[pillusmany]

The only solution to the drug problem is full legalization of all drugs.

They should be manufactured by big pharma and sold in grocery stores. No question asked. Poor people should have acess to subsidized prices.

We should also invest in educational programs where people are taught about drugs and how to consume them in a safe way. These programs should sample all major drugs so that one can find out if they should become a consumer and what is the right drug for them.

[blahyawnblah]

I disagree.

Making drugs readily available in grocery stores, even with regulations, could lead to increased accessibility, potentially attracting more users, including those who might not otherwise consider trying them. The act of selling drugs in stores could normalize drug use, leading some to underestimate the inherent dangers. Full legalization does not guarantee a decrease in addiction rates. Addiction is a complex issue with various contributing factors, and readily available drugs could easily lead to increased dependence and associated health problems. Sampling programs, especially for highly addictive drugs, raise ethical concerns and could introduce individuals to substances they wouldn't have tried otherwise.

Even with legalization, a black market might still exist, offering unregulated and potentially more dangerous substances at lower prices, especially for those unable to afford legal options.

Increased drug use could have broader societal and economic consequences. It might lead to decreased productivity, increased crime rates, and strained family structures.

[JSavageOne]

How would that solve anything? In San Francisco drugs are practically already legalized, and filled with junkies openly doing fentanyl on the sidewalks.

[cousin_it]

That will solve the criminality problem, but not the drug problem. Alcohol is legal and sold in stores, does that solve the problems caused by alcohol? No, alcoholism is very widespread and causes huge suffering. The same thing will happen if drugs get fully legalized: since accessing drugs will be easier and cheaper, more people will use them, addiction will become more widespread and cause huge suffering. Inability to enjoy other things and all that.

[amatic]

> That will solve the criminality problem, but not the drug problem.

That is exactly right. The drug problem, like the alcohol problem, on the level of personal suffering should be addressed by other means, like support groups, therapy, ban of advertising, ban on selling to minors, etc. It will not stop the drugs, but it will remove the criminality from the production and distribution. Don't you think the tradeoff was worth it for alcohol?

[bradhe]

How would you describe the drug problem? I think people tend to talk past each other on this topic. Parent's proposal is that we stop automatically calling drug usage a problem.

The part about dealing with education, etc., are ways of treating the _addiction_ problem. Perhaps that's what you meant?

[danlugo92]

> huge suffering

Wars cause more suffering than any drug yet here we are still having them in 2024.

[teaearlgraycold]

Don’t forget about the wars caused by drugs.

[danlugo92]

Right right, which we can do away with if they get legalized

[laluser]

And then slowly die?

[unkulunkulu]

if the drugs are really cheap then arguably they die a less painful death

[mz00]

Don’t we all?

[jedberg]

You missed a key part. They need to be given in special consumption centers that have narcan on hand and other emergency equipment for OD. You also need to provide counseling and free detox for the people who want to get off the drugs.

[TylerE]

Narcan should just be everywhere. Hell, stick it next to every fire alarm. You'd save so, so so many lives for very little cost. Narcan is absolutely safe. If you're not high it does nothing.

[throwitaway222]

y?

[maverick451]

Are you a drug user? You realize that drugs have a side effects, right?

Why should anyone use it, anyway?

[JumpCrisscross]

> Why should anyone use it, anyway?

Why do people drink or eat edibles? Because it’s fun, it’s novel and possibly also because it’s risky.

[maverick451]

Exactly. And what all that have to do with drugs anyway? They are neither fun nor novel nor especially risky from a legal point of view. Just degenerate and debilitating.

[JumpCrisscross]

> what all that have to do with drugs anyway?

Alcohol and cannabis are drugs. Tobacco and alcohol are more harmful than LSD, GSB or ecstasy [1][2].

> are neither fun nor novel nor especially risky from a legal point of view

Seriously? I've never taken LSD, but there are exactly zero accounts that characterise it as "neither fun nor novel."

Also, we're debating drugs' legality. Saying they're dangerous because they're illegal is tautological.

> just degenerate and debilitating

Amphetamines, opiates and tropane alkaloids have legitimate medical uses. And there are cultures with a long history of responsibly using them. I don't agree with OP in being overly permissive with their distribution; many people can't handle them, and until we can predict which people can't handle which drugs recreationally, due to neurochemistry or personality issues, I'm against broad legalisation.

But plenty of people–including extremely productive, society-improving people (e.g. Paul Erdõs [3])–used drugs, while plenty of sober people are useless and boring.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Drugs-Without-Hot-David-Nutt/dp/19068...

[2] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/De...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Erdős

[maverick451]

> Tobacco and alcohol are more harmful than LSD, GSB or ecstasy

Tobacco and alcohol are statistically probably more harmful than nuclear weaponry. They are more harmfull because they are legal. If people took ecstasy in the same quantities as tobacco and alcohol, then the picture would be different.

> I've never taken LSD, but there are exactly zero accounts that characterise it as "neither fun nor novel."

That example is not quite adequate. Acidheads are minority among drug users, and good trips cannot justify the legalization of hard drugs. Not to mention the bad trips. Or the mental disorders caused by LSD. https://www.biography.com/musicians/syd-barrett-pink-floyd

> Amphetamines, opiates and tropane alkaloids have legitimate medical uses. And there are cultures with a long history of responsibly using them. I don't agree with OP in being overly permissive with their distribution; many people can't handle them, and until we can predict which people can't handle which drugs recreationally, due to neurochemistry or personality issues, I'm against broad legalisation.

The automatic weaponry also have some legitimate uses, that does not mean everyone should own one. Yes, some cultures used some drugs responsibly. That drugs were treated as sacred plants and were not readily available to everyone. No, contemporary Western culture is not a responsible one. On the contrary. Most of society are shallow overly-hedonistic entitled simpletons, fighting among themselves like rats in a cage. If you give them free drugs you will just dig them deeper and worsen the situation. Too many dopamine burners around anyway.

The book in question is just one opinion amongst many. Interesting, perhaps. Decisive, no. Yes, there are exceptions. Yes, plenty of fine (and some less fine) people have used drugs. No, that does not mean it should be legal. At least not when hard drugs are considered.

[JumpCrisscross]

> They are more harmfull because they are legal

Nope, they are chemically more harmful and dependence forming. LSD, in particular, is impossible to get addicted to.

> good trips cannot justify the legalization of hard drugs

I’m refuting the point that there is no upside.

> shallow overly-hedonistic entitled simpletons, fighting among themselves like rats in a cage. If you give them free drugs you will just dig them deeper and worsen the situation

Are you sure you aren’t projecting personal experiences?

> book in question is just one opinion amongst many

The author was the head of the U.K.’s ACMD.

I don’t think you’re a misanthrope. But I hope you get the help you need.

[darthrupert]

For the primary effects, mostly.

[maverick451]

You don't say. Drugs are overrated, there are much better things to do with life than to turn yourself into a cartoon character or a walking zombie. It is a cheap escapism.

[Morte42]

Life is so bad for so many Americans that cheap escapism with a high chance of death is worthwhile. Thats the problem in my opinion because these people are creating demand for something nobody should want in the first place.

[darthrupert]

Gazing into the sky I sometimes think absolutely everything we do is escapism.

Some of those better things to do may become even better with a moderate amount of drugs.

[wryoak]

Not nearly as cheap as a Netflix account. In most markets you can get probably five joints tops for the same price as a streaming service’s monthly cost.

Or, by god, they just give away endless books at libraries. You don’t even need any money for that kind of escapism or fallacious information.

Escapism isn’t an essentially bad thing anymore than is posting on an internet message board. It’s just an issue of frequency and intention.