What's your thoughts on drugs?

[Firuthi Dragovic]

Caffeine only for me. I hate alcohol, unlike the rest of my family, and have never been in a place or job where I could try weed or shrooms without serious consequences.

I probably won't touch them even in retirement as I know I completely lack restraint (the reason I limit my drinking so much).

When it comes to others, I have to stay distant from any use due to the aforementioned consequences scenario. Beyond that? I'm more worried about after-behaviors than the actual use.

 

[Fallowfox]

Caffeine only for me. I hate alcohol, unlike the rest of my family, and have never been in a place or job where I could try weed or shrooms without serious consequences.

I probably won't touch them even in retirement as I know I completely lack restraint (the reason I limit my drinking so much).

When it comes to others, I have to stay distant from any use due to the aforementioned consequences scenario. Beyond that? I'm more worried about after-behaviors than the actual use.

With illegal drugs like cannabis or magic mushrooms you'd never be sure what you were actually purchasing anyway, so it could result in accidental poisoning.

This was one of the main things that surprised me about people taking drugs in college. They think they took cannabis or mdma, but at the end of the day they only have a stranger's word that that's what they took.

 

[lolcox]

I'm a fan of marijuana, and that's about it.

This said, if we in the USA took an approach more like Portugal with regard to drugs, I think we'd do better as a country. My state of residence is about to start decriminalization of more drugs, with offers of help and recovery instead of jail time. Kinda like Portugal.

 

[Mambi]

I'm a fan of marijuana, and that's about it.

This said, if we in the USA took an approach more like Portugal with regard to drugs, I think we'd do better as a country. My state of residence is about to start decriminalization of more drugs, with offers of help and recovery instead of jail time. Kinda like Portugal.

Look to your north for guidance (Canada)! We have a very good handle on it currently...

 

[Miles Marsalis]

I'd say avoid recreational drugs altogether; they're a temporary escape from your problems and money you're spending on them can be better spend somewhere else.

Also, watch out about getting addicted to painkillers because that is still a crisis in this country.

 

[Rassah]

"What are your thoughts on drugs?"

Thoughts like, "My paws are making rainbows!"

 

[Punji]

Look to your north for guidance (Canada)! We have a very good handle on it currently...

*Swells with opioid crisis*

 

[Mambi]

*Swells with opioid crisis*

Nothing is perfect, but I was referring to weed legalization. Since we're doing the exact same thing as the rest of the world with opiods, we'd naturally have the same problems in that area I guess.

 

[quoting_mungo]

I'd say avoid recreational drugs altogether; they're a temporary escape from your problems and money you're spending on them can be better spend somewhere else.

I wouldn’t assume that the only reason someone might use recreational drugs is escapism. If, say, you happen to be someone for whom a particular substance enhances your bedroom activities, there’s an argument for it being no worse an expenditure than, say, adult toys.

(I’m also not entirely convinced that temporary relief from long-term worries can’t be healthy; goodness knows I could use a day off from all my anxieties once in a while.)

That’s not to say drugs are an unadulterated positive, far from. Some are more harmful than others, and obviously addiction is not something to strive for. Deliberately getting someone addicted is something I wouldn’t so much mind remaining illegal in a situation where drug use is otherwise reclassified as a health issue. But practically every hobby or pastime has aspects of escapism/distraction from other issues, and many or most involve some money being spent sooner or later. Don’t spend money you can’t afford to be without, but don’t court guilt over every penny spent on something frivolous, either, yanno?

 

[Miles Marsalis]

I wouldn’t assume that the only reason someone might use recreational drugs is escapism. If, say, you happen to be someone for whom a particular substance enhances your bedroom activities, there’s an argument for it being no worse an expenditure than, say, adult toys.

(I’m also not entirely convinced that temporary relief from long-term worries can’t be healthy; goodness knows I could use a day off from all my anxieties once in a while.)

