Drugs and the US market

[Gorbles]

I'm not lecturing anyone. They're free to take drugs and I'm free to call them foolish for doing it. There's no problem that I see.

"I'm free to lecture people but I'm not lecturing them" is the dissonance people are calling out.

 

[Arwon]

Also thinking that constitutes a viable state policy

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

Allowing people to do drugs is a perfectly viable policy.

 

[Samson]

Well, uh, yeah, at the individual level obviously "don't do drug" is the best stance with drugs.

They're free to take drugs and I'm free to call them foolish for doing it.

I would be interested to know where the absolutist line is on the definition of drugs. Does it include booze, cigs, caffeine, khat, pot, CBD, coke?

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, if we're going to start putting high quality crack out for free, I want fancier coffee than I drink, complimentary, as well.

 

[Hygro]

I'm not lecturing anyone. They're free to take drugs and I'm free to call them foolish for doing it. There's no problem that I see.

This is not a serious point of view.

 

[Voidwalkin]

This is not a serious point of view.

Why not?

As far as I can tell, it is the de facto way of things.

 

[Hygro]

"I'm free to lecture people but I'm not lecturing them" is the dissonance people are calling out.

Articulated here, for the lecturing

Articulated in Samson’s question, for the likely to be unconsidered delineation of “drugs”

And the “drugs are foolish” a priori position, a hallmark of an unexamined life.

There are many people well served by abstinence, but most are served by moderation, including moderation itself.

Edit: lmao autocorrect been doing me dirty

 

[Voidwalkin]

Articulated here, for the lecturing

Articulated in Samson’s question, for the likely to be unconsidered delineation of “drugs”

And the “drugs are foolish” a priori position, a hallmark of an unexplained life.

There are many people well served by abstinence, but most are served by moderation, including moderation itself.

Effectively, the delineation is made by the consensus that the drug is inherently anti-social(which I think is made of PCP, I personally make it about speed) or that its use becomes anti-social when done by a sufficient percentage of population(speed, opiates)

I'm OK with that. It's healthy for society. It's the process. Condemnation is fundamentally integral to it.

My own personal take is that like many things, people have dominated the natural world physically to such an extent that the potency of our products can hijack the mind to the extent rational thought processes work against us, and the supply of these items is too great to contain.

In those conditions, consensus formed via condemnation is the only realistic avenue to check what may actually be unhealthy individually and societally. I'm a live and let live sort, but I've also had to work around people too ****** up to really function. It's terrible.

 

[Akka]

I'm not lecturing anyone. They're free to take drugs and I'm free to call them foolish for doing it. There's no problem that I see.

Well, that's not going to help a lot the societal problem about drug abuse.

I would be interested to know where the absolutist line is on the definition of drugs. Does it include booze, cigs, caffeine, khat, pot, CBD, coke?

It seems pretty clear to me that considering the context, it's whatever you consume that has serious deleterious consequence on your physical and/or mental health.
Is there anything actually constructive about nitpicking about it rather than getting the general idea ?

 

[Samson]

It seems pretty clear to me that considering the context, it's whatever you consume that has serious deleterious consequence on your physical and/or mental health.
Is there anything actually constructive about nitpicking about it rather than getting the general idea ?

As far as direct effects go booze has more direct serious deleterious physical consequences than heroin. As long as we are clear that we are talking about things most people do then I at least know what you are on about, even if I think you wrong.

 

[Akka]

As far as direct effects go booze has more direct serious deleterious physical consequences than heroin. As long as we are clear that we are talking about things most people do then I at least know what you are on about, even if I think you wrong.

Well yeah, I definitely consider that heavy smoking of being alcoholic are also case where "don't do that" is a good personal guideline.

 

[Samson]

Well yeah, I definitely consider that heavy smoking of being alcoholic are also case where "don't do that" is a good personal guideline.

The original quote was:

Well, uh, yeah, at the individual level obviously "don't do drug" is the best stance with drugs.

The argument changes here, from "don't do that" to "don't do to much of that" or "don't get addicted to that". The latter two statements are much easier to defend than the former.

I think that all drugs have benefits and harms, and it is very difficult to say someone else's decision is wrong for them.

You mention smoking, that is the easiest thing to say "don't do that" to as it has such little benefit and kills ~half of users. However even that is recognised as a double edged sword in that can have benefits for some people.

 

[Narz]

I think only a minority of people are best served by “don’t do drugs” and abstinence.

Most Americans are on some sort of drug.

"Drug" as a blanket term is too vague to be useful.

What's the deadliest drug in US? Probably sugar.

 

[Narz]

I think that all drugs have benefits and harms, and it is very difficult to say someone else's decision is wrong for them.

You mention smoking, that is the easiest thing to say "don't do that" to as it has such little benefit and kills ~half of users. However even that is recognised as a double edged sword in that can have benefits for some people.

Yeah some biohackers were use nicatine therapeutically but I'm not willing to risk it.

 

[Hygro]

A glance at the schedule 1 drugs show you how political it is. They are mostly the safest and most beneficial, but somewhat higher effort to curate the experience.

MDMA got scheduled purely because an American evangelical bureaucrat fell to envy and pride in one swoop. The medical applications are huge and the experiential applications greater still.

 

[EvaDK]

What's the deadliest drug in US? Probably sugar.

In the special case of the US, it's likely more corn syrup which is commonly used in US made food and drink instead of cane/beet sugars, simply because it's cheaper.

 

[Narz]

I'll put all these synthetic sugars in the same category.

Many 'food' ingredients, not just sugar have drug like effects on emotion and health.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

I would be interested to know where the absolutist line is on the definition of drugs. Does it include booze, cigs, caffeine, khat, pot, CBD, coke?

I'm trying not to get weighted down in where we draw any lines, anymore.
I'm not going to say that alcohol is okay but cocaine is not. Because that's not true.
The potency of any substance is not the relevant factor to me. The question is: do I allow this [thing] to consume my time and energy instead of doing something more productive in my life...(?). That's the same question to the problem of whether someone is addicted to really any of the substances you mention. And the answer is going to be the same across all of those.

Well, that's not going to help a lot the societal problem about drug abuse.

As I admit, I believe my position is the most difficult yet the ultimate one. That is, it is going to take the self to say "no" for there not to be an issue (and not someone else forcing me to say no, whether that be by trying to tax or price drugs farther out of existence, or perhaps some more direct intervention).

 

[EvaDK]

American food products contain dozens of ingredients that are banned here for good reasons. The FDA, like most other US regulators, is more concerned with protecting corporate interests, rather than consumer interests.

To add, some of these ingredients used, are 100% unnecessary; they enhance characteristics such as addictiveness, sweetness, softness or color (!).