I think drug abuse is a consequence of societal problems, and criminalising drugs can only further marginalise people who are already in a tough situation.
I think governments should focus on resolving the contradictions that are at the source of those societal problems, and during that time adopt Portugal’s strategy of decriminalising all drugs and providing social assistance to users in dedicated spaces.
Once we have developed a strong social safety net and we deem that the risk of people falling into drug addiction as a way to escape the sad reality of their material conditions is low enough, I think we should legalise drugs and sell them in dedicated space where people are educated about them. My reasoning behind it is that people will always be curious to try at least some drugs, and it’s impossible to completely stop them for doing so. Making them legal allows us to set strict quality controls to ensure that the products aren’t tainted with harmful substances (more harmful than the drug the user is expecting to buy, think fentanyl) and that the dosage is accurate. The education prior to the purchase would allow the person to know the potential risks and side effects before hand, and to be informed about the safe way to consume it.
I think that would be the most optimal solution for risk prevention.
I think drug abuse is a consequence of societal problems
I’d say the same, but replace “think” with “know” as research bears this out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park
They where criminalized to arrest and supress black and leftist thought in america, removing there right to vote.
As such this lever should be removed from the upper class, no one should be in a small cage for there entire life for trying to acsess drugs.
I think that personal use should never be criminalized. Criminalisation of manufacturing and sale depends on the drug
I think only the state and entities regulated by the state should sell them. Like any prescription medicine.
As others have pointed out drug criminalisation and the war on drugs has been used to persecute minority groups. However I also just don’t think that making them illegal does anything to stop people from using them. This has already historically been proven back in the 1920s when prohibition was a thing. It just meant that people began drinking alcohol illegally. Alcohol related deaths actually went up during prohibition specifically because it wasn’t being regulated.
Yeah making it illegal essentially removes justice from the working class.
Imaigne you buy a beer at a shop but it turns out it has paint thinner in it and you die. Your relatives can sue the manufacturer and recieve compensation in money and prison time + making sure the company that did that never does it again.
If a dealer cuts your shit and you die the only retribution you can hope for is either the state brutalizing them or someone killing them. It creates cycles of violence. Even in this case the police arent going to compensate the victims family, its inherently a system where the upper class are no longer liable.
It depends on the drug, certain substances such as psychedelics are much safer than other drugs like alcohol and are not addictive (at least as far as I know, I may be wrong) and so I believe they should be legalized as they also have a lot of medical, recreational and even spiritual uses. As for more harmful and addictive substances such as heroin and crack I believe that their production should be criminalized but not their use with users being provided with assistance to recover from addiction.
heroin and crack
opium and cocaine both have medical applications that all hospitals rely on, they should be state controlled and given out as needed for addictions too.
I wouldnt get too caught up on the ‘crack’ differation, it is literally just cocaine that has had its impurities removed and the seperation between ‘cocaine’ and ‘crack’ is primarly a racial one made up by US police to give black people heavier sentances. ‘crack’ for black, ‘cocaine’ for white people; they have different sentancing for a reason, despite being chemically the same.
the reason why this is, is primarly how different classes engage with cocaine; a white person in the US is more likely to be able to buy purer, powdered verisions and doesnt need to worry about the product being cut with lethal stuff; lower classes get cocaine thats passed a lot further down the food chain, and that is sold with much more impurities.
In order to address this, you need to ‘purify’ it by removing all the adulterents, usually in a dangerous procsess. The method they use to seperate crack from cocaine is literally just ‘do they have a microwave or stove with cocaine residue and a glass pipe to vaporize it with’
Oregon has shown that drug legalization that comes before building a functional health care system doesn’t produce the same results as Portugal. Legalization works in Portugal because they have that. Drugs must be treated as a medical issue, not a criminal issue, but they must be treated. Sure we can legalize before we have health care, but it’s gonna be a little fucked up.
Ideally, there’s free rehab. Most drugs are legal but in some cases only permitted in a supervised matter, with tested product. Some drugs are just too dangerous for recreational use and will remain banned, with laws against import, manufacturing and sales but not possession.
Partially legalized. Crack and heroin cna be legal for research purposes, but recreational, nah.
Aye, partially legalized but partially regulated, depending on material conditions
If it’s in America, keep Marijuana in such a mild manner, but stricter on fentanyl
If it’s in Philippines, legalize more safer alternative derivatives of shabu
Rehab may be needed
Then again, you may have to deal with the inherent causes that lead one person to take such stuff in the first place, then we wouldn’t have as much of a drug problem