That’s not to say drugs are an unadulterated positive, far from. Some are more harmful than others, and obviously addiction is not something to strive for. Deliberately getting someone addicted is something I wouldn’t so much mind remaining illegal in a situation where drug use is otherwise reclassified as a health issue. But practically every hobby or pastime has aspects of escapism/distraction from other issues, and many or most involve some money being spent sooner or later. Don’t spend money you can’t afford to be without, but don’t court guilt over every penny spent on something frivolous, either, yanno?

Fair point about recreational drug not being purely for escapism; in the past, the people I knew who used drugs generally used them for that reason. However, I do know a few acquaintances who use such drugs for the reason you mentioned, but they didn't come to mind since I'm not that close with them. I definitely say that escapism is one of the primary drivers for the opioid epidemic here in addition to the obviousness addictive qualities of those pharmaceuticals which the companies that produced them lied about and the fact many people took those drugs assuming they were less addictive than in reality only to fall down the addiction spiral.

I have a minor disagreement about them being no worse an expenditure than adult toys. Recreational drugs can have major or minor side effects which the user needs to be aware of in the short term and long term, where as adult toys, to my knowledge, do not.

I also do not begrudge people frivolous purchases, but people need to be aware what they are buying, especially when in comes to drugs.

 

[ManicTherapsid]

 

[Fallowfox]

I wouldn’t assume that the only reason someone might use recreational drugs is escapism. If, say, you happen to be someone for whom a particular substance enhances your bedroom activities, there’s an argument for it being no worse an expenditure than, say, adult toys.

(I’m also not entirely convinced that temporary relief from long-term worries can’t be healthy; goodness knows I could use a day off from all my anxieties once in a while.)

That’s not to say drugs are an unadulterated positive, far from. Some are more harmful than others, and obviously addiction is not something to strive for. Deliberately getting someone addicted is something I wouldn’t so much mind remaining illegal in a situation where drug use is otherwise reclassified as a health issue. But practically every hobby or pastime has aspects of escapism/distraction from other issues, and many or most involve some money being spent sooner or later. Don’t spend money you can’t afford to be without, but don’t court guilt over every penny spent on something frivolous, either, yanno?

Using drugs to avoid worries has many faces I suppose.

A glass of wine to relax after a difficult day in the office is probably not going to do somebody any harm for example and I'm sure none of us would view a bottle of red every once in a while as a waste of money, but for alcoholics the situation's different.

Ofc with any illicit drug, it could turn out that it's actually cut with washing powder.

 

[quoting_mungo]

I definitely say that escapism is one of the primary drivers for the opioid epidemic here in addition to the obviousness addictive qualities of those pharmaceuticals which the companies that produced them lied about and the fact many people took those drugs assuming they were less addictive than in reality only to fall down the addiction spiral.

No argument there, especially on the point of addiction; that’s why all addiction needs to be treated as a health issue, rather than a criminal issue. When physical pain gets involved (as is often though not always the case for the opioids in question, I believe? (EDIT: Realized this was ambiguous; what I meant to say was I believe the entry to addiction to painkillers to my understanding tends to be an initial legitimate prescription for physical pain)), the line for what constitutes escapism also gets a bit blurry.

I have a minor disagreement about them being no worse an expenditure than adult toys. Recreational drugs can have major or minor side effects which the user needs to be aware of in the short term and long term, where as adult toys, to my knowledge, do not.

To clarify I was speaking specifically about the spending-money-on-pleasure (in the wide sense, though for the particular example it happens to also apply in a more narrow sense) aspect. Being an informed consumer, so to speak, is 100% vital, as is knowing your own body and how you specifically react to a given substance. (As an aside, adult toys, used incorrectly, absolutely can be associated with risk; it’s not entirely uncommon for people to show up in the ER needing... assistance... after *ahem* losing a toy.)

I also do not begrudge people frivolous purchases, but people need to be aware what they are buying, especially when in comes to drugs.

