[trabant00]

I am especially worried about how drugs are presented in popular culture now a days. Very popular people (Joe Rogan for example, but far from the only one) keep repeating how good drugs can be for you, what a miracle drug they can be - drop smoking in one mushroom trip, how we wrongly fought against their mass adoption, etc.

Meanwhile spending time in circles where drugs are used you don't have to search at all to find plenty of examples of people who ruined their lives. Even weed can do that. And while it mostly applies to young people I have several examples of 35+ with no prior problems getting some very destructive habits. MDMA has completely changed a closed friend of mine (early forties) for the worse. Psychedelics? That's some very powerful stuff that should be handled with extreme care. Meanwhile you have youtube channels presenting them as you would have a beer.

I used to be pro legalization 10-15 years ago. Right now I would investigate the problem for at least 10 years as full time job before considering a position.

[Nursie]

> Meanwhile you have youtube channels presenting them as you would have a beer.

Well, you should be careful about that beer. Actually you should probably be more careful about that beer.

If you feel people are being too blase about cannabis, then you ought to be horrified at how popular culture treats alcohol. Alcohol is toxic, it's a killer in both acute and chronic scenarios. It's carcinogenic, harmful to a lot of your internal organs, it's addictive, it's fattening, it can even cause seizures if stopped too quickly. It causes mental health problems and mental decline. It really is one of the worst drugs and its annual death-toll beats out all other drugs combined.

No drug use is without problems, but this societal attitude that "drugs" are bad, but "just a beer" is fine... it's flat out deluded.

So I have no problem treating a lot of forms of drug use, particularly of drugs like cannabis and other less-harmful substances, just like someone having a beer.

[trabant00]

I agree on alcohol issues 100%. But drugs are in addition to alcohol, not instead of. And we figured the troubles with alcohol way too late to have any chance of removing it from its potential abusers. Drugs, especially synthetic, we understood their danger before they became socially acceptable.

[Nursie]

> But drugs are in addition to alcohol, not instead of.

What do you mean by that?

How is that relevant to whether we should treat drugs the same as or differently to "having a beer" ?

In particular you seemed to think it was wrong that they were treated the same or similarly by youtubers - but if the relative harms are comparable or even lesser for many drugs, why is this wrong?

Do you think if more drugs were legal alcohol consumption might not drop in some places?

There appears to be some evidence that in states with legal cannabis, for instance, binge drinking declines - https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeadams/2018/04/05/binge-drin...

[trabant00]

Weed and beer are comparable imo. I would even pick weed as the healthier option. But synthetic drugs exist and those are a different story.

And what I ment with that is that you would unleash some other abusable substances into society.

[Nursie]

Most 'synthetic' drugs are safer than alcohol too.

Psychedelics offer little in the way of physical risk and are not addictive in the same way.

Honestly they concern me far less than alcohol. It's booze, tobacco, meth, cocaine and heroin you want to really watch out for.

(edit - and we can probably include synthetic cannabinoids in there as well)

[hutzlibu]

I am still pro legalization, even though I fully agree with you on the dangers of wrong presentation.

But I believe this is part of the criminalisation and demonisation. From the official channels, like media and school drug prevention(in germany), it was mostly a simple "don't do it" "it is all bad". While the cool, a few years older nutheads presented it as magic.

If it would be legal, people could talk about it more openly and share their experience freely to the younger generation and we could help the addicts more easily, if it would not be so stigmatized, like it is now.

In my area there is a great usage of amphetamines (with the root source of bad economy, though), but if those people look for official help, they have to fear of their children being taken away, etc.

[LargoLasskhyfv]

Is it even sure your close friend had MDMA, instead of something similar, but different, like it is common on the black market?

I'm still pro legalization of almost anything regarding psychoactive drugs. Not even prespription, just over the counter as I see fit, but with clear labeling of ingredients, dosage, and mandatory quality control to exclude any adulteration.

IMO most of the shit that happens results from not knowing exactly what it is, how it has been adulterated, and unknown potency/dosage combined with stupid undergrond lore/disinformation because of criminalization.

This is even true for weed, which can be treated with all sorts of nasty stuff, either to make it weigh more, to hide bad quality(make it smell better, feel more sticky, look like good weed), or to make it more potent, and therefore addictive. I mean imagine smoking lead laced(for adding weight) weed, combined with some PCP(to make it hit more).

Not to forget the use of pesticides during growth and anti-molding agents for long storage in bags. Many of them are nerve poisons for humans.

This has happened, and it will continue to happen again and again as long as it is criminalized.

By insisting on carefully trialling for at least 10 years you are just prolonging these uncertainties, and deny the interested users a safe product.

All that uncertainty is self-inflicted by prohibition, especially for non-synthetic drugs. Absolute ignorance of looooong usage in many cultures.

[goatsi]

>Is it even sure your close friend had MDMA, instead of something similar, but different, like it is common on the black market?

That isn't the case recently if you look at the data. The discovery of new precursors a few years ago drove down the price of MDMA in Europe to the point where it is cheaper and easier to obtain than the possible replacements. Even in the US the flood of methylone and it's cousins is over. Meth is still sold as MDMA when pressed into pills, but those are pretty easy to distinguish.

[quickthrowman]

> Psychedelics? That's some very powerful stuff that should be handled with extreme care. Meanwhile you have youtube channels presenting them as you would have a beer.

Uh... alcohol is infinitely more dangerous than psychedelics, both potential and actual damage caused.

Alcohol is the most dangerous drug we have. Drinking too much at once can kill you (psychedelics can’t), discontinuing habitual use can kill you (only alcohol and benzos!).

Then we have the effects alcohol has on judgement and behavior, which aren’t good! Alcohol causes or exacerbates a ton of social problems.

[trabant00]

Everything you said is correct. BUT: drugs will be in addition to alcohol, not instead of.

[c22]

What do you mean by this? Almost nobody I know mixes psychedelics with alcohol.

[trabant00]

We know different people then. But that was not what I ment. I was talking about legislators looking at the whole society, not individuals. And drugs are even more things that can be abused in addition to existing alcohol which they tried to stop but could not.

[Nursie]

And they've managed to stop "drugs".

LOL.

[LocalH]

Psychedelics have little abuse potential. Drug abuse is usually an attempt to avoid feeling your existing feelings. Psychedelics will magnify your existing feelings, good or bad.