1023
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2024
1023 points (97.1% liked)
politics
19148 readers
2075 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Maybe for weed, but I don’t think that would be so clear cut for other substances. Even here San Francisco, the public is only willing to go so far with decriminalizing.
I would wager that weed, and maybe certain hallucinations would be bump in the polls, but for narcotics and opioids, ending the war on that stuff would hurt him. But maybe I’m wrong.
Ending it would involve more than lel drugs are legal have fun. It would be a shift to focus on treatment, rehabilitation, and prevention by treating social deficits that tend to breed addiction, those are proven consistently effective treatments. If prohibition ever worked we wouldn't have weed, alcohol, and coke would sell completely caffeine free beverages.
I'm not necessarily against legalizing other drugs, but I would need a lot of time to research it and understand what studies have been done. There's some substances which are outright harmful and people shouldn't take, and I don't think criminalization is the solution. But, I also don't know that complete legalization is.
Off the cuff, I think I'd support decriminalized possession, but the material is still confiscated. Manufacturing however should remain illegal (other than for weed) because it's way too easy to make snake oil and impurities. I'd favor official govt meth versus making manufacturing it legal.
You know that there’s government legal meth, right?
Its brand name is Desoxyn.
Do you know what the first legal government meth was?
Meth.
Desoxyn is literally a brand name for methamphetamine, so you're not saying anything different.
Hm? Widen your scope of semantic salience my friend, I do say something different, but that's just academia, don't take it too seriously it's not a challenge.
Wow I just went down a rabbit hole... I feel (pray) so many things would have to fail for you to actually get that Rx filled tho
It’s a very effective medicine, though. For example, in small doses it’s more effective than adderall or Ritalin for ADHD. It’s less common than either of those drugs because there is a higher abuse potential, but there is nothing really wrong with it either.
The key here is small doses taken orally. Taking it in a medical context is a very different animal than recreational methamphetamine.
Our air force crews are often given one of these during combat missions. I imagine other military units use them when necessary, too. They also prescribe it to people with severe narcolepsy.
Huh? Sorry, I fell asleep. Could you say that one more time?
I mean we know people will do it regardless, no matter the substance. Substances are being thoroughly tested, and finally seeing serious academic and clinical research on their therapeutic uses, so that is actually going pretty great and showing awesome results (yeyy drugs!!), and I will never get over the argument that prohibition only strengthens the mafia.
Yeah you really cut out the leg from cartels if you get rid of prohibition.
I think as long as we can positively ID a substance as coming from a safe manufacturer, it's fine. Street products cooked up in a trailer are what need to go away. That probably means the government subsidizes drug companies to provide them at low cost.
Fuck it manufacture it in government labs, make it taxable. How could that possibly ever be worse than the street wars we have right now?
Agreed. For that to be politically viable though we need to first render Republicans impotent.
Look, we can't be adjusting our ideas to take morons into account, one has to have a clear image before one's eyes want one want to achieve, or it ain't gonna get beyond the idea stage.
Is this what we want? Is this what I want? Fuck yes, so we can fight for that, it is well defined and without bullshit, that's a platform easy to defend, you know what I mean? Don't give a shit what some would think or say, wars are not won by appeasing the enemy.
Oh I agree completely, I'm just saying the first battle in the war is triumphing over the GOP. It's more a logical first step than a necessary one. We don't have to give any quarter, just recognize which battles we need to face and what milestones we need to achieve.
you know all of those "illegal" drugs are legal if you have enough money? There isn't a single "illegal" drug that you cant get as long as someone slaps like a Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, or Bayer label on it and signs their name to say you can have it. Prohibition doesn't work, we have a lot of history to show that, we also have a lot of history to know that treatment, rehabilitation, and social safety nets go a really long way towards stopping addiction and substance abuse.
Yeah, I think I mostly agree. Don't think material should be confiscated though, that could cause people to avoid official harm reduction resources. But, I wouldn't want to see private business, like gas stations, liquor stores, or "dispensaries" making profit from selling and pushing fentanyl, tranq, krokodil and stuff like that. I do think more drugs with low addiction and harm potential should be legalized such as shrooms, LSD, and probably most psychedelics.
All that being said all legalization and decriminalization must coincide with massive investment in addiction treatment, harm reduction, and probably housing. Ideally, the root causes of the drug epidemic should be addressed, such as poverty, lack of adequate healthcare such as therapy, people generally feeling hopeless because of their material conditions, etc.
Completely agree on everything except confiscation -- which I agree is tricky. I think you confiscate anything that's "off brand" to keep them off the streets, but that's it. I don't want some shitty chemist making impure drugs that cause serious harm. Those need to go. We'd need a free certified container program.
All you need to do is look at Portland Oregon. We decriminalized possession with Measure 110 and everyone rejoiced. Now most people are done with it. Used paraphernalia every where, homelessness everywhere. (Yeah I know housing prices is the major factor). Crime... Fuck me. The amount of people that have been "assisted" with their drug habits are dismal. In part due to government hindering the financial support. The major part is the lack of desire from users wanting to be saved. ( This is the alternative to jailing of persons) Decriminalization of possession of hard drugs was/is a major fail here. Just my anecdotal "research".
I can't even fathom the rationalization process going on with you folks with the fent and other substances, it really looks like a dystopian Ridley Scott shot when you look at it from the other side of the Atlantic...
Edit: I mean, we're feeling with you homie
Yeah and Biden could really use a bump
But enough about Hunter
I'm voting for Hunter Biden for president, because he is the politician that I support.
You're right, it was wrong to make fun of an incredibly comic figure. Doing so clearly means that I've never voted for a Democrat and that I want Biden to lose. Certainly can't be that I've consistently voted for dems in every election since turning 18 yet think their failures still deserve to be mocked. Good insight 👏