user 139760
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2017
- Messages
- 5,581
- Reaction score
- 2,263
Here, this article sums up my thinking perfectly lol
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/31/opinion/failed-war-on-drugs.html
Scroll down if you want to read a boring text of personal reflection lol
Gentlemen (and lady
), to be fair, Joturbo raises valid points.
However, the approach which is being taken and understood in many countries now, considering enforcement of drug policies, is that in several cases, the war on drugs that has been waged for, what, 60 years? has cost a fortune to limited success. In essence, situations such as the above have more or less been created because of it's lack of success. As such, focus is shifting into regulating drug distribution, in the hopes that, if it's controlled and regulated at the governmental level, it will lead to a better control of distribution, a decrease in illegal distribution by criminal elements, since anyone with a valid reason (or even no valid reason) will be able to access some in a regulated way. In essence, the War on Drugs hasn't solved the problem, let's try something new.
They hope to make a dent in the earnings of organized crime, much as was done once Prohibition ended in the 30's, so as to have it to a better extent disappear. And since they are the main reason why our children end up with said drugs in their hands, it might very well be a safer approach. This is by no means an attempt to render all drugs easily accessible, legal and able to be purchased and used without restriction, far from it. But as a means of controls, if your supplier is the governement, who also has access to various programs and specialists on drug abuse and can refer someone with a real problem to treatment faster than any criminal element ever could (or would), it IS a valid approach to the problem.
I'll admit I share Joturbo's fears. I've also known people who have suffered drug abused. I've worked at a drugstore as a manager for many years, where we had the governemental Methadone program for ex-opiod abusers, some of which were under 18 years of age. And were getting better and not dying with needles in their arms, because they were refered to such governemental programs. I have my druthers....but I know the exchange solution is well thought out and not devoid of logic.
The real problem with drug use has always been criminal elements who will sell any quantity to anyone. Which of course, would not be the case of governemental suppliers. Which is why they want to decriminalize it and, such as in the case of my governement, distribute it; they get the money (ha, of course they do, greedy *******s...) but at the same time keep drugs out of our children's hands and give services to those who have succumbed to it.
And I do not believe it depends on the drug itself, far from it. I think anyone can get addicted to anything. I do believe it depends on the user. As I've stated, shroum users, cannabis users are, for the most part, responsible users. Because they themselves are very much aware of the risks involved and have limited themselves in some way, shape or form (in the sense that I doubt Kamya or anyone else would have a Shroum trip say, 10 minutes before work). A child would not, nor someone with a real addiction problem and having the governement intervene could very well help them eliminate the problem, which they can't do spending their days in a jail cell...
As an example, before Prohibition, alcoholism in youth was a very dire problem, which while it has not entirely disappeared, is by no means as extensive as it was back then. It's the same hope with decriminalisation. It is not an attempt to legalize all drugs, posession will probably still be illegal without valid medical prescriptions, but it is an attempt at regulation. And, as stated as an example in Portugal, it works. To what extent, that remains to be seen, but considering that addiction in the young is increasing, particularly of dangerous drugs like Fentanyl and others, I'm all for seeing if this will work.
I doubt this will happen with say, Cocaine, or Opium, or some of the harder drugs, any time soon.
So I am for decriminalisation. I have reservations, but I'm all for it. Specifically because I don't want drugs in the hands of children.
I know looking at it from someone not familiar with the problem, it looks like backward logic. But it's not. It protects regular users, recreational users and non users in equal measures in my opinion.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/31/opinion/failed-war-on-drugs.html
Scroll down if you want to read a boring text of personal reflection lol
Gentlemen (and lady
), to be fair, Joturbo raises valid points.However, the approach which is being taken and understood in many countries now, considering enforcement of drug policies, is that in several cases, the war on drugs that has been waged for, what, 60 years? has cost a fortune to limited success. In essence, situations such as the above have more or less been created because of it's lack of success. As such, focus is shifting into regulating drug distribution, in the hopes that, if it's controlled and regulated at the governmental level, it will lead to a better control of distribution, a decrease in illegal distribution by criminal elements, since anyone with a valid reason (or even no valid reason) will be able to access some in a regulated way. In essence, the War on Drugs hasn't solved the problem, let's try something new.
They hope to make a dent in the earnings of organized crime, much as was done once Prohibition ended in the 30's, so as to have it to a better extent disappear. And since they are the main reason why our children end up with said drugs in their hands, it might very well be a safer approach. This is by no means an attempt to render all drugs easily accessible, legal and able to be purchased and used without restriction, far from it. But as a means of controls, if your supplier is the governement, who also has access to various programs and specialists on drug abuse and can refer someone with a real problem to treatment faster than any criminal element ever could (or would), it IS a valid approach to the problem.
I'll admit I share Joturbo's fears. I've also known people who have suffered drug abused. I've worked at a drugstore as a manager for many years, where we had the governemental Methadone program for ex-opiod abusers, some of which were under 18 years of age. And were getting better and not dying with needles in their arms, because they were refered to such governemental programs. I have my druthers....but I know the exchange solution is well thought out and not devoid of logic.
The real problem with drug use has always been criminal elements who will sell any quantity to anyone. Which of course, would not be the case of governemental suppliers. Which is why they want to decriminalize it and, such as in the case of my governement, distribute it; they get the money (ha, of course they do, greedy *******s...) but at the same time keep drugs out of our children's hands and give services to those who have succumbed to it.
And I do not believe it depends on the drug itself, far from it. I think anyone can get addicted to anything. I do believe it depends on the user. As I've stated, shroum users, cannabis users are, for the most part, responsible users. Because they themselves are very much aware of the risks involved and have limited themselves in some way, shape or form (in the sense that I doubt Kamya or anyone else would have a Shroum trip say, 10 minutes before work). A child would not, nor someone with a real addiction problem and having the governement intervene could very well help them eliminate the problem, which they can't do spending their days in a jail cell...
As an example, before Prohibition, alcoholism in youth was a very dire problem, which while it has not entirely disappeared, is by no means as extensive as it was back then. It's the same hope with decriminalisation. It is not an attempt to legalize all drugs, posession will probably still be illegal without valid medical prescriptions, but it is an attempt at regulation. And, as stated as an example in Portugal, it works. To what extent, that remains to be seen, but considering that addiction in the young is increasing, particularly of dangerous drugs like Fentanyl and others, I'm all for seeing if this will work.
I doubt this will happen with say, Cocaine, or Opium, or some of the harder drugs, any time soon.
So I am for decriminalisation. I have reservations, but I'm all for it. Specifically because I don't want drugs in the hands of children.
I know looking at it from someone not familiar with the problem, it looks like backward logic. But it's not. It protects regular users, recreational users and non users in equal measures in my opinion.
