1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !uspolitics@lemmy.world
7) No Hit-and-Run questions.
Please don't delete your post for no apparent reason. If you plan on deleting a question later, say so in the post, or if you feel that you have a good reason to remove it, message a mod beforehand. It's not fair to the ones who took their time to answer, and it's not in the spirit of the community.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
Age laws (children have developing brains and are not assumed to be able to legally consent)
Right to treatment for addiction.
Right to know what substance you are using (free of contamination, if it's cut the carrier substance should be disclosed)
Prohibition on operating heavy equipment or weapons while high.
I think that about covers it for me.
Also no adds for it anywhere. If it is good, it will sell. As a Norwegian, it is very weird going abroad seeing adds for alcohol, tobacco and gambling (even though this is very visible online, as sites from other countries are not bound to Norwegian laws). What isn't good for you should not be part of the commercial every day life, even if it is available.
Other than that addition, I fully agree with your points.
Broadly speaking laws should centre around enabling people to make choices in an informed and safe manner.
If a product is not what it says it is then people can't mame that choice properly, so laws around quality control and labeling are a must.
Advertising often clouds decisions and frequently reaches audiences outside the target market, driving consumption by kids etc, so none of that please.
Tax should be significant on these items, but not high enough to leave illegal supply competitive or even cheap by comparison. Otherwise you get an increase in gang activity like we have had from raising our tobacco prices over the last 20 years.
I agree with most the thread on ads. Manipulation markets for mind altering substances sounds and are dystopian to me.
Taxes should be normal rate for goods and services + the public cost to research harmful effects + cost to migate/solve harmful effects.
If that industry leads to children being abanded by or essetially abanded by their parents then the cost to raise and care for those kids and help them navigate that trauma needs to be reapplied back to that industry. Both income and sales taxes should be applied as needed (for example if research suggested a higher sales tax would just be circumvented by black markets).
Keep it out of the hands of children an teenagers. Providing it to anyone of those groups should be punished severely.
No driving under influence. Zero tolerance for any intoxicating or sensory depriving substance.
Don't drive while on drugs or operate other heavy machinery.
There should be strict laws regarding advertising for all drugs including alcohol.
Clear labeling so you know exactly what you're getting.
Reasonable age restrictions.
Cutoff guidelines and restrictions for anyone who dispenses such substances.
If there are additional taxes on these substances, that money should go towards rehab, research, etc.
And obviously it should be illegal to trick people into taking these or allow anyone to consume them without knowing what they're having (I'm bitter about potluck events where people don't mention there's drugs in the desserts they brought).
What did you think I meant when I said my brownies were going to be addicting?? Drop it already.
Drugs should be legal. Period. Full stop.
If what you do while on drugs is illegal, being on drugs isn't an excuse.
Sure, but I assume there are bound to be some loopholes in some laws that don't account for it. DUI is one that DOES. But there are sure to be some that need updates.
Totally fair
Quality control and honest labeling type laws, similar to what we expect for food and beer.
Laws around operating vehicles and such while under the influence, similar to alcohol.
And no being under the influence at work, especially if your work is at all dangerous.
For me, it depends on the job. I think it's okay for a janitor to be high on the job, as long as they're still able to be productive. But a surgeon? Absolutely not. Too much risk.
Well, yea, I wrote that on the same basis
So one the arguments around drugs like marijuana is that "under the influence" is difficult to detect and test.
For alcohol we have BAC or Blood Alcohol Content. It's far from a perfect measurement, but it is measurable and we have laws that define "too much". It's also relatively simple to measure.
We don't have a way to simply measure Blood Marijuana Content or any similar measurement. Even if we can measure it, what is "too much" is also not well defined.
Which I largely mention because "similar to alcohol", while I agree, is easier said than done.
Honestly I like the framing of “driving while impaired”. To be transparent when I was young I never drank, but I would stay up for far too long and end up driving in ways that looking back was probably quite dangerous. I think it’s probably possible to have a reaction time based field test which could address being drunk, being high or being tired.
Well, we didn't had any of those when it was decided that alcohol was going to be legal but weed wasn't. Since then the amount of car accidents caused by alcohol was so high that someone invented ways to detect that. Had weed been legal we probably would already have similar detectors.
But also, those tests are not that accurate, if you use a mouthwash with alcohol you can blow up positive for example, and if you get into the blood tests I'm fairly confident THC can be detected in blood tests. But at the end of the day we shouldn't be trying to measure that, we should try to measure the impact, e.g. have a test where the person needs to press a button when a light goes on to measure response time, or similar tests. That's what you care about at the end, someone might be wasted with a single beer and not have proper reaction time anymore, while others might be fine even after a few. The problem with that is that everyone thinks they're the latter, but they aren't.
Apparently eating poppy seeds can make you test positive for opium. There's a Seinfeld episode about it
There are also qualitative tests, like walk in a straight line type stuff. Plus reckless driving is still illegal
I can agree with both.
