View Full Version : Denver decriminalizes mushrooms!
So far it looks like by a narrow margin a done deal.
http://www.denverpost.com/2019/05/08/denver-psychedelic-magic-mushroom/
I?m hoping we can get heroine and cocaine on the next ballot.
Once those get legalized then meth and crack should be a slam dunk shortly afterwards.
BPTactical
05-08-2019, 18:21
I?m hoping we can get heroine and cocaine on the next ballot.
Once those get legalized then meth and crack should be a slam dunk shortly afterwards.
Yup.
Reason # 354,819,259 to not go to Denver.
I?m hoping we can get heroine and cocaine on the next ballot.
Once those get legalized then meth and crack should be a slam dunk shortly afterwards.
Psychoactive drugs have huge potential for treating people.with PTSD and other psychosomatic disorders, moreso than already established methods.
https://maps.org/news/media/7159-the-new-york-times-treating-ptsd-with-mdma-you-might-have-some-questions
Therapies using MDMA have shown that 68% of people that have undergone this therapy no longer show signs of or can be categorized as PTSD.
Holeee shit. This isn't about medicine for crying out loud. This about illegal and illicit use of intoxicants.
That's what the world needs, more people out of touch and trying to escape reality by feeding their drug habit through any and all means possible. This creates more government dependency and that's what the lefties want.
kidicarus13
05-08-2019, 18:57
This isn't about medicine for crying out loud. This about illegal and illicit use of intoxicants.
If you're putting mushrooms in the same basket as heroine or PCP or meth, you probably shouldn't be in the conversation.
Also, if you're going to completely buy in to what you've learned about drugs from the government's war on drugs, then go ahead and just roll over for everything else the government tells you that you should, or should not be doing. After all, government knows best right?
ChickNorris
05-08-2019, 19:02
Lets be intellectually honest here. Responsible adults usually make responsible choices...
You can disapprove but does that mean it should be illegal?
My point was about having people self-medicate vs. true medicine.
Banning anything has never worked. (That hasn't stopped gun control advocates.) However, we lost the ability to keep the government out of our lives since The Whiskey Rebellion. There are laws regarding legal intoxicants, like open container laws, public intoxication, DUI, and DWI. Who wants to carry the torch for decriminalizing those?
Responsible adults are a dying breed. I've put on enough years that I've seen the negatives for the unfettered use of intoxicants. Please list the positives for me.
Holeee shit. This isn't about medicine for crying out loud. This about illegal and illicit use of intoxicants.
I would ask you to consider that perhaps this is about people being fed up about being lied to about what certain things do and don't do; and now they are venting their frustrations through the process that was set out for them to do so. I didn't even realize this was on a ballot here.
JohnnyDrama
05-08-2019, 20:14
I've never tried mushrooms. For that matter, I don't even like mushrooms on my pizza. However, I've been around many people who have. My take-away is that they were very happy they didn't end the evening puking. It seemed to be the natural course of things.
What I'm wondering is, are the pot stores going to start selling 'shrooms now?
No, this sounds like it is just a decriminalization of possession. There is nothing set-up for legal distribution.
Great-Kazoo
05-08-2019, 20:45
Lets be intellectually honest here. Responsible adults usually make responsible choices...
You can disapprove but does that mean it should be illegal?
Agree.
If one were to insert another word, like gun for instance. the conversation would change.
Look no farther than CA after the brief, but effective, mag limit ban was temporarily rescinded . What they sell to CA, 1/2 million mags or less?
JohnnyEgo
05-08-2019, 20:53
I guess my post-retirement plan to take a massive shot of LSD (or stamp, or pill, or whatever form it comes in, I'm a little hazy on the subject) to ward off thanataphobia just took another step towards reality!
No, this sounds like it is just a decriminalization of possession. There is nothing set-up for legal distribution.
I don't think it actually decrminalizes anything . . . it just sets an ordinance that says it should be an extremely low priority for police. Still a felony, but the cops aren't encouraged to enforce it?
I don't think it actually decrminalizes anything . . . it just sets an ordinance that says it should be an extremely low priority for police. Still a felony, but the cops aren't encouraged to enforce it?
Yep, looks like it.
As written, I-301 directs police via ordinance to treat enforcement of laws against possession of psilocybin mushrooms as their lowest priority.
It’s similar to decriminalization measures approved by Denver voters for marijuana years before Colorado’s Amendment 64 won statewide approval.
“Our victory here is a clear signal to the rest of the country that we’re ready for a broader conversation around psilocybin and its potential benefits,” said Matthews, a 33-year-old stay-at-home dad.
Psychedelic mushrooms still would remain illegal to buy, sell or possess, with the latter crime a felony that carries a potential punishment of up to a year in prison and a fine. But Initiative 301 backers hope to lower the risk users face of getting caught with mushrooms.
Agree.
If one were to insert another word, like gun for instance. the conversation would change.
Not from my perspective. A gun is a tool and has a number of empirical good uses. Misuse becomes the issue.
I'd at least expect to hear the argument that drugs have value in 'the arts', but I think that's also B.S.
I'm a libertarian, but I also understand that the model would have a tendency toward anarchy if fully implemented. Intoxicants have a long history of being societally destructive (opium dens for example). How much dependency, lack of productivity, crime, and disability entitlements can taxpayers be expected to support?
Agree.
If one were to insert another word, like gun for instance. the conversation would change.
Look no farther than CA after the brief, but effective, mag limit ban was temporarily rescinded . What they sell to CA, 1/2 million mags or less?
Well except that my gun ownership costs others nothing. Actually a collective benefit.
More chemical recreation will cost what?
If people generally make good choices why is my paycheck taxed to fund “safety nets” for when they don’t?
Not from my perspective. A gun is a tool and has a number of empirical good uses. Misuse becomes the issue.
I'd at least expect to hear the argument that drugs have value in 'the arts', but I think that's also B.S.
I'm a libertarian, but I also understand that the model would have a tendency toward anarchy if fully implemented. Intoxicants have a long history of being societally destructive (opium dens for example). How much dependency, lack of productivity, crime, and disability entitlements can taxpayers be expected to support?
If you believe at all in what you said in red, then you'd be lobbying HARD against legal alcohol. Why aren't you?
As to your comment in blue, not every drug does the same thing, and not every person responds to drugs the same way. I'd use the example of me hearing people describing what certain alcohol does to them, i.e. "Vodka makes me horny," or "tequila makes me wanna fight!" I've never personally experienced any different types of drunks between alcohol, but that doesn't mean others don't.
For those interested, here is a list of studies around psilocybin: https://maps.org/search-results?searchword=Psilocybin&searchphrase=all
EDIT: Looks like a compilation of just psychedelic things, but a lot on the list look like studies.
