Contraband

[DevilSolution]

Its my personal belief that a human have the right to do with their own boddies as they wish. Criminalising people who choose to take a particular substances is an injustice on freedom and only creates a negative stigma towards particular chemicals. Ovcourse theres the social aspect to take into account but countries like holland and portugal have decriminalised all drugs have seen reductions in drug abuse.

 

Im only writting this because my government has banned access to any psychoactive chemicals which i strongly disagree with. Ethically speaking aslong as you cause no harm to others then there should be no problem. Infact its a slap in the face when you consider how much damage alcahol and cigs do.

 

At what point do you turn around and say "Who the fuck are you to teĺl me what i can and cant do with my own body". They are the corruption in this world, they make laws to suit their own needs.

[ajb]

Ethically speaking aslong as you cause no harm to others then there should be no problem.

This is the big question really. Can we be sure that no damage is being done to others? Think about the damage to society, communities, families and then the individual.

[StringJunky]

Don't just think about yourself, think about those exploited all along the supply chain as well and the collateral effects... it's pretty horrendous. Just look at Mexico for how bad it can get societally.

Edited September 7, 2015 by StringJunky

[ajb]

Don't just think about yourself, think about those exploited all along the supply chain as well and the collateral effects... it's pretty horrendous. Just look at Mexico for how bad it can get societally.

Exactly. It is not at all obvious that one is only hurting oneself. In fact, we have evidence to the contrary.

[Delta1212]

Of course, complicating things further is the fact that criminalizing things that people want tends to drive the market for them underground, where they cannot be regulated and the economy surrounding them is likely to be much more lawless than otherwise. If people had a legal, regulated way of obtaining something, would this outcompete the organizations that use more brutal practices.

 

On the other other hand, there are plenty of companies who produce normal every day goods with the next best thing to slave labor by outsourcing production to areas of the world without much regulation as far as workers' rights to, up to and including child labor laws.

 

So there is no guarantee that legalizing drugs would eliminate the exploitation issue, but then that issue may also be present for the last shirt you bought. The global economy has its benefits but it does also complicate things enormously, doesn't it?

[DevilSolution]

This is the big question really. Can we be sure that no damage is being done to others? Think about the damage to society, communities, families and then the individual.

No you cant but its a persons choice none the less. You can quite safely say that ethically its up to that person to decide (if that person is fully conscientious of the effects). In comparison how can you quantify the legality of fire arms in respect to "harming others, familly, community and society on the whole".

 

How is it ones liberty to bear fire arms which only have the capacity to cause harm is accepted but the option to open ones mind via the synthetic route is 15 year jail sentence?

 

Theres lots of things in this world that can cause harm to society but ive personally found that taking particular substances can enhance society or the person. For example psilocybin generally has a positive effect on the user and can open ones mind to experiences that can give closure to an event or give a different view on the world.

 

Ovcourse certain substances have the characteristics of being abused instead of used. Anyone with half a brain should know the purpose of a substance and when one is "using or abusing".

 

Its a fundamental human right to do to ones body as they wish, to be told otherwise is patronizing aswell as being quite a scary concept. Such control eventually leads to the 1984 ideology as i believe we are slowly walking into.

 

Ontop of all that you cut out the darker side of it, the stigma and the culture surrounding it. Which in the case of portugal and holland shows evidence that decriminalization works and the "war on drugs" is a great over expenditure of a nations resources.

Edited September 7, 2015 by DevilSolution

[ajb]

No you cant but its a persons choice none the less. You can quite safely say that ethically its up to that person to decide (if that person is fully conscientious of the effects).

I would say that it is also ethically correct that a society and government do what it can to reduce the harm to that society. This has to be balanced with personal freedoms, I agree.

 

You also raise a good question about education.

 

 

In comparison how can you quantify the legality of fire arms in respect to "harming others, familly, community and society on the whole".

I do not.

 

I assume you are making reference to US gun laws. I am not a US citizen. US society has to come to terms with exactly what you have said.

 

 

How is it ones liberty to bear fire arms which only have the capacity to cause harm is accepted but the option to open ones mind via the synthetic route is 15 year jail sentence?

By some perversion of the meaning and context of the constitution of the US.

