What's your thoughts on drugs?

[Deleted member 134556]

I have mixed feelings on the subject now, and while I am against illegal substances like meth and heroin, there are other drugs that I feel that while used recreationally, also have medical benefits. I did research and found out the chemical, nicotine, by itself helped Alzheimer's patients with memory, despite the unfortunate addictive properties. ==> Study finds nicotine safe, helps in Alzheimer's, Parkinson's (tampabay.com)

I'm well aware of the dangers of experimenting with the substance, because I was a former smoker, and I'd do almost anything before having to go through the process of quitting it again. My advice, don't start the habit if you don't want to be addicted, even if it's just vaping. Quitting such drug addictions is a long and unpleasant process.

As for marijuana, I understand there are some connections to it being a cultural thing with some groups like Rastafarians and spiritual communities, so I don't want to intervene with their practices, and I'm well aware of it's health benefits, both of these reasons are ones as to why I support it's legalization. However, I myself would not partake in it. My Bipolar and ADHD medications would react dramatically if it was introduced into my system I suspect. Caffeine alone sometimes does strange things to me.

tldr; There are drugs I don't support, and ones I'm okay with, and for the ones I'm okay with, I probably won't be taking.

 

[Fallowfox]

The No Fun Allowed racc is here to rain some more on the drugged-out parade of substance use, sorry everyone. Repent heathens!

Personally I don't feel the reduction of organized crime is a legitimate motivator for the legalization of illicit drugs. To be blunt as long as it's taxed it's going to be sold illegally as well. Anecdotally, my father is a heavy marijuana user and still prefers to buy it from his biker buddies than from one of the dispensaries in the small town he lives in.

As for decriminalization for health purposes, addiction can be treated as a heath concern without allowing for it. Monitored usage can be legal with obtainment simultaneously illegal.

Simply legalizing a drug doesn't solve every problem with it and often causes many more. Increasing use increases health complications and drains on society.

And to add a little bit of extra spiciness to this, unpopular opinion: Heathcare should not be provided at no cost to those who caused their own problems (where applicable). Smoked a joint or five every day of your life for 25 years? Pay for your own oxygen tanks. Ate so excessively for so long you'll die without medical intervention? Hope you have some money saved up for that surgery. Huffed paint and glue and now you can't work? Better hope some charity or relative takes pity on you. I am ready for your rage.

Lastly, most people cannot be trusted with moderation or healthy educated use. Alcoholism and obesity are rampant health issues already, so is nicotine addiction and prescription opioids. And how many people are completely addicted to caffeine? What is and isn't safe and moderate use varies from person to person, but all too often people go too far or flat out don't care. Recreational substance use is almost always irresponsible, in my opinion.

And of course, I do not think anything less of a person who drinks, smokes, or otherwise consumes recreational drugs or alcohol purely on the basis of the usage. I don't like it but I can still like the person. Don't take my opinions as a personal attack please.

I think these are political opinions.

I'm only going to comment on one thing, which is that documenting the health choices of citizens, in order to make moral judgements about how much they should pay for care, would require a lot of spying on citizens' habits (I'm not really certain how insurers do this, because extra charges for unhealthy but concealable habits insentivises customers to lie on applications). There are many grey areas too. A person who never wears a face mask may contract coronavirus and end up in hospital, but it is unlikely that doctors would be able to determine if their individual decision caused the infection- and the person who is infected may have a solid case that they were misled by a politician who told them not to worry about the virus.
Would punishing this person achieve anything? Probably not.

Most governments already discourage unhealthy choices by placing taxes on unhealthy goods like tobacco, that are used to fund public health initiatives. This avoids having to evaluate people's personal situations and make very difficult moral assessments.

 

[Punji]

I think these are political opinions.

I'm only going to comment on one thing, which is that documenting the health choices of citizens, in order to make moral judgements about how much they should pay for care, would require a lot of spying on citizens' habits (I'm not really certain how insurers do this, because extra charges for unhealthy but concealable habits insentivises customers to lie on applications). There are many grey areas too. A person who never wears a face mask may contract coronavirus and end up in hospital, but it is unlikely that doctors would be able to determine if their individual decision caused the infection- and the person who is infected may have a solid case that they were misled by a politician who told them not to worry about the virus.
Would punishing this person achieve anything? Probably not.