I'm interested in the medical stuff, and there are great arguments to be made from the medical usage perspective, but I don't like it as an end all be all argument because I don't think things need to have a medical benefit to justify their existence or legality. I don't want to imagine a world without roller blades and Doritos.
If you're putting mushrooms in the same basket as heroine or PCP or meth, you probably shouldn't be in the conversation.
I don't want to sound like a dick and exclude people from the conversation. I'm just trying to say that if we're going to discuss, let's not draw conclusions that aren't there. All drugs are different, so let's not get them confused.
Great-Kazoo
05-09-2019, 00:02
More chemical recreation will cost what?
If people generally make good choices why is my paycheck taxed to fund “safety nets” for when they don’t?
Those taxpayer safety nets are 1 of the reasons we moved.
It will cost what the general public is willing to foot the bill for.
Denver said NO to relaxing camping rules for the homeless.
When the Utopian aura looses it's luster. Then , maybe the voters will finally say NO MORE. Unfortunately the Metro masses are so in love with their "Freedom" It's going to be beyond hard stuffing that genie back in the bottle.
If you believe at all in what you said in red, then you'd be lobbying HARD against legal alcohol. Why aren't you?
Why? Someone should be able to build a still to make their own bio-fuel.
If you believe everyone should police themselves, why aren't you lobbying hard against government policing?
I say lets legalize every possible drug and let people go hog wild crazy. Being an adult comes with responsibilities and consequences for ones actions. If you want to be an addict and destroy your life, go for it. That is nothing more than modern natural selection.
Delfuego
05-09-2019, 08:46
I think we should legalize cocaine for sure. Bump up those productivity numbers...
Why? Someone should be able to build a still to make their own bio-fuel.
If you believe everyone should police themselves, why aren't you lobbying hard against government policing?
I wasn't the one taking about people policing themselves.
I would ask you to consider that perhaps this is about people being fed up about being lied to about what certain things do and don't do; and now they are venting their frustrations through the process that was set out for them to do so.
An argument I would expect from my 14 year old daughter. Well done!
Those taxpayer safety nets are 1 of the reasons we moved.
It will cost what the general public is willing to foot the bill for.
Denver said NO to relaxing camping rules for the homeless.
When the Utopian aura looses it's luster. Then , maybe the voters will finally say NO MORE. Unfortunately the Metro masses are so in love with their "Freedom" It's going to be beyond hard stuffing that genie back in the bottle.
That the nonsensical part of this. The voters get the input to push the city/state further down the spiral but not a say on the consequences/other side of the coin that would be consistent with morality. It's moving one direction. Once the dysfunctional (for lack of a better word) voters are firmly established, the productive folks can't regain control.
That's why laugh at the suggestion this is a freedom issue. These drug issues are designed to make every middle class worker serve a superclass of professional recreaters. And then we wonder how we get outvoted when those voters become single issue (gov welfare/program) voters.
I think we should legalize cocaine for sure. Bump up those productivity numbers...
ISWYDT ;)
For as much as this community bitches and whines about how bad the government is in many aspects of their lives, and how they are worried about their freedoms being dashed by government control, some of you sure seem to like the taste of government cock on certain issues.
I say lets legalize every possible drug and let people go hog wild crazy. Being an adult comes with responsibilities and consequences for ones actions. If you want to be an addict and destroy your life, go for it. That is nothing more than modern natural selection.
Totally agree. However, I would add that not one penny of tax money would go to toward treatment, punishment, nor rehabilitation of users. Make them pay 100% for their own consequences.
Meanwhile:
https://www.9news.com/mobile/article/news/investigations/medical-cost/colorado-taxpayers-paying-millions-for-opioid-addiction-treatment-that-costs-up-to-1300-a-shot/73-43a5166c-a222-41d2-bb89-2b0a8a1e1fb9
I can't imagine this vote is going to now cause someone who wasn't previously partaking of this substance to run out and start doing it.
Just the proximity of this vote to an election makes it pretty suspicious to me.
Furthermore, the fact that no one has yet connected this to Agenda 21 makes me concerned that some of you are really letting your guard down.
3beansalad
05-09-2019, 11:38
Lets be intellectually honest here. Responsible adults usually make responsible choices...
You can disapprove but does that mean it should be illegal?
My biggest struggle with legalization/ decriminalization of any drug is the amount of irresponsible people I see every day. The crash data I've seen indicates that driving high is a huge problem, even after the state put out some ridiculous commercials about it.
Aren't all laws enacted for the responsible, law abiding among us? As we know, criminals won't obey them anyway. So it will be with 'shrooms as well. Those that partake won't be impacted, those that don't will.
For as much as this community bitches and whines about how bad the government is in many aspects of their lives, and how they are worried about their freedoms being dashed by government control, some of you sure seem to like the taste of government cock on certain issues.
With collectivism, drug legalization is government cock.
The US has historically been a nation of laws. The current trend is to bastardize those laws via the courts, state law differing from overarching federal law (marijuana for example), and 'decriminalization'. If you don't like the law, change it via the process that was put in place for that purpose. This selective application will eventually bring us to the point that the US Constitution will be completely and utterly ignored. Whomever is enforcing the law (aka the King/Queen) can selectively enforce the laws effectively weaponizing law enforcement.
The socialist/communist agenda attempts to break down societal norms and create chaos. That is exactly what this new standing on 'decriminalization' is.
I hear mushrooms cure cancer, VD and make you an intellectual just like MJ only better. And they are organic and gluten free for all the enlightened diverse people. The problem is this: in order to used them you must turn in your guns. No problem man... Is that freedom rock I hear?
The US has historically been a nation of laws. The current trend is to bastardize those laws via the courts, state law differing from overarching federal law (marijuana for example), and 'decriminalization'. If you don't like the law, change it via the process that was put in place for that purpose. This selective application will eventually bring us to the point that the US Constitution will be completely and utterly ignored. Whomever is enforcing the law (aka the King/Queen) can selectively enforce the laws effectively weaponizing law enforcement.
The socialist/communist agenda attempts to break down societal norms and create chaos. That is exactly what this new standing on 'decriminalization' is.
Do you feel that way about how Montana treats suppressors as well?
BladesNBarrels
05-09-2019, 14:54
Do you feel that way about how Montana treats suppressors as well?