Yeah, I was having a bad day (woo headaches/migraines!) and came down too strong on that one, sorry. The point I should have spent more time making, instead, is that escapism and distraction from life sucking is a sliding scale, and recreational drug use can land on many points on that scale as can practically any hobby. I certainly spent most of yesterday playing computer games specifically to take my mind off things. As @Fallowfox rightly points out, illicit drugs absolutely come with a giant “buyer beware,” some of it specifically because they’re illegal.

 

[Kuuro]

What interests me the most is the prominent distaste for drugs in this community. I'm unsure if it's a statistical disproportion or if the anti-drug voice is simply loud, but it has me very curious of where the overlap is between furry psychology and opinions on drugs.

I used to "smoke weed errday" for a couple years but it started sparking anxiety or putting my attention inward which makes it a hit/miss substance to consume in a social setting. These days if I take it, it's when I'm alone playing some music, drawing, or relaxing with games. It's recreationally legal and regulated where I live and thus perfectly safe to consume. The taxes collected for it also are funneled into mental health funds and addiction rehabilitation facilities.

Since my first layoff from work I've started habitually drinking alcohol. I've grown quite fond of the effects but there are plenty of studies pointing toward damage to the body so it's something I need to tone down.

There's plenty of research pointing to the negative effects abusing of synthetic drugs like meth, heroin, and not-prescribed pharmaceuticals like opioid painkillers and adderall. Those are not compounds I'd advise taking and I'm not interested in taking them myself.

Psychedelics, primarily psilocybin (magic mushrooms), are an intriguing one. Recent research suggests psilocybin consumption can actually be healthy for your brain under specific circumstances. It sparks neurogenesis (formation of new neurons), increases visual acuity and even cognitive ability. Statistically it's also (again, just with the small amount of research that's been done so far), by FAR the most successful treatment for PTSD with the lowest reported side effects compared to any synthetic pharmaceutical. It's also is nearly impossible to overdose to a life-threatening point, and has extremely low reported addicts. In fact, users who've consumed them, even after a positive experience, report a lack of desire to take them again until weeks, months, or years have passed, if they ever want it again. They have a tendancy to be a one-and-done compound.

It does, however, alter your consciousness, and like any mind-altering substance there have been cases with patients who were harmed or needed psychiatric aid after consumption. Research does suggest these cases usually involve a mix of other drugs, but it doesn't dismiss the possibility and the risk of consumption, especially if the user is not in a controlled environment with professional aid.

But just for the record, this is all simply research that interests me. I'm not under the impression that "everyone should take psychedelics!" I've taken them personally and have really been opened up to new ideas, but I've also been hurt badly by them and even sent myself to the ER out of panic. Also, they do not work the same in everyone, as the human mind is very complex and all individuals are different. I just support the growth of humanity, and if there's something to be studied without ill-intent to any living being, I'm into it. For science!

EDIT: Here's a couple sources for the research I was talking about. And a study posted by WIRED.
REMEMBER these are STUDIES and not definitive. I don't want to to be overly cautious but I've tried talking about this subject objectively in the past and there's always a group who responds with anger. It's just science... there's nobody telling you to take drugs

LINK1:

Psychedelics Promote Structural and Functional Neural Plasticity

LINK2:

 

[Miles Marsalis]

No argument there, especially on the point of addiction; that’s why all addiction needs to be treated as a health issue, rather than a criminal issue. When physical pain gets involved (as is often though not always the case for the opioids in question, I believe? (EDIT: Realized this was ambiguous; what I meant to say was I believe the entry to addiction to painkillers to my understanding tends to be an initial legitimate prescription for physical pain)), the line for what constitutes escapism also gets a bit blurry.


To clarify I was speaking specifically about the spending-money-on-pleasure (in the wide sense, though for the particular example it happens to also apply in a more narrow sense) aspect. Being an informed consumer, so to speak, is 100% vital, as is knowing your own body and how you specifically react to a given substance. (As an aside, adult toys, used incorrectly, absolutely can be associated with risk; it’s not entirely uncommon for people to show up in the ER needing... assistance... after *ahem* losing a toy.)