Adults should be allowed to freely make their own choices regarding drugs, unless it harms others. They shouldn't be allowed to drive or operate dangerous machines while on drugs. They shouldn't be allowed to use excessive drugs while doing jobs they need to be sober for like being a doctor or teacher. Someone who has committed serious crimes while on drugs should have their privileges restricted.
Doing drugs in and of itself should NOT be a crime. Those with addictions should be offered treatment free of judgment. The government should also educate people on the dangers.
Yeah I'm strongly against any strictly abstinence based education. The judgment part would be impossible to codify but I understand your point.
Agreed, the education shouldn't be abstinence based, it should be about how to use responsibly
My view is simple: complete personal liberty until your actions impact someone else.
If someone wants to sit at home and use drugs, even severe ones, without harming anyone, that's their business. But the moment you get behind the wheel or cause harm to others while under the influence (whether it's meth, alcohol, or prescriptions), it should act as a major sentencing modifier.
We allow people to destroy their own physical property, like taking a sledgehammer to their own car in their driveway, as long as it doesn't harm neighbors or commit fraud. The government shouldn't treat a person's body with less autonomy than their personal property.
I can definitely get behind that mentality.
People should be punished for financially supporting violent cartels, which we know you do when you buy e.g. coke.
Well if it was legal... you could instead support the oligarchy. They just do their violence in more subtle ways. Though usually longer lasting and affecting more people.
As with any product a safety standard should be introduced so people who want a particular... amount¿ are getting it and not some diluted or cut down version.
So, local/national regulation on distribution, seems reasonable.
heroin and meth, is probably the one that should be monitored heavily. Opiods should be regulated.
If they are allowed to advertise, it should be 100% fact based in it's approach. No more camels wearing sunglasses while smoking or sexy actors at a rooftop party drinking alcohol in front of a magnificent night panorama of skyscrapers while smiling and laughing together. No happy people skipping through the sunflowers after shooting up black tar heroin. No partner advertising between the movie TRON and hallucinagen sellers. Sellers could basically only list their cost per quantity, info about the manufacturing process, and any purity measurements with no emotional appeals, bandwagoning, colorful cartoon characters, etc. With something potentially addictive and harmful, we have a moral duty not to allow anyone who sells using logical falacies and dark patterns to have a platform.
Warning lables should be super clear and the package should be otherwise 100% plain. Some substances may still warrant a ban, I'm undecided, but if they are allowed, they should probably not be advertised. People who want them, will be able to find them.
That all sounds pretty fair.
These products should be strictly regulated and taxed heavily. The taxes should be used to provide free and low cost drug counseling services, addiction treatment, on-site testing, and other similar services related to harm reduction, protecting communities, and absorbing the financial costs of having them legalized (i.e. regulation enforcement).
I agree.
Alcohol is a recreational drug so something like that.
It's all fun and games until it ruins your life. I support a total ban, akin to gambling. There's no reason anyone needs to do it.
I understand where you're coming from but I think the majority of drug users are able to use responsibly. And for me, marijuana has health benefits. It helps with my anxiety and depression and helps me sleep better sometimes. That said, I have found I don't need it as much since I've started getting good counseling.
You seem to be one of the only people who think differently here, could I ask you to please respond to the questions? Most others have similar opinions to me so it's not productive to ask them questions as they think similar, but you might actually have something to contribute to the discussion.
With that, I echo some of the questions that were made, plus a few more:
How far would you like to see that ban extend? Would it only include XYZ drug deemed harmful or would it encompass any mind/body altering substance like caffeine/nicotine?
Prohibition doesn't eliminate use, it just creates black markets, and black markets create their own problems.
I don't agree with your position, but people downvoting you for it based on the question is nonsense.
Mixed feelings as I'm all for unregulated legal hemp and think it ridiculous that big canna is trying to shut it down, but i don't like shit that's mixed up from stuff under someone's kitchen sink.
21+, fair labeling, and being responsible for our own use.
Reasonable
Alcohol is statistically the most harmful drug[0], so ban alcohol and legalise and regulate the others like we currently do with alcohol.
Eh, I only skimmed the paper but I suspect availability of alcohol skews the results. If you could just pop down to the gas station after work and pick up some crack or heroin, I suspect the relative harm would be different.
I mean, the word statistically is carrying a lot of weight in 16 year old single day event thats essentially subjective. As well as the fact it ranks tobacco in the low 20s vs alcohol in the high 70s. Not to mention prescription opiates and the context by which they are relevant is not included (couldn't be in a "study" from 2010). Around 3 times more people die from tobacco use annually. But, regardless of that, would you then enact a prohibition on any "harmful" drugs? Or just alcohol?
This was a UK study, prescription opiates aren't really an issue here the same way they are in the USA. If anything it can be too difficult to get a painkiller prescription.
Exactly what I was about to say..... Implement David Nutt's recommendations.
Also allow using these drugs in medical research and stop ignoring their medical benefits even if the drugs remain restricted for the public.