Okay, google is my friend
https://americansuppressorassociation.com/montana-full-game-suppressor-hunting-now-legal/
there are now 35 states which allow hunters to use legally possessed suppressors in the field without restriction. Last year, (https://americansuppressorassociation.com/montana-full-game-suppressor-hunting-now-legal/)Alabama (http://americansuppressorassociation.com/alabama-suppressor-hunting-now-legal/), Florida (http://americansuppressorassociation.com/florida-hunting-with-suppressors-legal-effective-immediately/), Georgia (http://americansuppressorassociation.com/georgia-kansas-pro-suppressor-legislation-takes-effect/), Louisiana (http://americansuppressorassociation.com/louisiana-suppressor-hunting-laws-take-effect/), and Ohio (http://americansuppressorassociation.com/ohio-suppressor-hunting-now-legal/)all enacted similar pro-suppressor hunting reform.
(https://americansuppressorassociation.com/montana-full-game-suppressor-hunting-now-legal/)
I say lets legalize every possible drug and let people go hog wild crazy. Being an adult comes with responsibilities and consequences for ones actions. If you want to be an addict and destroy your life, go for it. That is nothing more than modern natural selection.
Liberty is all well and good, but when you're dealing with substances capable of short circuiting and then significantly rewiring the pleasure centers of the human brain with only a handful of uses, arguments for personal responsibility go right out the window.
Okay, google is my friend
https://americansuppressorassociation.com/montana-full-game-suppressor-hunting-now-legal/
there are now 35 states which allow hunters to use legally possessed suppressors in the field without restriction. Last year, (https://americansuppressorassociation.com/montana-full-game-suppressor-hunting-now-legal/)Alabama (http://americansuppressorassociation.com/alabama-suppressor-hunting-now-legal/), Florida (http://americansuppressorassociation.com/florida-hunting-with-suppressors-legal-effective-immediately/), Georgia (http://americansuppressorassociation.com/georgia-kansas-pro-suppressor-legislation-takes-effect/), Louisiana (http://americansuppressorassociation.com/louisiana-suppressor-hunting-laws-take-effect/), and Ohio (http://americansuppressorassociation.com/ohio-suppressor-hunting-now-legal/)all enacted similar pro-suppressor hunting reform.
(https://americansuppressorassociation.com/montana-full-game-suppressor-hunting-now-legal/)
No I'm talking about Montana not requiring any of the NFA hoops for suppressors/machine guns that are manufactured in state and remain instate. I'm not 100% on what they are doing up there because I don't live there, but that is the impression that I'm under.
Zundfolge
05-09-2019, 15:22
If drug legalization didn't disproportionately help the Democrat party and government in general, they wouldn't be proposing it.
Pot legalization in CO has turned the state permanently blue (by changing our demographics, not because of the effects of the drug).
However, the more people nation wide smoking pot the more likely those people are going to vote D (or again, the D's would not have relinquished the power over people that drug laws provide).
All that said, I can see the point that its not the government's place to tell adults what they can do with their bodies (I even agree with it) but lets not pretend that the Democrat push to legalize first weed and then other drugs has anything to do with making the people more free.
Liberty is all well and good, but when you're dealing with substances capable of short circuiting and then significantly rewiring the pleasure centers of the human brain with only a handful of uses, arguments for personal responsibility go right out the window.
Can you elaborate at all on what you mean here? Maybe provide a theoretical example of what you mean? I've heard of psychoactive drugs smoothing out ingrained patterns of thought, but not with respect to rewiring the pleasure center. I'm curious what the fear is from this specific point of view. Like do a few mushroom trips and now you only find pleasure in not paying taxes and stomping puppies?
If drug legalization didn't disproportionately help the Democrat party and government in general, they wouldn't be proposing it.
Pot legalization in CO has turned the state permanently blue (by changing our demographics, not because of the effects of the drug).
However, the more people nation wide smoking pot the more likely those people are going to vote D (or again, the D's would not have relinquished the power over people that drug laws provide).
All that said, I can see the point that its not the government's place to tell adults what they can do with their bodies (I even agree with it) but lets not pretend that the Democrat push to legalize first weed and then other drugs has anything to do with making the people more free.
I didn't follow any of this, and didn't even know it was on a ballot until this thread popped up. From that one article it sounded like a small group pushing for this legislation. Is there evidence that this was presented/inspired/encouraged/supported by the Democratic party?
Liberty is all well and good, but when you're dealing with substances capable of short circuiting and then significantly rewiring the pleasure centers of the human brain with only a handful of uses, arguments for personal responsibility go right out the window.
I see your point that asking for responsibility from a self-injured impaired person is difficult. But a person knew those consequences going in. Far worse to make us responsible for bad choices we didn't even make.
CHA-LEE's position is morally consistent.
"I have the freedom to do as I choose"
"I must be accountable for the consequences of my actions"
That's what freedom is.
The moment there is external/third party/collective consequences we end up with laws that restrict freedom. Can't have it both ways without creating chaos (like Gman said).
Skip can you provide examples of what you're talking about just so we're all clear where you're coming from?
Can you differentiate issues you see arising from this from other ways in which society already provides for people who get themselves into trouble with whatever choices they are making that you do find acceptable?
I see your point that asking for responsibility from a self-injured impaired person is difficult. But a person knew those consequences going in. Far worse to make us responsible for bad choices we didn't even make.
CHA-LEE's position is morally consistent.
"I have the freedom to do as I choose"
"I must be accountable for the consequences of my actions"
That's what freedom is.
The moment there is external/third party/collective consequences we end up with laws that restrict freedom. Can't have it both ways without creating chaos (like Gman said).
Plenty of people start without knowing what the consequences are, or vastly underestimate their understanding of them. Humans are hugely short-sighted creatures, so I don't buy your argument that anyone, perhaps short of a full-on medical doctor, decides to undertake the use of addicitive substances in any sort of headspace approaching full-on understanding of the consequences.
Further, differences in biology mean that there's no way to know how you'll react. There are some people who shoot heroine, or smoke crack or meth recreationally and never get addicted, or even if they are addicted, they're able to hold down a job and manage their drug use.
On the other hand, there are people who end up destroying their lives, and the lives of those around them due to an addiction.
CHA-LEE's position may be morally and philosophically consistent, but it does nothing to take into account the fact that humans aren't rational actors, even at the best of times, and expecting someone with a drug addiction to be a rational actor is utterly inconsistent with what is known about neurochemistry. Hell, a 2 minute conversation with literally any smoker will tell you that.
Skip can you provide examples of what you're talking about just so we're all clear where you're coming from?
Can you differentiate issues you see arising from this from other ways in which society already provides for people who get themselves into trouble with whatever choices they are making that you do find acceptable?
I'm not standing on anyone's shoulder looking over his/her life to evaluate the role drugs have had in bad choices. But if I am forced to fund the safety nets for those who "can't" then I am held accountable for those choices and have an interest* in the role drugs have had. A lot of effort goes into to making sure I can't quote you a statistic. I'm not even entitled to know how my paycheck is being spent and who specifically is benefitting.
