your mind about how horrible they are.

[jupiter2]

Which ones do you recommend? Heroine, cocaine? What type of amphetamines? Maybe crack? How about inhalants?

Let me know how this works out for you.

[jjawssd]

Please enlighten me as to your definition of "hard drug"

I believe all substances taken in excess can lead to severe complications, including water.

If you are classifying hard/soft based on a cutoff value in the therapeutic index, then I would agree with you more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_index

http://i.imgur.com/2aZIuoH.jpg

We should immediately ban alcohol.

[jupiter2]

You're comparing water to heroine, cocaine, amphetamines, crack, inhalants and others? This is a joke, right?

Have you any experience with addicts at all or is all of this coming from an Ivory Tower, safe from the real world?

[Analog24]

Maybe you should stop assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is a 'child' and/or coming from a sheltered upbringing. I can tell you from personal experience and the experiences of numerous close friends that addiction does not necessarily lead to rock bottom. Though it will undoubtedly have negative effects they are not always as nightmarish as what you've seen. So maybe you should check your bias at the door before you make grossly presumptuous statements about others.

I don't think anyone here would question whether or not drug abuse can ruin lives. The real question is whether or not the War on Drugs helps more lives than it destroys. I think the answer is pretty obvious when you look at case studies like the failure of Prohibition and, more recently, the success in Portugal (essentially complete decriminalization of drugs) and Vancouver (needle exchange programs).

Finally, just because you've only been exposed to the negative aspects of drug use (which there are plenty) does not mean that there aren't any positive aspects to it. You clearly have an informed view of the negative aspects but judging from your other comments I'm guessing you have little to no experience with taking drugs yourself (correct me if I'm wrong), which means that you are completely ignorant to the positive aspects. And believe me, there are many. Furthermore, you have to realize how much a person's mental state affects their potential for substance abuse. I can tell you from personal experience that it's not as simple as 'everyone who tries cocaine will get addicted to it'. The stigma that society has placed around recreational drug use has made it a very private topic for most people, which introduces a significant selection bias that favors the negative/public cases. I'd be willing to bet that a lot more people than you think have experimented with recreational drug use.

[metaphorm]

look at this other posts. pure ivory tower.