Yeah, I was having a bad day (woo headaches/migraines!) and came down too strong on that one, sorry. The point I should have spent more time making, instead, is that escapism and distraction from life sucking is a sliding scale, and recreational drug use can land on many points on that scale as can practically any hobby. I certainly spent most of yesterday playing computer games specifically to take my mind off things. As @Fallowfox rightly points out, illicit drugs absolutely come with a giant “buyer beware,” some of it specifically because they’re illegal.

My initial response was probably a little harsh and I missed the point you made about adult toys, so no worries.

It's basically high time we shifted focus from punishment on drug offenses to rehabilitation and preventing relapses, at least here in the United States. That is definitely another driver for the opioid crisis here.

 

[ConorHyena]

Drug money is the main financial driver behind organised crime, and a lot of this is down to the criminalisation of drugs.

If we legalise it, we'd hit the mob where it hurts them the most, their wallets.

 

[Miles Marsalis]

Drug money is the main financial driver behind organised crime, and a lot of this is down to the criminalisation of drugs.

If we legalise it, we'd hit the mob where it hurts them the most, their wallets.

That is part of it, but illegal recreational drugs can pose different levels of hazard to a user's health and come with different levels of addictiveness. It is one thing to decriminalize the medicinal and recreational use of cannabis; it is more difficult to decriminalize heroin because that is a much harder drug, that is far more addictive and more much immediately dangerous to one's health.

 

[ConorHyena]

That is part of it, but illegal recreational drugs can pose different levels of hazard to a user's health and come with different levels of addictiveness. It is one thing to decriminalize the medicinal and recreational use of cannabis; it is more difficult to decriminalize heroin because that is a much harder drug, that is far more addictive and more much immediately dangerous to one's health.

It is, but getting the broad brush here - if people know what it does and still take it, it's their problem, not mine. You can legally buy brake fluid and drink it or eat fat food till your morbidly obese.. etc, that's your own business.

 

[Punji]

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.

 

[Kuuro]

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.

That's a sensible point of view. I suppose the difference lies between those who prioritize individual self-maintenance and those who prioritize individual second chances (AND possess the willingness to make group sacrifices for them). In a perfect world where nobody makes mistakes, the obvious solution to the drug problem is the former. But, people are stupid, and they often don't realize what they've done until the consequences come in. IMO it's easier to make that mistake than one may think, especially of you have a predisposition to addiction, a concept the victim likely won't even understand until they're in their twenties (or later?), an age where they may already be developing health problems from an early drug investment. At that point, it wouldn't be "fair" that disabled people can get help but the addict can't because people think they were just a plain idiot, when in reality their mind was built to seek pleasure far more than the average person.

But, life isn't fair. People are born without legs. Even though we've developed a docile civilization and those people don't have to worry about getting killed by a pack of wolves anymore, they still don't have legs. Even if an addict is made from developmental issues, they can still carry their own weight. So I see your point, it's just more right-wing than I usually carry.

What would be nice is if there were an optional tax, the same way being an organ donor is optional. When you get your W4 at a new job you can "claim for others" or something, so all the empaths can support their cause and those who don't want their finances hindered by everyone else's problems don't have to.

 

[Lucyfur]

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.

You know I am glad you made it perfectly telegraphed and clear that you are trying to bait things because really it saves me from having to waste my time on explaining how far off you are on certain issues and how you lack the scope of view to see things from a larger lens like actual applications of certain programs and the statistics of benefit to areas and such as well as the more intricate details of the medical aspects you wanted to drag on in just to be "extra spicy"

 

[quoting_mungo]

From a health and human rights perspective (discussion from an organized crime etc perspective feels like it’s flirting a bit too closely with politics) there’s a few policy points that would in all likelihood vastly improve the system:

- Treat addiction as a health issue rather than a crime issue.
- Expunge pure possession convictions, as well as prostitution/loitering convictions and similar (which have a not insignificant degree of... “comorbidity”)
- Treat sale of tainted drugs the same as you would sale of tainted pharmaceuticals.
- Open safe injection sites where “heavy” drugs can be provided by the state free or essentially at cost as long as they are consumed on the premises (where health care staff can be on hand in case of an overdose or other adverse reaction). Combine this with no-pressure access to rehab for users who do want to kick their addiction.