 

Theres lots of things in this world that can cause harm to society but ive personally found that taking particular substances can enhance society or the person. For example psilocybin generally has a positive effect on the user and can open ones mind to experiences that can give closure to an event or give a different view on the world.

I am not sure exactly what the rules are here about discussing actually taking drugs. I guess it is okay if you keep it scientific.

[DevilSolution]

I would say that it is also ethically correct that a society and government do what it can to reduce the harm to that society. This has to be balanced with personal freedoms

 

I am not sure exactly what the rules are here about discussing actually taking drugs. I guess it is okay if you keep it scientific.

Firstly keeping society safe on the whole and criminalizing people who choose to take a substance fully aware of there effects is contradictory. As i previously stated substances like alcohol can have negative effects on society but are perfectly legal whereas substances like LSD are classified as highly dangerous to society? Its completely irrational. One substance makes the user more likely to act aggressive or lower inhibitions whereas the other pretty much makes you sofa bound whilst also allowing one to explore their own mind and self being. Its nonsense.

 

Secondly as far as discussing drugs go, ive read 2 books by alex shulgin who states that science loves to explore the "brain" by using radioactive ligands to map chemical responses and hence enhance the knowledge of receptor sites, specific agonists, antagonists, inhibitors etc. Yet science seems affraid or unwilling to explore the "mind", that is the effects of substances relative to ones perceptions. The door is completely closed if you wanted to use specific substances to explore the effects of ones perception or even further to explore ones own mind. Science seems to want to map out neurological responses whereas the other aspect is to explore the meaning behind consciousness, self awareness and being. I dont think science is capable of acheiving such things without willingness and its therefor upto the person to explore their own consciousness. Science has the capabillity to aĺlow for these types of experiments but governments wont allow it. Quite strange reaĺly.

 

Just as a side note; really things like sweets / candy do more harm than good to society on the whole yet no one bats an eye lid, yet psychoactive substances with the potential to help society is completely contraband? Something doesnt add up in this equation.

Edited September 8, 2015 by DevilSolution

[ajb]

Firstly keeping society safe on the whole and criminalizing people who choose to take a substance fully aware of there effects is contradictory.

I would not say contradictory. Removing potentially harmful people from society is protecting wider society. Anyway, the question is really if this is the most effect way. Probably not.

 

As i previously stated substances like alcohol can have negative effects on society but are perfectly legal whereas substances like LSD are classified as highly dangerous to society? Its completely irrational. One substance makes the user more likely to act aggressive or lower inhibitions whereas the other pretty much makes you sofa bound whilst also allowing one to explore their own mind and self being. Its nonsense.

Historical accident. Alcoholic drinks were discovered long before the drugs you refer to and are now part of culture. I do not see that because X is allowed the we should allow Y holds as an argument, but we see it made.

 

Yet science seems affraid or unwilling to explore the "mind", that is the effects of substances relative to ones perceptions.

There has been many controlled experiments with all sorts of drugs. I do not know details, you will have to try google.

 

Just as a side note; really things like sweets / candy do more harm than good to society on the whole yet no one bats an eye lid, yet psychoactive substances with the potential to help society is completely contraband? Something doesnt add up in this equation.

Food and drink is always going to be more complicated, we need them to live. Anyway, government are looking into ways to control the consumption of poor foods. For example extra taxes have been proposed in the UK.

[michel123456]

Of course, complicating things further is the fact that criminalizing things that people want tends to drive the market for them underground, where they cannot be regulated and the economy surrounding them is likely to be much more lawless than otherwise. If people had a legal, regulated way of obtaining something, would this outcompete the organizations that use more brutal practices.

 

On the other other hand, there are plenty of companies who produce normal every day goods with the next best thing to slave labor by outsourcing production to areas of the world without much regulation as far as workers' rights to, up to and including child labor laws.

 

So there is no guarantee that legalizing drugs would eliminate the exploitation issue, but then that issue may also be present for the last shirt you bought. The global economy has its benefits but it does also complicate things enormously, doesn't it?

That's the point. Criminalizing is a gift to maffia.

As a consequence it provokes an increase of "black money" together with a decrease of "white money" (because people in need will use the money from their legal income and spend it for illegal (black) use. From the point of vue of economics, it is a disaster.

[MonDie]

Speaking of managing one's own body, there are also drugs that can be forced on you if you do yourself bodily harm. It's not just about protecting others.