Most governments already discourage unhealthy choices by placing taxes on unhealthy goods like tobacco, that are used to fund public health initiatives. This avoids having to evaluate people's personal situations and make very difficult moral assessments.

How is recreational drug use and its effects on public health political? This is something which effects everyone regardless of political affiliations or government interventions. Yet you mention not wearing masks due to being mislead by a politician?

It's not necessarily about the morality of it. Sure one can have an opinion on what is or isn't moral and immoral in the situation, but the root of it is purely practical. Lowering financial drains on a society through healthcare costs will benefit almost everyone within that society, as the money saved can be poured into other aspects or even right back into the healthcare system for other benefits.

How would this be applied? I personally imagine it along these lines: An individual comes to a doctor and it is found his or her lungs are dying and cancerous. From here it is only natural to determine the cause, and now one would also consider if this could have been knowingly prevented. AKA, are the lungs blacked and dying from tar buildup from a product with health warnings covering the entire package, or are there asbestos needles embedded in the tissue everywhere? This is often a problem for people going into old buildings frequently, such as firefighters being exposed to old burning buildings. Furthermore long-term substance use will most often have accompanying symptoms. One either made the conscious decision to use the drug (in this case nicotine cigarettes) over a long period of time or other suffered a terrible workplace hazard and is at no fault of their own.

Grey areas can be removed or minimized by asking if the medical incident occurred through wilful action or unfortunate circumstances beyond an individual's control. Morbid obesity and heart problems diabetes, smoking and heart problems lung cancer, drinking and heart problems liver disease, et cetera. Breast cancer with no discernible cause? Free healthcare, no actions were taken with the known risk of the cancer developing.

It's not about passing judgment or punishing individuals for legal consumption. It's a method of encouraging the public to exercise moderation while dramatically reducing the stress on healthcare, with the end goal being the betterment of society as a whole.

 

[Fallowfox]

How is recreational drug use and its effects on public health political? This is something which effects everyone regardless of political affiliations or government interventions. Yet you mention not wearing masks due to being mislead by a politician?

It's not necessarily about the morality of it. Sure one can have an opinion on what is or isn't moral and immoral in the situation, but the root of it is purely practical. Lowering financial drains on a society through healthcare costs will benefit almost everyone within that society, as the money saved can be poured into other aspects or even right back into the healthcare system for other benefits.

How would this be applied? I personally imagine it along these lines: An individual comes to a doctor and it is found his or her lungs are dying and cancerous. From here it is only natural to determine the cause, and now one would also consider if this could have been knowingly prevented. AKA, are the lungs blacked and dying from tar buildup from a product with health warnings covering the entire package, or are there asbestos needles embedded in the tissue everywhere? This is often a problem for people going into old buildings frequently, such as firefighters being exposed to old burning buildings. Furthermore long-term substance use will most often have accompanying symptoms. One either made the conscious decision to use the drug (in this case nicotine cigarettes) over a long period of time or other suffered a terrible workplace hazard and is at no fault of their own.

Grey areas can be removed or minimized by asking if the medical incident occurred through wilful action or unfortunate circumstances beyond an individual's control. Morbid obesity and heart problems diabetes, smoking and heart problems lung cancer, drinking and heart problems liver disease, et cetera. Breast cancer with no discernible cause? Free healthcare, no actions were taken with the known risk of the cancer developing.

It's not about passing judgment or punishing individuals for legal consumption. It's a method of encouraging the public to exercise moderation while dramatically reducing the stress on healthcare, with the end goal being the betterment of society as a whole.

Opinions on drug policy and public health provision policies are political.
If I say 'I think tobacco should be illegal for people under 21', that is a political statement because I'm advocating a policy.

I think we should be very careful about viewing people's healthcare costs as a financial drain on society.
In the situation where somebody is a smoker and they develop lung cancer, there are few situations where a doctor would be able to categorically say that cigarettes were the cause of the tumour.
and the debilitating effects of people with lung tumours being left untreated or indebted as a result of medical costs may not be positive for society.

Encouraging people to judge others in this way may be quite negative for society as well. An overweight person may have Cushing's syndrome for example, but in a world where fat people are viewed as a drain on society's resources and asked to pay extra for operations, that person could face prejudice.

 

[sleepy kitty]

They're only bad if you are addicted to them and you steal from your loved ones just to buy more and get high again. Or if you OD and die or almost die. Or if they cause permanent brain damage.