Variations on that last point have been tried, and it turns out most people don’t want to be addicted, but addiction is generally going to be a vicious cycle unless you have the good fortune to be sitting on piles of cash from the word go (and can be so even then).

I can to some degree understand the impulse to push for social health care to not cover addiction treatment and/or health issues stemming from what is perceived as lifestyle choices, but I think any such regulations will more or less inevitably strike harder against vulnerable populations. It’s also at odds with the idea that addiction is at its core a health issue - if choosing to stop being addicted was easy, rehab facilities wouldn’t be a thing. With a number of intoxicants, alcohol included, going cold turkey without medical supervision can kill a long-time addict just from withdrawal symptoms.

A relevant anecdote was shared with me the other day: after surgery (I think wisdom teeth?) an individual was prescribed Percocet for post-op pain. It ended up not doing a whole lot for the pain, but by the time this person realized as much, they’d already hit the point of budding addiction. As soon as it clicked that their impulse to take it was addiction speaking they got rid of what they had left, but I think it highlights how insidious addiction can be; this individual had the fortune to be able to get out in time, but if they hadn’t? I have a hard time calling that a choice of theirs, and punishing them for it makes no more sense than, say, refusing to cover a runner’s stress fractures.

 

[TyraWadman]

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 can agree with your sentiment to some extent. It frustrates me to no end that I've gone through life without coffee, drugs/alcohol abuse, not having kids/pets or any other luxuries that I can't afford, but keeping up with said responsibilities yield no long-term rewards and don't promise a long, fulfilling life. I don't have a say in where my taxes go, and while people are listening to the radio or going to their cottages over the summer, I'm drinking unsafe water and walking through -40 weather just because someone else wanted to open up a park or re-pave a road because it had one bump. If I could choose to let my taxes go to bettering a transit system or supporting a drone that can't go a day without getting his dicc wett and has 20 baby momma's, I'm picking the transit.

The only obvious downside I could see is determining who has or hasn't done enough for themselves and weighing whether or not there were exceptions that could pardon them from/grant them assisted living. And we all know that any type of authority can be abused.

 

[Punji]

That's a sensible point of view. I suppose the difference lies between those who prioritize individual self-maintenance and those who prioritize individual second chances (AND posess the willingness to make group sacrifices for them). In a perfect world where nobody makes mistakes, the obvious solution to the drug problem is the former. But, people are stupid, and they often don't realize what they've done until the consequences come in. IMO it's easier to make that mistake than one may think, especially of you have a predisposition to addiction, a concept the victim likely won't even understand until they're in their twenties (or later?), an age where they may already be developing health problems from an early drug investment. At that point, it wouldn't be "fair" that disabled people can get help but they can't because people think they were just a plain idiot, when in reality their mind was built to seek pleasure far more than the average person.

But, life isn't fair. People are born without legs. Even though we've developed a docile civilization and those people don't have to worry about getting killed by a pack of wolves anymore, they still don't have legs. Even if an addict is made from developmental issues, they can still carry their own weight. So I see your point, it's just more right-wing than I usually carry.

What would be nice is if there were an optional tax, the same way being an organ donor is optional. When you get your W4 at a new job you can "claim for others" or something, so all the empaths can support their cause and those who don't want their finances hindered by everyone else's problems don't have to.

I dunno, minors aren't even supposed to have access to current legal substances. They might be less able to understand the consequences but they still create their own situations. Personally I was never one of the cool kids so no one ever offered me drugs or alcohol, but I've had a distaste for it for a very long time. I know it's very easy to pat myself on the back and say "I didn't, why couldn't anyone else," but still, we're told about it from an early age about how bad drugs and alcohol can mess things up for us. (Not super relevant but interesting, I used to know a kid in school who was like 12 years old and smoked, he'd pay homeless men to buy him cigarettes, or stole them from his parents.)