There are no behavior disqualifiers for these safety nets/programs. If a person can vote and has a perceived need, I pay. I pay directly (taxes) and indirectly (healthcare costs, cost of living).
Also not a day going by without a group saying they "can't" do something; housing, healthcare, student loans, etc... and need more of my paycheck. Isn't it odd people have plenty of money for drugs and can't do the things so many of us have had to do in life?
*I never wanted that interest, it was forced on me.
Plenty of people start without knowing what the consequences are, or vastly underestimate their understanding of them. Humans are hugely short-sighted creatures, so I don't buy your argument that anyone, perhaps short of a full-on medical doctor, decides to undertake the use of addicitive substances in any sort of headspace approaching full-on understanding of the consequences.
Further, differences in biology mean that there's no way to know how you'll react. There are some people who shoot heroine, or smoke crack or meth recreationally and never get addicted, or even if they are addicted, they're able to hold down a job and manage their drug use.
On the other hand, there are people who end up destroying their lives, and the lives of those around them due to an addiction.
CHA-LEE's position may be morally and philosophically consistent, but it does nothing to take into account the fact that humans aren't rational actors, even at the best of times, and expecting someone with a drug addiction to be a rational actor is utterly inconsistent with what is known about neurochemistry. Hell, a 2 minute conversation with literally any smoker will tell you that.
Yup, you never know how the mind will respond to things. The potency of pot has also changed making it very different. Not sure about shrooms. Another thing I would never do. If people are operating in an info vacuum in 2019 that's also that person's fault.
If I'm divorced from the consequences, I don't need other humans to be rational actors. As a side note, isn't that why a lot of us here CCW? Self defense is separating ourselves from the consequences of often irrational behavior.
And that's kind of my point in consistency. Yes, I understand that means some people will die from the consequences of their actions. That's freedom to "do with my body as I choose." If the negative consequences were internalized it would serve as an example to others creating disincentive.
Also not a day going by without a group saying they "can't" do something; housing, healthcare, student loans, etc... and need more of my paycheck. Isn't it odd people have plenty of money for drugs and can't do the things so many of us have had to do in life?
*I never wanted that interest, it was forced on me.
This is endlessly frustrating and it's why I don't give money to people who ask me on the street.
Perhaps the most free market approach would be for people to play No Pass Line of the drug market and take out life insurance policies on individuals they've identified as "at risk" drug users. :)
http://schizopot.com/
This is not unknown, but are you presenting it just to show that pot isn't as harmless as advocates say it is, or as evidence that it should be illegal? It's part of the assumed risk of using, well, anything.
This is endlessly frustrating and it's why I don't give money to people who ask me on the street.
Perhaps the most free market approach would be for people to play No Pass Line of the drug market and take out life insurance policies on individuals they've identified as "at risk" drug users. :)
I would take no joy/profit in the bad things people do to themselves. I just want to be able to refuse to pay for any of it. And I don't know how that insurance model would even work... Who is paying the premiums? That would be expensive.
After I got married and got back on the KLR I took out a term life policy. It's a risk and I want my family taken care of. Very similar. If I turn into a speedbump, yeah, my family is going to have needs they couldn't meet without my planning. But I pay that premium.
I wouldn't demand access to your paycheck, or say my family gets any part of your paycheck, should I realize a risk that I voluntarily assumed.
Do you feel that way about how Montana treats suppressors as well?
What the hell, man? Keep it on the pavement and stay out of the weeds. I'm not going down that rabbit hole to figure out what you're now bringing into the conversation.
If whatever Montana is doing goes against federal law, then I'm not a fan. Change the flippin' law or follow it. If you don't, and get prosecuted under the full extent of the law, don't come crying to me about it. If it's finally time to break out the torches and pitchforks and throw off the manacles of tyranny, that's another story and we're not going to talk about it here.
I would love for people to have absolute freedom and do whatever they want that doesn't harm anyone else. That's the trick. Human nature often leads to selfish decisions that don't consider (or minimizes) how they may impact others. In light of trying to make sure there's a stable society, that society builds a framework that they can acceptably live by. It may encumber some freedoms while still allowing the most important elements of freedom to thrive.
I really get tired of being obligated to pay for the bad decisions of others. Wouldn't it be lovely if we didn't have to have insurance coverage for under-insured/uninsured motorists?
If you manage to live long enough and pay attention, you become familiar with the repetitive stupidity of humans making bad decisions.
...and as a friend of mine would say, "You have to respect the pattern."
What the hell, man? Keep it on the pavement and stay out of the weeds. I'm not going down that rabbit hole to figure out what you're now bringing into the conversation.
If whatever Montana is doing goes against federal law, then I'm not a fan. Change the flippin' law or follow it. If you don't, and get prosecuted under the full extent of the law, don't come crying to me about it. If it's finally time to break out the torches and pitchforks and throw off the manacles of tyranny, that's another story and we're not going to talk about it here.
I'm asking to see how consistent you are with following the rule of law and which ones. You're sounding pretty consistent so far.
Yup, you never know how the mind will respond to things. The potency of pot has also changed making it very different. Not sure about shrooms. Another thing I would never do. If people are operating in an info vacuum in 2019 that's also that person's fault.
Dude, you live in an era where Alexandria Occasio Cortez serves in the US House of Representatives, a measurable segment of the population believes the Earth is flat, Bernie Sanders was the most popular presidential choice among Dem voters, obesity is at epidemic levels, and people believe the moon landings were faked.
I get it, you probably score pretty highly as INTJ or INTP on a Meyers Briggs test, but the bottom line is that less than 20% of the population thinks like you do, and the sooner you come to grips with that realization the better.
If I'm divorced from the consequences, I don't need other humans to be rational actors. As a side note, isn't that why a lot of us here CCW? Self defense is separating ourselves from the consequences of often irrational behavior.
And that's kind of my point in consistency. Yes, I understand that means some people will die from the consequences of their actions. That's freedom to "do with my body as I choose." If the negative consequences were internalized it would serve as an example to others creating disincentive.
The only way you're divorced from the consequences is if you live in a cabin in the mountains tens or hundreds of miles away from anywhere else. And even if you are, that doesn't change the fact that there's negative externalities associated with drug use/legalization ranging from increased public intox to mental illness to increased costs to medical and law enforcement services, to fucking methed out assholes who do shit like choke out their toddler kids*.
Look, I'm sympathetic to legalization arguments, but the bottom line is that what's happened in this state as a result of legalization has been a fucking failure for everyone who isn't a member of the Democrat party.
*Yeah, ask that little kid about being "divorced from the consequences."
Uhh Justin, pretty sure you and Skip are on the same side here.
theGinsue
05-09-2019, 18:22
Uhh Justin, pretty sure you and Skip are on the same side here.