Drugs like marijuana are perfectly fine, I've used it before. Good times uwu

Edit: I know addiction isn't a choice. I'm not calling people who are addicted bad for stealing. I know they cannot help it. My ex and his sister had to go through withdrawals just to get off that crap. I apologise for my post seeming insensitive. Sometimes I don't explain myself thoroughly and it's an awful habit that I have.

 

[Punji]

Opinions on drug policy and public health provision policies are political.
If I say 'I think tobacco should be illegal for people under 21', that is a political statement because I'm advocating a policy.

I think we should be very careful about viewing people's healthcare costs as a financial drain on society.
In the situation where somebody is a smoker and they develop lung cancer, there are few situations where a doctor would be able to categorically say that cigarettes were the cause of the tumour.
and the debilitating effects of people with lung tumours being left untreated or indebted as a result of medical costs may not be positive for society.

Encouraging people to judge others in this way may be quite negative for society as well. An overweight person may have Cushing's syndrome for example, but in a world where fat people are viewed as a drain on society's resources and asked to pay extra for operations, that person could face prejudice.

Well technically I'm not giving an opinion on health policies, I'm suggesting one. Really though, you're singling me out, and it's kind of quite clear. I'm not the first one in this thread to talk about more than just the chemicals themselves.

I absolutely disagree. As someone who's spent multiple weeks in hospital stay under constant high-flow IV drip and the recipient copious blood and urine testing equipment and bandages, there's nothing at all unfair or derogatory about calling medical costs a drain. Everything costs money and that money is a resource which could have been used for other people instead. I didn't want to be in the hospital and I didn't ask for any of the treatments or testing beyond what I physically needed. A lot was gone and given to me by my caretakers. I cost them a lot but I never meant to or wanted to, and they were happy to help me just the same. I had to agree to more blood testing after I got home for a few days to be released early. It's not meant as an insult to say it's a drain, it's just fact.

If someone was enough of a smoker that a doctor could tell by looking at them, and they had lung cancer, I think that's a fair sale. If you read my previous posts, I did say I wouldn't personally leave someone without treatment or the entire bill. They'll get treatment no mater what, as long as they're a citizen as is now in nations with public healthcare. But if they can, they'll pay at least a portion of what they themselves caused.

Please don't strawman me Fallow. I said already unrelated conditions are no one's fault. If a morbidly obese person suffered from a condition unrelated to their weight they'd get free treatment just the same as everyone else. If anything people ought to feel less stigma towards obese people in hospitals because they'd know if the public paid for it the person is an innocent victim.

 

[Fallowfox]

Well technically I'm not giving an opinion on health policies, I'm suggesting one. Really though, you're singling me out, and it's kind of quite clear. I'm not the first one in this thread to talk about more than just the chemicals themselves.

I absolutely disagree. As someone who's spent multiple weeks in hospital stay under constant high-flow IV drip and the recipient copious blood and urine testing equipment and bandages, there's nothing at all unfair or derogatory about calling medical costs a drain. Everything costs money and that money is a resource which could have been used for other people instead. I didn't want to be in the hospital and I didn't ask for any of the treatments or testing beyond what I physically needed. A lot was gone and given to me by my caretakers. I cost them a lot but I never meant to or wanted to, and they were happy to help me just the same. I had to agree to more blood testing after I got home for a few days to be released early. It's not meant as an insult to say it's a drain, it's just fact.

If someone was enough of a smoker that a doctor could tell by looking at them, and they had lung cancer, I think that's a fair sale. If you read my previous posts, I did say I wouldn't personally leave someone without treatment or the entire bill. They'll get treatment no mater what, as long as they're a citizen as is now in nations with public healthcare. But if they can, they'll pay at least a portion of what they themselves caused.

Please don't strawman me Fallow. I said already unrelated conditions are no one's fault. If a morbidly obese person suffered from a condition unrelated to their weight they'd get free treatment just the same as everyone else. If anything people ought to feel less stigma towards obese people in hospitals because they'd know if the public paid for it the person is an innocent victim.

I've mentioned I feel the thread topic is political a couple of times before- on page 7 for example.

It's a subject people have strong political views about- and quite understandably I suppose. I'm glad that your medical treatment was evidently successful, or at the least that it came to an end.

