Dasus
joined 7 months ago
Well not exactly.
With a prescription system, the default is that you don't have a prescription, and get one if there's a reason.
With this system, the default is (people of age and other possible requirements) have a licence, and it gets taken a way if there's a reason.
Like the difference between OR and XOR. Similar, yes, but still different and for different purposes.
"Over the counters" is still a concept within the current medical system.
I'm talking about reforming drug laws pretty substantially.
The way I imagine it, it would be made available from specialised stores to people who have a licence for it. Much like a drivers licence. Essentially the Bratt system, but for drugs.
If prohibition had worked, I would be all for it.
Exactly. So youre definitely against the prohibition of drugs, aka the drug war?
Your argument against any prescription drugs
I have never argued against prescription drugs.
I've pointed out this case is about recreational use. To improve the safety of medicine, we should separate medical and recreational use, which means we need to reform drug laws, because now recreational use is abusing the prescription drug system, thus undermining it's actual purpose; safe medication.
I don't know of anyone who would in any way connect chemotherapy and recreation. Well, I tell a lie. I do know of one person having done that.
I once managed to talk over a guy who was like 70-something back then (and it was like 15 years ago). He repeated literally every bit of 60's propaganda. We drank a lot, talked a long time, but I did finally manage to get through to him.
But yeah, that was once.
Have to actively fight the propaganda and make them ashamed of supporting something they don't even know they are supporting and what it's doing to the world.
You know what's the most common daterape drug?
Alcohol.
You know how many stabbings there are every year? And everyone is still allowed kitchen knives.
Ketamine is no different. Most recreational users are responsible. You just don't see or hear from them, because of the social implications of admitting to using illegal drugs.
The reason Perry died is that he did a strong dissociative, while immersed in water. He must've been drunk as a skunk, because any experiences drug user (which I'm sure he was**) should know not to shoot up in a tub of any sort.
A lethal dose of ketamine would be roughly 25-times what a normal recreational dose is, so its doubtful he actually died from the ketamine.
Which leads me back to my point that he was drunk and did something slightly stupid with horrendous consequence.
When people die in housefires after they've passed out on their bed with a lit ciggie, you don't blame the kiosk that sold them the pack of smokes, do you?
Regulation is good. We should have much more of it. Unfortunately, the only way to have that regulation is to admit that people can and do use these substances recreationally. Alcohol is a every dangerously substance, but banning it lead to an absolute clusterfuck and because people will keep drinking, it's better to have legal markets and legal use so it can be controlled to at least some extent, curtailing the worst abuse and encouraging moderate use.
Like during the prohibition of alcohol, it would've been way more likely you literally drink yourself to death. Either because you get methanol or some other adulterant, or because you get every strong ethanol (booze) without knowing how strong it is, and because there's little to no social control because abusers are just as criminal as the moderate users so moderate users can't "tell" on abusers.
Even if alcohol doesn't need a prescription, it's still regulated; you have to be an adult and you can't be too drunk to buy it. And all products you can buy from stores are labeled with the strength they are, and there are actually mild option, like beer.
You know how the temperance movement has the word "temperance" in it? It's because it was supposed to be about tempering the abuse to moderation. But then they starred advocating for full prohibition.
It is a war on drugs issue in this death. Very much so.
“War on drugs” proponents are the worst among us.
I genuinely couldn't agree more. Rare to see this.
And the insipid part is that they don't realise just how much its fucking cover society. Pretty much all organises crime is funded through drugs. Cartels just wouldn't have income without them. If there we're legal networks, everything would be safer and there would be a metric fuckton less crime. Just think of all the gang crime in the US. What is it based around? Drugs, ofc.
Not to even mention the benefits to society when it become socially acceptable to do serotonergic substances instead of drowning in solvents every weekend.
Made me think of this. Pretty much thr exact scenario, as a Mitchell and Web sketch.
Advocating against Ukraine in the context of the Russo-Ukrainian war, by spreading pretty much verbatim what Russian state news is touting.
I bet he reads it though.
True enough.
let's see if we can't ping him here though @davel@lemmy.ml idk how the pings work on Lemmy if the last didn't ping him lol
view more: next ›