If you disagree with me, go ahead and invite me to a debate about the legalization of all drugs. I’ll be able to lay everything more clearly. I studied chemistry in school, I have studied pharmacology for roughly 4 years, have conducted studies of my own on cannabis, I know my stuff with this topic. I’m not trying to sound cocky or anything like that, but if yo I want to have this debate, come prepared lol
“ Is increasing the likelihood of harm towards another not considered harming them, and should it be permissible?”
No it is not considered harming them in my opinion. Allowing people to own a lighter increases the likelihood of them burning someone or setting a house on fire, but that doesn’t mean simply because that possibility exists ownership of a lighter should be illegal. If someone’s owns an axe the likelihood of that ace being used for harm increases. Freedom is inherently dangerous. It’s important to have regulations on freedom. For example driving a car is dangerous but we require people to pass tests before they’re legally able to drive to make sure they pose the least threat to other people. Allowing people to move with their children to the plain states increases their likelihood of that decision to cause harm to them by the form of tornadoes hitting the house. That doesn’t mean it should be illegal.
There is ultimately not much evidence that drugs of any kind radically increase the likelihood of harm to others. Even if there was that alone wouldn’t be enough to make them illegal. What should be illegal is harming others, plain and simple, regardless of it was done with drugs in the system or not. Whether it was done with an axe or lighter doesn’t matter. If they harmed another person that is illegal. There are already laws protecting people from that type of behavior. The threat of danger is no excuse to make anything but harmful actions illegal.
This particular debate I’m having now isn’t using science and data to back up my claim that cannabis should be legal. It is more to make people realize that beating the drum of medical applicability is largely missing the point. We shouldn’t have to have an excuse to do dangerous things. We should be able to do what we please, as long as we aren’t harming people.
You can also see that in states where cannabis is illegal the use of less understood synthetic cannabinoids are much more prevalent. Synthetic cannabinoids are not inherently dangerous drugs or bad drugs, however people don’t know what they’re taking and some of them are much more potent than cannabis. If someone didn’t know what they were taking and accidentally consuming large quantities of any drugs they would face bad effects and have a bad time. That’s true of any drug, caffeine included. There are many reasons to legalize all drugs cannabis included, but pounding the drum of medical benefits is not that best way to do it. That’s what this whole debate really boils down to. Because there are also medical benefits to heroin, cocaine, Methamphetamine, etc. that isn’t something special cannabis has.
No it is not just based off of personal freedom although that is an aspect to it. It’s also based off the pursuit of happiness clause in the US constitution. I should be able to pursue happiness however I see fit as long as I’m not harming others or preventing others from doing so. Whether that is issuing heroin, exercising, using cannabis, etc. it’s also based off the fact that keeping drugs illegal makes them more dangerous because it’s a completely unregulated market. There’s no analysis done on the products no one knows the concentration of THC, or if it’s actually cannabis at all. It’s also based off the fact we have alcohol and tobacco that are legalized when they also have risks and harms associated with them but we allow adults to use this drugs and assume they are aware of the risks involved.
I also call for legalization because I have studied pharmacology for years at this point and it’s clear to see that 1: the general public knows nothing about drugs. 2: drugs are not near as dangerous as people pretend they are. The average person dying from drugs has 6 or more drugs in their system. This is due to contamination mostly, we know that is true because over 90% of powdered drugs seized from the streets have 4 or more substances in them. And 3: addiction is not as common or likely as people think it is even with drugs like heroin and cocaine and meth.
The ignorant and uneducated should not be the ones making legal decisions that can cause people to have their lives ruined by drug charges. It also shouldn’t be up to them to hinder scientific progress because scientists are reluctant to study drugs in schedule 1 because it takes years to get the permits to even have the drugs in the labs. So no it is not just personal freedom, although that is part of it. The more important parts are safety, negative impacts on society drug prohibition has, and hindering scientific progress as a basic overview.