 

[Rayd]

any mere reference of them makes me deeply uncomfortable. the fact that they're as normalized as they are is disappointing to me. especially seeing as how people can casually bring them up to talk and joke about without consideration of how people feel about them and its just an established socially acceptable thing to do. any time anyone does that to me i lose all interest in speaking to them any longer, and if it's online i leave them on read for a really long time lol.

don't get me started on people that make it their entire identity.

 

[quoting_mungo]

It’s sad to see how willing some people are to call a stick a carrot. Addiction isn’t a choice. It may be the result of poor choices, to different degrees, but it damn well doesn’t reduce your value as a human being. I would never encourage someone to try highly addictive or otherwise dangerous substances, but I also think that the best way to treat people who are already past that line is with compassion.

Which absolutely is something that I can feel conflicted about. I’ve seen firsthand how people can use their addiction to get treatment that they feel is getting off easy. However, I’d still rather those people get treated more kindly than they treat others, than that good people with a genuine problem that they want help with are left high and dry.

 

[Netanye Dakabi]

those who could handle being on drugs don't think they need them in their life.

those who think they should do drugs really couldn't handle it.

 

[fernshiine]

I think weed is good for some people but not others and is subjective to the user. I 100% don't think weed (or anything) should be smoked or vaped, though! I'm against smoking and vaping for health reasons.

Obviously harmful drugs need to go, although prescribed drugs are another convo entirely. For anything prescribed they should be covered (since apparently the government of both Canada and the U.S have an endless amount to spend, given them recently saying they have trillions) so that they are accessible to all people who need them. I'm a marginalized person with debilitating migraines and headaches but right now cannot afford the medication my doctor wishes to prescribe. She is aware of that, though, so she gave me a trial version of it with three capsules in it until I see her again in May, which is amazingly helpful all things considering. I already used one a few nights ago when I was being kept by awake from the pain and nausea and it helped immensely. To think that I cannot get them to help my condition hurts a lot.

I think harmful drugs need to go somehow, though. So many people die from them where I live it is so awful.

And Idk how I feel about alcohol. I haven't tried any drugs other than medication and obviously painkillers but I have had, like, three glasses of alcohol in my life. I hated it. YUCK

 

[SkyEagle]

If your responsible with them and don’t get addicted, then i’m cool with it. If your addicted then please get help.

 

[Titusego]

I think drugs are a big responsibility and over time it becomes an addiction, which is not ok at all. Yes, I can't say you shouldn't try it, but you shouldn't become addicted either. I am so sad when I read or hear cases when people can no longer return to normal life because they get lost in addiction and have no way back. There are of course many companies like The Hygrove that take people out of such addictions and I have a lot of respect for what they do because it's not that easy.

 

[Firuthi Dragovic]

Now that I think about this a bit more... when I say I'm averse to most drugs, I find it even difficult to have ordinary painkillers or even prescriptions and/or vitamins. I don't know if it's a side effect from having to take antibiotics for years (rheumatic fever that I had when I was 2, but I was on antibiotics until I was 18!), or the fact that my family has been known to overwork themselves physically to the point where they use painkillers a lot (just the over-the-counter ones, but they're practically in constant pain even WITH them!), or if something about the sensation of taking pills is just off to me.

(The sensation is basically as if I'm swallowing hard candy without chewing or sucking, and yes, that is exactly as horrifying in MULTIPLE aspects as it sounds.)

If I really had to have medication I'd probably have to have it snuck into my food like people do when giving dogs medication.

Other than that I still stand by making sure you're prepared for the after-effects. Would explain a couple bits of rave culture that's for sure.

 

[FunniValentine]

Legalize all drugs, pull the power from under the multi-billion dollar international business that is drug trafficking, and provide greater resources for rehabilitation. Release the societal taboo, relieve the addicts aversion to getting help, being public about their problem. End the war on drugs, where has only proven time and time again that drugs has in fact dominated the war on drugs. It's a radical position to take, yes, but it's been observed to work elsewhere. People who want to do drugs will do drugs, it's up for us to decide whether or not they should be shot, killed, jumped, or die in an alleyway because of it. Whether they'll get help, or the taboo of consuming such things will be too great and they'd rather overdose than face the light.