I believe that you are correct. At least, that's the way I was reading it.
I'm arguing for a "best case" scenario while also opposing legalization in the current context of collectivism. Sorry for the confusion.
With collectivism, this is not a freedom issue.
Without collectivism, it would be BUT we have to accept that individuals will have consequences.
Dude, you live in an era where Alexandria Occasio Cortez serves in the US House of Representatives, a measurable segment of the population believes the Earth is flat, Bernie Sanders was the most popular presidential choice among Dem voters, obesity is at epidemic levels, and people believe the moon landings were faked.
I get it, you probably score pretty highly as INTJ or INTP on a Meyers Briggs test, but the bottom line is that less than 20% of the population thinks like you do, and the sooner you come to grips with that realization the better.
What's that Carlin quote about the average person. Yup. I can't fix that and neither can you.
I can point a gun at their heads "because drugs are bad." But I'd rather just have their hands out of my wallet. If we spend all day building rubber rooms and putting people in straight jackets for their own good we'd still be living on dirt floors. We would have no time/resources for anything else having been reduced to the lowest common denominator.
This is one of the reasons public education is going to shit. It's not good for the failing kids and it's certainly not good for the kids that want to learn either. It's disastrous for society.
Denver voted for one side of this issue, but we voters are never given a say on the other side. Watch as Colorado (Denver) spends more resources on special people and dysfunction, less time on giving kids a shot at life, or keeping cost of living down for working families. Casual Dems will realize this but it will be too late.
The only way you're divorced from the consequences is if you live in a cabin in the mountains tens or hundreds of miles away from anywhere else. And even if you are, that doesn't change the fact that there's negative externalities associated with drug use/legalization ranging from increased public intox to mental illness to increased costs to medical and law enforcement services, to fucking methed out assholes who do shit like choke out their toddler kids*.
Look, I'm sympathetic to legalization arguments, but the bottom line is that what's happened in this state as a result of legalization has been a fucking failure for everyone who isn't a member of the Democrat party.
*Yeah, ask that little kid about being "divorced from the consequences."
A lot of these are timeless problems and we didn't run from them. We would have to come up with a way to protect kids, no doubt. Not sure what we can do there. Maybe that is a justification for violence against users to protect kids? And dead kids should mean dead perps--this is a big problem in itself.
What's new is the subjective morality of the political class (credit to Gman again for pointing this out and putting it succinctly). I feel that I'm held hostage economically with this.
Agree with you on the failure! That's why I oppose this in the status quo.
Great, now we'll have losers driving around even MORE stoned out of their gourds.
Driving by the main convo to establish a fact:
You can't compare drug issue preclusion (e.g. Amendment 64 is just an affirmative defense) with e.g. Montana style firearm regulation or second amendment "sanctuary counties"
The difference is, people grow pot left and right here, take pictures, and are proud of it. The feds won't regulate it despite their laws because it would be politically devastating. There is 0.0000% risk of any negative ramification to any user, no matter how "disagreeable" they are.
However, the "second amendment sanctuary" crap, the Montana style legislation, all of that is nothing more than pandering to conservative votes, it is utterly without any meaning or effect. If you manufacture a full-auto in one of those places for instance, and brag about it on facebook.... you have a pretty short clock ticking on your freedom. It's probably worse than just the open knowledge of enforcement, because it also even moreso enables selective enforcement - something you don't see on the drug issues. What do I mean? Lets say you get pulled over in Montana for having Colorado MJ in your car, and you have a Montana-manufactured suppressor without a tax stamp. What are you going to get prosecuted for? What's going to cost you far more? Yeah, that's what you get with that conservative vote pandering... counties are not obligated to abide by it, fed gov't are not going to abide by it, state it not obligated to abide by it, so there's just a few yokum's that get the false belief they can do what they want, yet the same old venus people-trap has got it's maw open... and certainly, anyone that is "disagreeable" would never get any imagined protections even if they did exist in any fashion.
Totally agree. However, I would add that not one penny of tax money would go to toward treatment, punishment, nor rehabilitation of users. Make them pay 100% for their own consequences.
Absolutely agree. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Liberty is all well and good, but when you're dealing with substances capable of short circuiting and then significantly rewiring the pleasure centers of the human brain with only a handful of uses, arguments for personal responsibility go right out the window.
How is this any different than playing a game of hot potato with lit stick of dynamite. That is equally fatal. Just because something is dangerous or has the potential of causing permanent brain damage it doesn't justify making it illegal. If someone wants to drink a gallon of gas because it makes them high and they die because of it, that is their choice is it not. We will always live in a universe filled with "Good" or "Bad" choices to make. If someone chooses to make a "Bad" choice, they are rewarded with the consequences. In short, don't be an idiot or you will pay the price. That reality will never change regardless of what laws exist.
Plenty of people start without knowing what the consequences are, or vastly underestimate their understanding of them. Humans are hugely short-sighted creatures, so I don't buy your argument that anyone, perhaps short of a full-on medical doctor, decides to undertake the use of addicitive substances in any sort of headspace approaching full-on understanding of the consequences.
Further, differences in biology mean that there's no way to know how you'll react. There are some people who shoot heroine, or smoke crack or meth recreationally and never get addicted, or even if they are addicted, they're able to hold down a job and manage their drug use.
On the other hand, there are people who end up destroying their lives, and the lives of those around them due to an addiction.
CHA-LEE's position may be morally and philosophically consistent, but it does nothing to take into account the fact that humans aren't rational actors, even at the best of times, and expecting someone with a drug addiction to be a rational actor is utterly inconsistent with what is known about neurochemistry. Hell, a 2 minute conversation with literally any smoker will tell you that.
So more laws are going to magically change human nature? If its human nature for people to do stupid shit while ignoring potential consequences, then it is what it is. There is also the fact that there will always be the unlucky portion of people who's suffering and sacrifice serve as roll models of how NOT to do it. Using and abusing illegal substances is WELL KNOWN to cause a wide range of issues. People know this at a very young age. Nobody is growing up in a complete information/warning vacuum then also have access to drugs and think using them is a good thing to do. Every one of those addicts made a choice to use them for the first time knowing full well that it could cause trouble.
Is it tragic that peoples lives are destroyed by using illegal substances? Absolutely. But the situation being "tragic" doesn't justify ignoring the fact that they have 100% done it to themselves. If I decided to take up a hobby of juggling chainsaws running full throttle, I can't expect anyone to have pity for me when I end up sawing off appendages. I need to live with the choice I made to participate in that activity. Drug use is no different.
Has anyone ever been addicted to mushrooms? Real question.
Great-Kazoo
05-10-2019, 12:54
Has anyone ever been addicted to mushrooms? Real question.