My whole arguments is based around how to make the argument for cannabis legalization stronger. Because beating the drums of medical benefits only gets so far. The real argument should be about personal freedom to take risks. By acknowledging the risks associated with cannabis use, and still saying we are free to do many risky things is what strengthens the argument.
I’m for all drugs being legalized, see my other debate that I’m having on that topic which also forced my opponent to forfeit every round. I think being honest about drug use, risks, and benefits are the only way to legalize them. Because eventually there will be cracks in the armor, maybe cannabis isn’t as healthy or beneficial as once believed, then all of the argument goes away when the enthusiasts are basing their entire argument off of that.
I am fine with speaking about subjective benefits. The problem I have with the cannabis enthusiasts and psychedelic enthusiasts is 1: they seem to never speak about the risks about the drug. 2: they tend to always talk down on other drugs. They always talk about cannabis in the form of it being a medicine, or that other drugs are bad and cannabis should get a pass where others don’t. That annoys me, cannabis and psychedelics enthusiasts often pretend to be experts on their drug of choice simply because they enjoy it even though they know nothing about the substance.
You have a weird definition of suicidal. Dying does harm your children, not as bad as them being raised under a dictatorship who calls everything that can possibly end in death suicidal. I’d much rather them live in a country where dangerous and deadly things are possible.
“So that means you cant do anything dangerous, since harming yourself would also harm your children. Plus, it would harm people who would have to collect your pieces and bury them after you inevitably die from your suicidal activities.”
I mean harming people in a way that keeps them from being as free as you. Assault, battery, murder, stealing, raping, kidnapping, etc. can’t be afraid to harm your children by you dying because everyone dies.
That’s another point, are you going to outlaw death? Also now that I pointed even a minimal amount of evidence, you agree with me on drugs. So there’s no point in arguing with your nonsensical utopia you think is a genius idea.
“How do you have freedom without safety?” Doesn’t even mean anything. Freedom is inherently dangerous. Freedom of speech is dangerous because you can be racist and start fights in the street by saying stupid stuff. Freedom to own guns is dangerous because crazed people can kill others, but according to you new logic that doesn’t matter because guns protect and save more they destroy and kill. Freedom to to join the military because the military can run out of people and be dominated by others. It’s also dangerous because people who join can die in war.
The government can make freedom more dangerous by regulating the freedoms minimally. With free speech you can’t actively call for violence. With weapons there are background checks and age limits, new laws are currently being placed to make it more safe. To ride motorcycles you must pass tests to show the government you can ride them well enough to be on the street. To join the military you have to pass tests to show the government you’re not going to be a liability to yourself and others around you. To use drugs the government the can pass regulations on purity and anti-contamination laws to keep drug users as safe as possible.
Safety and freedom can go hand in hand, but it is important to keep freedom>safety because as soon as governments go the other way dictatorships inevitably form. It’s also implausible for every reason I pointed out earlier. Everything is dangerous, as you pointed in mg other debate which sort of undermines you’re entire “consistent” logic.
But what I’m saying is that 5 messages ago you claimed all of that should be illegal. You’re not consistent at all, you just go with the wind.
And my value tends to be freedom over safety yes. As Long as the activity isn’t harming people other than the person willingly engaging in that activity they should be able to do that.
I agree with basically everything you just said. I think the dispensaries should be privately owned, but have to meet regulatory standards. Standards like purity, serving sizes, and what you said about providing information on the drugs sold.
I also don’t necessarily think drug dealers shouldn’t be able to own these dispensaries if they’re able to show they’re capable of doing so. I know a lot of drug dealers, I’ve interviewed them for the book I’m writing. Most of them a pretty god damn intelligent and good, average, people. Obviously there are some that aren’t either of those things, but a good amount of them are decent, smart people. So I don’t think the government nor some millionaire should be able to come into their market and steal the customers they’ve locked down.
With that said I also don’t think the millionaires shouldn’t also have the ability to open dispensaries in any are. Let capitalism and competition drive the prices down so the drugs in dispensaries are priced well enough to make people willing to buy them instead of sticking with the street drugs.