 

[TrishaCat]

smoke weed everyday

 

[Fallowfox]

Legalize all drugs, pull the power from under the multi-billion dollar international business that is drug trafficking, and provide greater resources for rehabilitation. Release the societal taboo, relieve the addicts aversion to getting help, being public about their problem. End the war on drugs, where has only proven time and time again that drugs has in fact dominated the war on drugs. It's a radical position to take, yes, but it's been observed to work elsewhere. People who want to do drugs will do drugs, it's up for us to decide whether or not they should be shot, killed, jumped, or die in an alleyway because of it. Whether they'll get help, or the taboo of consuming such things will be too great and they'd rather overdose than face the light.

Some drug addiction also happens because people who have been given strong medicinal drugs are not provided with successful support to discontinue the drug- so they turn to alternative drugs as a replacement.
That's a large driver of the opioid pandemic in North America and the UK, and wider concentration on this care need could help prevent people ever trying illegal drugs.

 

[FunniValentine]

Some drug addiction also happens because people who have been given strong medicinal drugs are not provided with successful support to discontinue the drug- so they turn to alternative drugs as a replacement.
That's a large driver of the opioid pandemic in North America and the UK, and wider concentration on this care need could help prevent people ever trying illegal drugs.

This is incredibly true, and is typically involving opiates. The medical system should've recognized what they were doing to people a long time ago and worked to prevent such things from happening. I've seen the effects of this with my own eyes, and it's horrid. I would like to clarify on my past post that I personally don't support the use of hard drugs, such as methadones, cocaine or opiates, it's simply a measure I think is necessary to get people the help they need. Though I am a supporter of the recreational uses of marijuana and psychedelics, however.

 

[sirtrancealot]

Have taken all but Ketamine in my 20's, but I got to the age where the interest wore off I guess. I don't mind the occasional smoke and I'd love to go raving again with a disco biscuit, but... just the thought of sore muscles and the comedown puts the idea off. I think trying things like LSD and XTC was a good way to get some creative arts going in me.
I personally had more trouble with alcohol than anything else. Easy to get, hard to stop.

As for making drugs legal or decriminalizing them, I stand in the middle. It would be much safer for people to try them if they researched and knew what to expect if it was available from a licenced vendor. But the thought of making cocaine/speed even more accessible doesn't sit well with me especially seeing just how much of it is around in my town.

That said, in the UK, cannabis is now available to prescribe for certain conditions, Epilepsy (which I have) is the main candidate, but no doctor wants to put their license under the scope if they prescribe it. We ain't changing fast over here

 

[Dempeets]

Weed, shrooms, lsd. Stick to the psychedelics and you’ll be alright. Usually.

 

[DrifterJellybean]

Hard pass.

 

[Ramjet]

Weed, shrooms, lsd. Stick to the psychedelics and you’ll be alright. Usually.

 

[Simo]

One thing I notice is that the term 'drugs' is (too often) used in a very broad, sweeping way, as in all drugs MUST be BAD! But I think that in reality, it's a much more complex picture, and it's silly to dismiss weed in the same way that one might treat harder, physically addictive drugs, such as cocaine and opiates.

Also, I have noted that there's a good deal of cultural bias against weed, and this seems especially strong in the UK. I recall the (UK) government once commissioned a study on the relative harms of drugs. Alcohol was among the worst, and weed among the least. But despite this, laws in the UK celebrate booze, and crack down on weed. Why is this? At least in part due to the long British tradition of drinking, pubs, ales, and the way drinking is woven into British culture, up to and including the high degree of binge drinking, common in the UK. Weed, on the other hand, is more associated with 'outside' cultures, hippies and low-lifes, and seems to come in for harsh treatment, not so much based on fact, but longstanding cultural bias. It always amazes me how out of step the UK is, compared to other western nations, with its marijuana laws. Maybe if the Queen sparks up a joint on the telly, it'll change

 

[quoting_mungo]

One thing I notice is that the term 'drugs' is (too often) used in a very broad, sweeping way, as in all drugs MUST be BAD! But I think that in reality, it's a much more complex picture, and it's silly to dismiss weed in the same way that one might treat harder, physically addictive drugs, such as cocaine and opiates.

It doesn’t help that English uses “drugs” both for intoxicants and medicine. At the same time, that same frustrating language quirk has a point; what makes something a “bad drug” is more application than any inherent quality of the substance.

Anything has the potential to be a “bad drug,” if you’re using it in a way that harms yourself or others. What’s a drug of abuse for one person can be medication that allows another to lead a more normal life.