alt text
tweet by Johann Hari: The core of addiction is not wanting to be present in life, because pour life is too painful a place to be. This is why imposing more pain or punishment on a person with an addiction problem actually makes their addiction worse.
What would you consider a “hard drug” that isn’t harmful? Isn’t its very definition a way to distinguish them from soft drugs which are less harmful?
deleted by creator
Shrooms are a valid argument, I’ve seen them categorized as both. I was more talking about stuff that is pretty much universally deemed a “hard drug”, like cocaine, heroin, ecstasy or meth.
deleted by creator
Eh, I’d say that’s still way too dangerous for public consumption.
I read it could have benefits too, but that’s not enough of a reason for full legalization imo. Supervised usage in restricted environments for therapeutic purposes could be possible, but any more than that will make the risks outweigh the benefits by too much.
deleted by creator
I mean, you said yourself it’s something that should be used a few times a year max. Leaving something like that as easily obtainable whenever you want seems a recipe for disaster.
Alcohol can be dangerous, but only if you drink a fuckton or if you do on a daily basis (and even then, it has to be a certain level of alcohol because one glass of wine per day isn’t really that harmful). It should definitely be regulated better, but saying it’s more dangerous than ecstasy seems a bit too much.
Anyway there isn’t really much of a point in discussing any further whether stuff like ecstasy should be fully legalized or not when plain old cannabis is still illegal in most of the world. Let’s first do the stuff we (almost?) everyone agree with.