Availability use to be based on growing season time frame. With grow houses who knows what that is
Look anyone who likes something more normal and requires their needs met, is an addict. Some are addicted to alcohol, cigarettes, vaping, drugs or guns.
To most a few of those are illegal, federally. To others, guns should be illegal. Which addiction is good or bad for the individual?
Now for those who are addicted to drugs or alcohol, it makes no difference what the availability is on the street. They will always find something to substitute their addiction with.
Can't find oxy's, hit the street for some junk. Can't buy booze, look no further than the medicine cabinet or cleaning supplies. Addicts are addicts, doesn't matter how many programs they do. They're 1 foot from falling off the wagon , if even that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcATvu5f9vE
ChickNorris
05-10-2019, 15:14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcATvu5f9vE
Flirt
How is this any different than playing a game of hot potato with lit stick of dynamite. That is equally fatal. Just because something is dangerous or has the potential of causing permanent brain damage it doesn't justify making it illegal. If someone wants to drink a gallon of gas because it makes them high and they die because of it, that is their choice is it not. We will always live in a universe filled with "Good" or "Bad" choices to make. If someone chooses to make a "Bad" choice, they are rewarded with the consequences. In short, don't be an idiot or you will pay the price. That reality will never change regardless of what laws exist.
Part of having a functional society is constructing it in such a way that bad choices aren't so easy that your entire society ends up collapsing under the collective weight of a significant portion of your society making horrible choices and then offloading the consequences on to others.
Hell, look at the obesity epidemic. This country's food system is so absolutely fucked up that food with zero nutritional value is cheaper and more available than food that is decent.
Same thing with drugs. If the shit's everywhere, a certain percent of the population is going to be more likely to make the shitty choice than the right one, especially if they have to make that choice multiple times per day. This would go even more so for people who are former addicts trying to recover.
While I have serious misgivings about the war on drugs, the libertarian line about legalizing it and letting nature take it's course simply doesn't fly, mostly because the argument fails to take into account the web of negative externalities generated by easily available drugs; everything from increased domestic violence, sexual assault, property crimes, etc. etc.
Hell, I have to put up with that on my daily commute where I've been hassled by homeless idiots who are begging for pot money (at least if their signs are to be believed.)
Availability use to be based on growing season time frame. With grow houses who knows what that is
Look anyone who likes something more normal and requires their needs met, is an addict. Some are addicted to alcohol, cigarettes, vaping, drugs or guns.
To most a few of those are illegal, federally. To others, guns should be illegal. Which addiction is good or bad for the individual?
Now for those who are addicted to drugs or alcohol, it makes no difference what the availability is on the street. They will always find something to substitute their addiction with.
Can't find oxy's, hit the street for some junk. Can't buy booze, look no further than the medicine cabinet or cleaning supplies. Addicts are addicts, doesn't matter how many programs they do. They're 1 foot from falling off the wagon , if even that.
Mushrooms are not physically addictive.
So more laws are going to magically change human nature? If its human nature for people to do stupid shit while ignoring potential consequences, then it is what it is. There is also the fact that there will always be the unlucky portion of people who's suffering and sacrifice serve as roll models of how NOT to do it. Using and abusing illegal substances is WELL KNOWN to cause a wide range of issues. People know this at a very young age. Nobody is growing up in a complete information/warning vacuum then also have access to drugs and think using them is a good thing to do. Every one of those addicts made a choice to use them for the first time knowing full well that it could cause trouble.
Is it tragic that peoples lives are destroyed by using illegal substances? Absolutely. But the situation being "tragic" doesn't justify ignoring the fact that they have 100% done it to themselves. If I decided to take up a hobby of juggling chainsaws running full throttle, I can't expect anyone to have pity for me when I end up sawing off appendages. I need to live with the choice I made to participate in that activity. Drug use is no different.
Laws aren't going to magically change human nature.
They're just going to make sure that the cops can throw these assholes in the clink when necessary.
Some drug-addicted idiot may be 100% responsible for his actions, but that doesn't change the fact that his actions will impact those people around him, and frankly, I'd much rather live in a society where I can call the cops on my meth head neighbor for causing trouble than not.
Laws aren't going to magically change human nature.
They're just going to make sure that the cops can throw these assholes in the clink when necessary.
Some drug-addicted idiot may be 100% responsible for his actions, but that doesn't change the fact that his actions will impact those people around him, and frankly, I'd much rather live in a society where I can call the cops on my meth head neighbor for causing trouble than not.
Throwing more people in jail doesn't solve the problem. For most of these deadbeats going to jail is an upgrade to their life style. Not to mention the obvious over subscription of the prison system as it is. What we are really battling is over population in general and the complete lack of natural selection that used to exist 100 years ago. The more people there are the more stupid people there are. As much as most people don't want to accept it, making stupid decisions is really the only form of natural selection that happens today.
Legalizing all drugs would simply speed up that natural selection process, which is obviously needed given our out of control population growth.
Legalizing all drugs would simply speed up that natural selection process, which is obviously needed given our out of control population growth.
This is just as much of a pipe dream as my insistence that drugs should be legalized because a percentage of society can use them responsibly. Drug use isn't an automatic death sentence anymore than the idea that most people would only occasionally use them in a safe, recreational manner.
BushMasterBoy
05-10-2019, 17:36
If all drugs were legal, at least I could get the medication I need. I am suffering the misdiagnosis of many doctors. All I need is some prednisone, the fing pain is horrendous. At least I stopped the cluster headaches without using psilocybin mushrooms.
Forget the "military industrial complex" beware of the "pharma medical economy". They have infiltrated every layer of our lives, and all they really care about is money and easy profits. They are even drugging all the food we eat...we are asking for a disaster the likes we have never seen in recorded history. The whole country is sick!
Great-Kazoo
05-10-2019, 17:45
Mushrooms are not physically addictive.
Neither is weed. Do people use it and other substances as a crutch, yes. Is it addictive to the point you smoke 1 joint or consume an edible, you're the new star of the Reefer Madness remake. Not at all.
Great-Kazoo
05-10-2019, 17:46
Throwing more people in jail doesn't solve the problem. For most of these deadbeats going to jail is an upgrade to their life style. Not to mention the obvious over subscription of the prison system as it is. What we are really battling is over population in general and the complete lack of natural selection that used to exist 100 years ago. The more people there are the more stupid people there are. As much as most people don't want to accept it, making stupid decisions is really the only form of natural selection that happens today.
Legalizing all drugs would simply speed up that natural selection process, which is obviously needed given our out of control population growth.
I believe the Government should remove all Warning Labels and let nature decide.
I believe the Government should remove all Warning Labels and let nature decide.
