Is that how you justify telling other people how they’re allowed to spend their time? You just have to presume that their life is (1) in danger, (2) at their own fault, (3) and it’s your responsibility to do something, (4) even against their own will—and you can just apply this rubric of thought to any particular discontent with their character? How convenient. So, if you don’t like gay people, should you also teach thy neighbor about god? Maybe force them to read the bible in a conversion camp? It sure would be better if everyone thought just like us, huh?
I think you’re talking about adults, otherwise it wouldn’t be a question that yes, you should save them from themselves.
Talking about adults, haven’t you seen videos about countries where they allowed every drugs? Have you ever bought a product and disappointed in it despite the PR and research you put in? Have you ever bought a product without research? No, people can’t decide responsibly, they learn from their fault when it’s too late. The market needs to be green.
If you’re interested I’m 29 and born in a hungarian village where nobody was religious. I ended up on lemmy because I am a developer and free software supporter. I want a nice place to live in, and psychedelics does not fit into that picture.
Maybe just accept that not everybody has the same opinion. Let me express that I think psychedelics should be banned.
I have a rather interesting view on the matter. Typically even my in-group doesn’t agree with me on this. Yet I think all drugs should be legal. Access to drugs should be strictly regulated (imo), but easy. Therapists should be able to obtain license to administer psychedelics. There should be therapeutic centers specializing in use of psilocybin, ketamine, and MDMA. There should be other types of therapeutic centers where you can get access to methamphetamine, opioids, and other drugs—as prescribed necessary for addiction treatment. There should be places to buy recreational drugs like cannabis.
Everything has a place, in my view. Banning something outright is naive, creating more problems in the long run. If you swap from enforcement of prohibition to a more utilitarian approach, you can get a lot more done. That doesn’t mean you give drugs away and create addicts. It means you be a grown up and stop acting like everything is the boogie man, while also acting like anyone who touches it has caught cooties.
People do a pretty good job policing themselves when the system is established in a manner to empower them with good choices. It’s the same idea as the panopticon, as old as Jeremy Bentham, but in reverse. People aren’t going to go get their free meth when culturally it’s known to be for addicts who are at a bad place in life. People who do just want free meth are now surrounded by psychologists who can help.
There are some social crises in people life where policing themselves gets lower focus e.g. on a break up. I think the easy access is the problem. And to fix it with opening it up even more is not a good idea.
I would give people money if they can tell who is a dealer. So the market itself would fix the problem.
Easy access isn’t the problem and hasn’t even been tried. There isn’t easy access. There’s illegal access through shady networks with unverified merchants and products. That’s the result of the prohibition… that and decades of a stupid war on drugs.
“Opening it up more” presumes that I mean “give more people more access to more drugs in the same way they do now.” That’s not at all what I mean.
There are some social crises in people life where policing themselves gets lower focus
Sure. Then they can just go to their local gas station drug dealer and buy some meth then. Your solution doesn’t seem much better. I don’t see how this really argues against a utilitarian approach to drug regulation.
Is that how you justify telling other people how they’re allowed to spend their time? You just have to presume that their life is (1) in danger, (2) at their own fault, (3) and it’s your responsibility to do something, (4) even against their own will—and you can just apply this rubric of thought to any particular discontent with their character? How convenient. So, if you don’t like gay people, should you also teach thy neighbor about god? Maybe force them to read the bible in a conversion camp? It sure would be better if everyone thought just like us, huh?
I think you’re talking about adults, otherwise it wouldn’t be a question that yes, you should save them from themselves.
Talking about adults, haven’t you seen videos about countries where they allowed every drugs? Have you ever bought a product and disappointed in it despite the PR and research you put in? Have you ever bought a product without research? No, people can’t decide responsibly, they learn from their fault when it’s too late. The market needs to be green.
There is not a single country where every drug is “allowed,” wtf are you talking about?
This is such “I’m 17 and grew up in a conservative household” energy. How did you even end up on Lemmy?
If you’re interested I’m 29 and born in a hungarian village where nobody was religious. I ended up on lemmy because I am a developer and free software supporter. I want a nice place to live in, and psychedelics does not fit into that picture.
Maybe just accept that not everybody has the same opinion. Let me express that I think psychedelics should be banned.
I have to correct myself, it’s not a country, it’s a city Portland. https://youtu.be/2GU3TGSWPsw?is=5lJ-PJ44vzzfmCfM
Lol Portland is a fantastic place to live. I literally just took a vacation there last week.
Nobody is stopping you from expressing yourself.
We are just pointing out how misguided your “expressions” are.
Okay, I’ll bite. What is it about psychedelics that makes you think they should be banned?
The fact that Hungary is a DEEPLY right wing country and unfortunately very trad in its ideology of the body and consumption.
I have a rather interesting view on the matter. Typically even my in-group doesn’t agree with me on this. Yet I think all drugs should be legal. Access to drugs should be strictly regulated (imo), but easy. Therapists should be able to obtain license to administer psychedelics. There should be therapeutic centers specializing in use of psilocybin, ketamine, and MDMA. There should be other types of therapeutic centers where you can get access to methamphetamine, opioids, and other drugs—as prescribed necessary for addiction treatment. There should be places to buy recreational drugs like cannabis.
Everything has a place, in my view. Banning something outright is naive, creating more problems in the long run. If you swap from enforcement of prohibition to a more utilitarian approach, you can get a lot more done. That doesn’t mean you give drugs away and create addicts. It means you be a grown up and stop acting like everything is the boogie man, while also acting like anyone who touches it has caught cooties.
People do a pretty good job policing themselves when the system is established in a manner to empower them with good choices. It’s the same idea as the panopticon, as old as Jeremy Bentham, but in reverse. People aren’t going to go get their free meth when culturally it’s known to be for addicts who are at a bad place in life. People who do just want free meth are now surrounded by psychologists who can help.
There are some social crises in people life where policing themselves gets lower focus e.g. on a break up. I think the easy access is the problem. And to fix it with opening it up even more is not a good idea.
I would give people money if they can tell who is a dealer. So the market itself would fix the problem.
Easy access isn’t the problem and hasn’t even been tried. There isn’t easy access. There’s illegal access through shady networks with unverified merchants and products. That’s the result of the prohibition… that and decades of a stupid war on drugs.
“Opening it up more” presumes that I mean “give more people more access to more drugs in the same way they do now.” That’s not at all what I mean.
Sure. Then they can just go to their local gas station drug dealer and buy some meth then. Your solution doesn’t seem much better. I don’t see how this really argues against a utilitarian approach to drug regulation.