I’m in the process of working with a literary agent to publish a book I’ve written on drugs, if you’re still on this website by the time I get it on the shelves I’ll send you a link to it lmao.
Have you ever heard the saying if one person says your crazy then they may be crazy, but if everyone says your crazy you’re probably crazy?
See you’re not even consistent. Sugar saves lives too, we need sugar to live. Guns save more lives than they take, so they increase life. Drugs save more lives than they take, so drugs increase life. You’re not even consistent with your own viewpoint yet you’re claiming everyone is inconsistent with theirs.
Life is very complex. It would be insane to think you habe to live your life by one viewpoint. That’s just absurd. The reason you think people are inconsistent is because most of the time they are more realistic than you seem to be. There is no one viewpoint or one right answer. Life is way too complex for that.
No, I promise that’s not it. You are completely overestimating the logic of your opinion. You are also underestimating the people who disagree with you. If you live by protection of life> over freedom and you’re claiming you want to ban everything that kills people. You will be forcing people to sit in an empty room with only water and capsules full of pure nutrients because that’ll be the only source you can find that hasn’t killed someone.
The other problem you have is that you have the belief that people don’t want to live by your rules because it’s too consistent. That’s not it, it’s just nonsense. People have died from being outside too long, so that would have to be illegal now. People have died from having sex, so that would have to be illegal now. And you can say sex is necessary but it’s not. Have men ejaculate into a cup and artificially impregnate women with that. Humans are no longer allowed to be near to each other because they kill each other. Religion is now banned because that starts wars. Bed sheets, shoe laces, ropes, chains, belts, chords, are also now illegal because people bang themselves with it. Sugar is now illegal, meat is now illegal, shape edges are now illegal, scissors are now illegal, knives are now illegal.
The reason no one agrees with you is because what you’re saying is nonsense. I don’t know if you’re just trying to have a different opinion than most or trying to seem ultimately righteous in your care for life, but it is simply nonsense.
Yes I am very aware of Mr. Trott and his work. I’m more interested in the actual pharmacology over self reports but that book is very useful for a lot of things.
Im more into the work of Dr. Carl Hart and Hamilton Morris.
Well we seem to agree on some stuff. I could argue about the toxicity and have a much deeper pharmacological debate than this if we needed. But it’s good we agree at least on how drugs should be handled
For some reason this website just doesn’t work on my phone. It says I’m 25,000 characters over the limit before I type a word, so it’ll be early tomorrow morning before I post an argument because I’m working Night Shift.
If you’d like you should go look at my other debate I’m having about drugs.
Almost All drugs are relatively harmless if used responsibly. That’s why most drugs have a medical prescription. Methamphetamine is prescribed as Desoxyn. Morphine is heroin only difference sre two Acetyl Bonds.
I’m not arguing what risk should be accepted, I’m saying that risks exist and the cannabis crows pounding the drums of medical benefits should not be the point used to help legalize the drug.
You would like to live in a dictator ship. While you think it’s a simple rule, I think this is also pretty simple. You can’t tell me what to do. I am able to pursue happiness however I see fit, that is not your choice to make.
If you truly believe you just get to tell people what to do on the moral high grind of “protecting life” you’re just selfish. If society is just you and I who are you to tell me I can’t free solo climb a mountain just because it can possibly kill me. Fast food Leads to obesity and heart disease which is the number one cause of death in America, are you going to say that should be illegal? Are you going to say snowboarding and skiing should be illegal because people die doing those sports? Are you going to say that going to space should be illegal because have died doing that? Are you going to say that driving cars should be illegal because people die doing that?
You can’t protect people from death because you say “life is precious” that’s just not how the world works. Water can kill people, food can kill people, sex can kill people, cars can kill people, oxygen can kill people. There’s nothing on earth that can’t find it’s way into a human death. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be free to do things that are dangerous.