I like the thought...but then there's reality. They'll take many innocents with them.
...and then come the lawyers wanting to pin blame to anything with a dollar sign (and not the poor decision makers themselves).
George had the right idea.....
OtterbatHellcat
05-11-2019, 01:59
Win!
Meh, let's just turn this place into Amsterdam already and get it over with. On a side note, something that hasn't really been talked about is how this is going to affect law enforcement officers on the street. Denver DA is already moving to reduce felony drug possession/distributing charges down to a misdemeanor. I have talked to some Denver officers who are already frustrated because their hands are tied. Politicians are padding statistics to present the City of Denver as being a "safe place" to frequent, when in reality it is not. As a Dispatcher I have a pretty good idea of what's going on out there and Denver is a damn train wreck. So sure, we "legalize everything" and let Darwin do the rest. Not accounting for how many innocent people will be hurt in the fallout of that.
Meh, let's just turn this place into Amsterdam already and get it over with.
Brilliant. I say instead of focusing on drugs let?s decriminalize other things that consenting adults do that are currently illegal. Let?s get prostitution on the ballot. Its perfectly legal for two people to bump uglies but toss a little gratuity into the scenario and suddenly both parties are criminals.
theGinsue
05-11-2019, 07:19
Brilliant. I say instead of focusing on drugs let?s decriminalize other things that consenting adults do that are currently illegal. Let?s get prostitution on the ballot. Its perfectly legal for two people to bump uglies but toss a little gratuity into the scenario and suddenly both parties are criminals.
Germany legalize prostitution (heavily regulated); seems to be working for them. The problem with getting it legalized, at least here in CO, is we have so many really ugly politicians who know they'll never get laid again if prostitution is legalized.
BPTactical
05-11-2019, 07:35
Germany legalize prostitution (heavily regulated); seems to be working for them. The problem with getting it legalized, at least here in CO, is we have so many really ugly politicians who know they'll never get laid again if prostitution is legalized.
Not true.
They are happily fucking us.
Over and over.
SideShow Bob
05-11-2019, 07:43
Not true.
They are happily fucking us.
Over and over.
Oh Snap !
That would be hilarious if weren’t so true......
Not true.
They are happily fucking us.
Over and over.
Without the common courtesy to give us a reach-around.
Both camps position (war on drugs and libertarian darwinian) are tremendously lacking in logic.
Drug use doesn't "sort itself out" nor as has been pointed out, nor is it a death sentence. People can be smoking meth and still holding down a job for quite some time. Contrary to the advertisements, they aren't as easy to recognize as you would assume. Moreover, drug use doesn't sort itself out with "Darwinian evolution"; reference the rising statistics of babies born addicted to opiods if you don't believe me.... news flash, people high on stuff, "do stuff" a lot more than people who aren't high on stuff, which results in more kids being born to people who are high on stuff. If anything, "Darwinian" science makes that a win for spreading genetic code that is inclined to be addicted or hedonistic [which wouldn't have significant effects for a long, long time anyway....]. Contrary to the libertarian perspective, people don't just "use drugs in their basement and die", no, each addict on average imposes an INCREDIBLE societal cost in their decades long journey to oblivion. You can invent your own magic rules if you want where unicorns fart fairy dust, but the reality is, YOU LIVE HERE. Opoid addicted babies, innumerous unpaid ER visits, repeat transient crimes and the cost of service dealing with transients, shoplifting, vandalism, GTA, burglary, B&E, repeat prison cycles, etc. etc.
Each heavily drug addicted person probably costs society as much as each non-addicted person could ever hope to contribute. So it's not a circumstance of "they live by their own decision" such as would be the case if they shot themselves with a firearm, or attempted to "juggle chainsaws", as a limbless person doesn't need 18 ER visits for hand fetishes, and they don't give birth to a limbless baby that goes into foster care for the next 18 years, and the one that shot themselves cost society only one service call and their body disposal, at most. If you can't compare apples to apples, get off your high horses.
On the flip side, the war on drugs includes its own misinformation jailing people for addictions doesn't normally produce any outcome other than generating costs and revenue in the prison system.
Why can't people acknowledge that both ideas are utter shit? Why can't we acknowledge their are serious issues both with decriminalization and criminalization?
Now, all of this has little to do with shrooms, which is the OP link, but by this point I don't think anyone's talking about it anymore.
This just in: Speaking of drug use and making bad decisions...
Psilocybin mushrooms found in I-80 traffic stop in Nebraska (https://www.9news.com/article/news/crime/psilocybin-mushrooms-found-in-i-80-traffic-stop-in-nebraska/73-08011cad-dee0-4979-a524-9817e51a8880)
A Colorado man has been arrested after LSD, psilocybin mushrooms, marijuana and drug paraphernalia were found in his vehicle.
NORTH PLATTE, Neb. — A man from Colorado was arrested late Wednesday after Nebraska State Patrol troopers found multiple controlled substances in his vehicle.
The arrest occurred after a trooper observed an eastbound pickup truck with a missing taillight failing to maintain its lane near mile marker 166 on Interstate 80 near Hershey, Nebraska, according to Nebraska State Patrol.
A search of the man's truck revealed 82 doses of LSD, 30 grams of psilocybin mushrooms, less than an ounce of marijuana and drug paraphernalia.
The driver, Anthony Gutierrez, 19, of Littleton, was arrested for possession of a controlled substance, possession of marijuana – less than one ounce, and possession of drug paraphernalia.
Nebraska State Patrol says a female passenger was cited for minor in possession of alcohol and open container.
Zundfolge
05-11-2019, 09:20
I don't care about the larger philosophical musings here.
I oppose this for the same reason I opposed pot legalization and that's demographics.
We've probably already lost Colorado forever but every time they pull some scheme like this its like turning on a giant Democrat magnet. Since pot legalization we've had at least a quarter million new Democrat voters move to Colorado. So votes for drug legalization are votes against gun rights because all these legalization schemes do is empower the Democrat party.
theGinsue
05-11-2019, 09:22
This just in: Speaking of drug use and making bad decisions...
Psilocybin mushrooms found in I-80 traffic stop in Nebraska (https://www.9news.com/article/news/crime/psilocybin-mushrooms-found-in-i-80-traffic-stop-in-nebraska/73-08011cad-dee0-4979-a524-9817e51a8880)
A Colorado man has been arrested after LSD, psilocybin mushrooms, marijuana and drug paraphernalia were found in his vehicle.
Looks like someone was headed to a party.
theGinsue
05-11-2019, 09:23
I don't care about the larger philosophical musings here.
I oppose this for the same reason I opposed pot legalization and that's demographics.