Preaching to the choir that life ain't fair. It's not something I'd enjoy implementing if I ruled the world. I know first hand people with disabilities, including those caused by heavy substance use, can still be productive, but they're never going to produce enough in taxes to cover their own needs. I'd really hope this would be enough of a fire under the rear to help motivate people to kick their habits and would save millions on healthcare costs. It's not to harm the victims of addiction, but to help everyone else. If my word was law would I actually leave them all high and dry? If they honestly couldn't afford it, probably not, but most would be expected to pay something. The money saved could immediately be used elsewhere if not going straight back into the healthcare system for the many needs remaining.

I do really like this idea. However it'd be hard to find anyone willing to give up a higher percentage of their wage to help people who created most of their own problems. If it worked, perfect though.

View attachment 99573

You know I am glad you made it perfectly telegraphed and clear that you are trying to bait things because really it saves me from having to waste my time on explaining how far off you are on certain issues and how you lack the scope of view to see things from a larger lens like actual applications of certain programs and the statistics of benefit to areas and such as well as the more intricate details of the medical aspects you wanted to drag on in just to be "extra spicy"

Ah my dear, I was half expecting you to say something. Just a hunch you might have a dog in this fight, eh?

I think you might find my language serves to demonstrate I know exactly how unpopular my opinions on drugs are, showing that I understand what others believe might not be exactly the same as what I do. "Extra spicy" indeed, for it is few and far in between that I'd meet someone entirely supportive of my healthcare policies.

How surprising it is that you're having trouble understanding the concept of differentiating beliefs! I'd never have expected such a turn of events from the likes of you, friend.

 

[Kuuro]

I dunno, minors aren't even supposed to have access to current legal substances. They might be less able to understand the consequences but they still create their own situations. Personally I was never one of the cool kids so no one ever offered me drugs or alcohol, but I've had a distaste for it for a very long time. I know it's very easy to pat myself on the back and say "I didn't, why couldn't anyone else," but still, we're told about it from an early age about how bad drugs and alcohol can mess things up for us. (Not super relevant but interesting, I used to know a kid in school who was like 12 years old and smoked, he'd pay homeless men to buy him cigarettes, or stole them from his parents.)

Preaching to the choir that life ain't fair. It's not something I'd enjoy implementing if I ruled the world. I know first hand people with disabilities, including those caused by heavy substance use, can still be productive, but they're never going to produce enough in taxes to cover their own needs. I'd really hope this would be enough of a fire under the rear to help motivate people to kick their habits and would save millions on healthcare costs. It's not to harm the victims of addiction, but to help everyone else. If my word was law would I actually leave them all high and dry? If they honestly couldn't afford it, probably not, but most would be expected to pay something. The money saved could immediately be used elsewhere if not going straight back into the healthcare system for the many needs remaining.

I do really like this idea. However it'd be hard to find anyone willing to give up a higher percentage of their wage to help people who created most of their own problems. If it worked, perfect though.


Ah my dear, I was half expecting you to say something. Just a hunch you might have a dog in this fight, eh?

I think you might find my language serves to demonstrate I know exactly how unpopular my opinions on drugs are, showing that I understand what others believe might not be exactly the same as what I do. "Extra spicy" indeed, for it is few and far in between that I'd meet someone entirely supportive of my healthcare policies.

How surprising it is that you're having trouble understanding the concept of differentiating beliefs! I'd never have expected such a turn of events from the likes of you, friend.

I too hope that, whatever policies do get set in place, these people can develop the motivation to live healthier lives. Hell, I need to do that. I have made progress at least... But it's absolutely possible for even the roughest lives to turn clean, productive, and happy. I just think a large amount may not make the discovery without a lending hand *shrug*. I do believe most people have more control over their lives than they realize, it's only when you decide something is impossible that it truly becomes so.