See that’s the thing about freedom though, you don’t get to tell people they can’t ride motorcycles because you think safety is more important. That’s their decision as adults. So yes legalization does save lives and does promote freedom, that is usually where I keep the argument. I don’t know if you’re American, but the pursuit of happiness clause in our constitution essentially states I can pursue happiness in anyway I see fit as long as I don’t prevent others from doing so. That should be applied to drug use, motorcycles, guns, etc. if I cause harm or disruptions to others lives with those activities, there are already laws in place protecting people from that type of behavior. Drugs alone should not be a crime.
I’ll be honest I am not a good senator at all. I just know this topic very well so I can beat people who are far better than I am.
I don’t feel I need to make that argument to win the debate. Also what you’re calling for is basically what we already do. I have this debate to try and convince people our current system needs to be changed.
I bet you can’t beat me in a debate on this topic using that argument. Pretty much every time I’ve had this debate on this website someone has tried to apply that basic opinion everyone who is uneducated in drugs and pharmacology shares. It has never worked.
The evidence and data I present is simply too much for that argument, if you stay around and watch this debate you will see. Feel free to vote against me, I won’t report you no matter what, but keep your mind open to the possibility you may not have enough knowledge in this topic to make a truly educated claim about how it should be handled.
I think both of those things have to go hand in hand. Which is why things that are dangerous are regulated.
But cyanide isn’t illegal, lead isn’t illegal, mercury isn’t illegal, all these deadly poisons are not illegal. Just enjoyable drugs. It’s not about safety, these laws aren’t about safety. And you can’t just say protecting lives > freedom because you can find many many things that are dangerous and kill people yearly that are legal, like rscing cars, driving motorcycles, etc. we just assume adults are able to weigh the risk of the situation and decide on their own whether or not they want to do something dangerous.
That doesn’t happen with drugs, it can’t because most people don’t even know what they’re taking.
I appreciate you’re willing to pay attention to the debate.
I promise it’s not technobabble lol I’ve been studying this topic for years of my life and have studied it in college and independently. There is a lot of people who don’t know anything about drugs that try to preteens they do. If you watch this debate you’ll see I’m not one of them.
We’ll be careful basing your entire opinion based off of incident reports. Methamphetamine is much easier to synthesize than Amphetamine. So of course you’re going to see more issues with the drug that’s easier to make and more accessible. That doesn’t necessarily mean one is more harmful or less harmful than the other.
That article basically said nothing honestly. Just said that street meth is more harmful than adderall. Of course it is because street chemists don’t know what they’re doing, that doesn’t mean methamphetamine is more harmful or significantly different than Amphetamine. Which is why that article conveniently neglected to mention Desoxyn and it’s medical uses across the country.
Look up the molecule of methamphetamine then look up the molecule of adderall, that’s the face of what is entering your brain and changing your neurochemistry.
Also looking up “meth isn’t so bad” is just bad research honestly. Look up the mechanism of action for methamphetamine, then look up the me Hanson of action for amphetamine. It’s the exact same thing because they’re the same drug. Studies have also shown people can’t even tell the difference between the two when participating in a placebo controlled blind trial.
"But I'd require they be banned from public office, be taken into custody if too insane, regularly be evaluated by mental health."
You realize most presidents in recent history have had some sort of stimulant prescription correct? drugs like methylphenidate, vyvanse, adderall, etc. All have very similar pharmacological properties to methamphetamine and rarely make people go insane. Those people make up the small minority of total users of those types of drugs. Methamphetamine is still prescribed to be used to treat obesity and ADHD today, the name brand that is prescribed under is desoxyn. Methamphetamine is also already sold over the counter in most pharmacies in a Vick's product because it is an effective nasal decongestant. You seem to have a very specific idea of what a meth user is, probably due to popular culture surrounding the drug, shows like breaking bad for example, great show, but gives an ignorant view that all meth users look like Jessie or skinny Pete.