We've probably already lost Colorado forever but every time they pull some scheme like this its like turning on a giant Democrat magnet. Since pot legalization we've had at least a quarter million new Democrat voters move to Colorado. So votes for drug legalization are votes against gun rights because all these legalization schemes do is empower the Democrat party.
Quoted for truth
True. People that police themselves tend to not vote Democrat.
True. People that police themselves tend to not vote Democrat.
This is a hopeful myth.
You guys aren't thinking strategically. Perhaps Colorado won the election for Trump for instance - just enough stoners moved from very close swing states here to edge them over, and CO was lost anyway, so their votes became wasted. Maybe the best national strategy is to kamikaze Colorado... move all the progressives here, they wreck it deep into the earth, while we secure FL, VA, NC, TX and Ohio, win the popular vote, and also secure CO's overpopulated 40 electoral votes (in the future...) much to the dismay of progressives.
[CAUTION - RAGE INDUCED CORONARY - CAUTION .... this post is mostly in jest, except the possibility that relocating progressives [not just to CO] affected the election]
Meh, let's just turn this place into Amsterdam already and get it over with. On a side note, something that hasn't really been talked about is how this is going to affect law enforcement officers on the street. Denver DA is already moving to reduce felony drug possession/distributing charges down to a misdemeanor. I have talked to some Denver officers who are already frustrated because their hands are tied. Politicians are padding statistics to present the City of Denver as being a "safe place" to frequent, when in reality it is not. As a Dispatcher I have a pretty good idea of what's going on out there and Denver is a damn train wreck. So sure, we "legalize everything" and let Darwin do the rest. Not accounting for how many innocent people will be hurt in the fallout of that.
I think that writing is on the wall and, again, how this is not a freedom issue.
Law abiding people are going to have to subsidize this, and be victims of crime, at the same time. In an environment that is openly hostile to self defense. We haven't really argued about how this is going to change use of force and "community" perceptions.
We all know Denver DA would charge any of us in a gray area shoot. But he doesn't want to criminalize actual criminal behavior with people who have all day to go around and create trouble.
Tied hands = reverse Broken Windows.
This is a hopeful myth.
Maybe, but it's logical.
No, it really isn't. It's just propaganda that helps people believe that there is a larger difference between people that they don't want to listen to.
I'm not sure where you're getting the "propaganda" from, because I sure haven't seen any.
Self-reliant people don't tend to adopt the principles of the Democrat party. People that follow and advocate personal responsibility don't tend to adopt the principles of the Democrat party.
BushMasterBoy
05-11-2019, 16:58
So the homeless take mushrooms and jump off bridges in front of moving freight trains. I get it.
So the homeless take mushrooms and jump off bridges in front of moving freight trains. I get it.
Yeah, and this created more work for me. Thanks.
Neither is weed. Do people use it and other substances as a crutch, yes. Is it addictive to the point you smoke 1 joint or consume an edible, you're the new star of the Reefer Madness remake. Not at all.
Insofar as there's a sliding scale of societal and/or personal harm for any given drug, with caffeine at one end being measurably beneficial, and hard drugs like heroin or meth at the other end being largely destructive, things like psychedelics are likely on the low end of things. I doubt most people who use them do so more than a couple of times a year at most. Of course your 10% outliers are going to be the ones who cause 80% of the trouble, though, and for people who've already made a lot of poor life decisions, psychedelics may very well act as a poor life decision force-multiplier.
Both camps position (war on drugs and libertarian darwinian) are tremendously lacking in logic.
Drug use doesn't "sort itself out" nor as has been pointed out, nor is it a death sentence. People can be smoking meth and still holding down a job for quite some time. Contrary to the advertisements, they aren't as easy to recognize as you would assume. Moreover, drug use doesn't sort itself out with "Darwinian evolution"; reference the rising statistics of babies born addicted to opiods if you don't believe me.... news flash, people high on stuff, "do stuff" a lot more than people who aren't high on stuff, which results in more kids being born to people who are high on stuff. If anything, "Darwinian" science makes that a win for spreading genetic code that is inclined to be addicted or hedonistic [which wouldn't have significant effects for a long, long time anyway....]. Contrary to the libertarian perspective, people don't just "use drugs in their basement and die", no, each addict on average imposes an INCREDIBLE societal cost in their decades long journey to oblivion. You can invent your own magic rules if you want where unicorns fart fairy dust, but the reality is, YOU LIVE HERE. Opoid addicted babies, innumerous unpaid ER visits, repeat transient crimes and the cost of service dealing with transients, shoplifting, vandalism, GTA, burglary, B&E, repeat prison cycles, etc. etc.
Each heavily drug addicted person probably costs society as much as each non-addicted person could ever hope to contribute. So it's not a circumstance of "they live by their own decision" such as would be the case if they shot themselves with a firearm, or attempted to "juggle chainsaws", as a limbless person doesn't need 18 ER visits for hand fetishes, and they don't give birth to a limbless baby that goes into foster care for the next 18 years, and the one that shot themselves cost society only one service call and their body disposal, at most. If you can't compare apples to apples, get off your high horses.
On the flip side, the war on drugs includes its own misinformation jailing people for addictions doesn't normally produce any outcome other than generating costs and revenue in the prison system.
Why can't people acknowledge that both ideas are utter shit? Why can't we acknowledge their are serious issues both with decriminalization and criminalization?
Now, all of this has little to do with shrooms, which is the OP link, but by this point I don't think anyone's talking about it anymore.
This is an incredibly good post and one that bears re-reading, so I'm quoting it in full.
Frankly, I think a lot of the people who adhere to the outlook of legalizing drugs have, by and large, lived fairly sheltered lives where their worst encounter with a serious addict was maybe getting hassled by a vagrant once or twice. It's amazing the sheer amount of time and resources that your average addict can cause to be wasted on their behalf, both from the standpoint of encounters with societal systems, e.g. law enforcement, emergency rooms, doctor visits, halfway houses, recovery facilities and the like, but also the massive financial, physical, and emotional toll an addict inflicts on their friends, family, and neighbors.
BushMasterBoy
05-12-2019, 10:48
The drug alcohol still kills more than other drugs. My favorite drug is caffeine. Do your own research. I still feel I am more likely to be killed by a texting driver than a gun or addict.
Judging by the number of idiots I see on the road staring at their phone as they drive, that's probably not an unreasonable assumption.
BushMasterBoy
05-12-2019, 12:46
77986
I still feel I am more likely to be killed by a texting driver than a gun or addict.
Yeah, don't even get me started. As someone that is totally focused on driving, it's insanity with folks that just can't stay away from the phone for more than a few seconds.
Today on drudge:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/08/24/magic-mushrooms-gain-popularity-following-decriminalization-efforts/1999501001/
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.