I’ve worked long enough in some pretty iffy areas as far as drug use is concerned. So I’ve dealt with enough users both high and coming down off their highs to say that legalization of crack, meth, Cocaine etc. Is probably a very bad idea.
There however is an argument to be made for Weed, and for some Pyschdelics under controlled situations.
I get the Libertarian sentiments. Truly I do. But anecdotally. My personal experience is that it’s going to end up being one of those idealistic things that sounds good on paper but is a disaster when actually put into practice.
I’d be curious if you could elaborate on what you mean by:
societal infrastructure for discouraging the abuse of drugs and to help people who become addicts
We’ve had PSAs, We’ve had documentaries, We’ve had DARE programs, We’ve got laws. None seem to be a sufficient enough discouragement and deterrent. How would your idea be different?
That's a good question, I don't know if I have too much to contribute that's "unique", but I did see an anti-drug pamphlet recently and... it's not how I would go about it.
One problem is these programs peddle things that are false, and once people learn the truth, they start to think maybe drugs are ok or not as bad as they thought. So it's important to maybe talk honestly and clearly about things.
I guess my philosophy is that people turn to drugs when some kind of need or desire isn't met, and they could basically just meet that need or desire in healthy ways.
I classify drugs into three basic categories of uppers (give energy), downers (give relaxation), and psychedelics (stimulate the mind). Does that cover all of them, and if not what am I missing? For something like an upper substitute, a person could exercise, or for downers a person could relax, or for psychedelics people could consume pieces of art. I think that's a simplistic way of describing it - does that seem clear? So possibly they just need some healthy substitute, and if they don't have that, they try to fill things with drugs.
So if we have a culture that already has people who have decent fulfillment, they won't turn to legal or illegal drugs. We already have things like alcohol that not everyone thinks to themselves, "wow that's legal, I need to go get drunk off it". I remember Ron Paul had asked people that if heroin was legal, would they go shoot up tomorrow or whatever? Probably a lot of people wouldn't, so if we can create this kind of culture of "alcohol's legal, but I only have a glass of wine now and then at dinner" then I think we would have less drug problems.
I suppose if such a culture existed as well, it would vote to legalize drugs anyway without concern of them being abused.
I’ve worked long enough in some pretty iffy areas as far as drug use is concerned. So I’ve dealt with enough users both high and coming down off their highs to say that legalization of crack, meth, Cocaine etc. Is probably a very bad idea.
There however is an argument to be made for Weed, and for some Pyschdelics under controlled situations.
I get the Libertarian sentiments. Truly I do. But anecdotally. My personal experience is that it’s going to end up being one of those idealistic things that sounds good on paper but is a disaster when actually put into practice.
I’d be curious if you could elaborate on what you mean by:
We’ve had PSAs, We’ve had documentaries, We’ve had DARE programs, We’ve got laws. None seem to be a sufficient enough discouragement and deterrent. How would your idea be different?
That's a good question, I don't know if I have too much to contribute that's "unique", but I did see an anti-drug pamphlet recently and... it's not how I would go about it.
One problem is these programs peddle things that are false, and once people learn the truth, they start to think maybe drugs are ok or not as bad as they thought. So it's important to maybe talk honestly and clearly about things.
I guess my philosophy is that people turn to drugs when some kind of need or desire isn't met, and they could basically just meet that need or desire in healthy ways.
I classify drugs into three basic categories of uppers (give energy), downers (give relaxation), and psychedelics (stimulate the mind). Does that cover all of them, and if not what am I missing? For something like an upper substitute, a person could exercise, or for downers a person could relax, or for psychedelics people could consume pieces of art. I think that's a simplistic way of describing it - does that seem clear? So possibly they just need some healthy substitute, and if they don't have that, they try to fill things with drugs.
So if we have a culture that already has people who have decent fulfillment, they won't turn to legal or illegal drugs. We already have things like alcohol that not everyone thinks to themselves, "wow that's legal, I need to go get drunk off it". I remember Ron Paul had asked people that if heroin was legal, would they go shoot up tomorrow or whatever? Probably a lot of people wouldn't, so if we can create this kind of culture of "alcohol's legal, but I only have a glass of wine now and then at dinner" then I think we would have less drug problems.
I suppose if such a culture existed as well, it would vote to legalize drugs anyway without concern of them being abused.