The majority of meth users are responsible adults who do not have addiction, who take care of their families, who pay their taxes, etc. They certainly aren't insane. that doesn't mean those people don't exist, they certainly do, but that is not the drugs fault. Just like it isn't a vehicles fault when someone uses them to run people over. Addiction does not exist simply because of the existence of a molecule. It exists because well over 90% of addicts had mental illnesses or were experiencing emotional crises before they started using the drug. The drug served as a coping mechanism for the struggles they were facing. Addiction is easily predictable and easily preventable, and most people who use drugs prevent it from forming.
It is also incredibly easy to make vast quantities of methamphetamine and MDMA in your garage as well. It’s easy to extract DMT in vast quantities as well. Mimosa Hostilis grows all over my state and with 6 hours of work and ingredients bought at Walmart, I can easily extract the DMT from the root.
It’s not about ease of creation, it’s about safety and freedom to pursue happiness in anyway I see fit as long as I am not preventing others from doing so.
My website is glitching out, saying I’m 25,000 characters over the limit before I type anything. Gonna try and figure this out before I have to forfeit.
Barney do you know how I can fix this? Or anyone else reading this
“ A long term user of meth, crazed by the drug, ought not be trusted in many jobs,
Ought not be held to be in reason or control of themselves in court.”
The vast majority of people who use methamphetamine, do not fit the description you just described.
We allow people to legally ruin their bodies and minds with alcohol, we allow people to destroy their bodies with tobacco. The vast majority of alcohol and nicotine users do nothing of the sort.
Analysis is necessary, I’m not advocating Stores to Just have a bag of random powder saying “Here ya go” just like with legal drugs they have to know what they’re purchasing and how strong it is.
A psychoactive drug, psychopharmaceutical, psychoactive agent or psychotropic drug is a chemical substance that changes functions of the nervous system, and results in alterations in perception, mood, cognition, and behavior.
And part of my argument is that the biggest downfall of prohibition is contaminated substances which legalization and legal Sale on a regulated market would stop that.
It does matter, alcohol is analyzed, so is nicotine and cannabis. And the reason I say Independent is because Land have been caught exaggerating THC concentration in their weed to charge more money.
The drugs will be sold out of dispensaries like we do with cannabis in some states, they will be synthesized by American Chemists, analyzed by American analytical chemists independent of the synthetic chemists, then sold by Americans to Americans
If you disagree with me, go ahead and invite me to a debate about the legalization of all drugs. I’ll be able to lay everything more clearly. I studied chemistry in school, I have studied pharmacology for roughly 4 years, have conducted studies of my own on cannabis, I know my stuff with this topic. I’m not trying to sound cocky or anything like that, but if yo I want to have this debate, come prepared lol
And by the way. I do argue for the “dangerous” drugs you mentioned.
Heroin, PCP, fentanyl, cocaine, Methamphetamine, all of that should b e legal to purchase over the counter from dispensaries to adults.
Thank you for the kind words mate.
“ Is increasing the likelihood of harm towards another not considered harming them, and should it be permissible?”
No it is not considered harming them in my opinion. Allowing people to own a lighter increases the likelihood of them burning someone or setting a house on fire, but that doesn’t mean simply because that possibility exists ownership of a lighter should be illegal. If someone’s owns an axe the likelihood of that ace being used for harm increases. Freedom is inherently dangerous. It’s important to have regulations on freedom. For example driving a car is dangerous but we require people to pass tests before they’re legally able to drive to make sure they pose the least threat to other people. Allowing people to move with their children to the plain states increases their likelihood of that decision to cause harm to them by the form of tornadoes hitting the house. That doesn’t mean it should be illegal.
There is ultimately not much evidence that drugs of any kind radically increase the likelihood of harm to others. Even if there was that alone wouldn’t be enough to make them illegal. What should be illegal is harming others, plain and simple, regardless of it was done with drugs in the system or not. Whether it was done with an axe or lighter doesn’t matter. If they harmed another person that is illegal. There are already laws protecting people from that type of behavior. The threat of danger is no excuse to make anything but harmful actions illegal.
This particular debate I’m having now isn’t using science and data to back up my claim that cannabis should be legal. It is more to make people realize that beating the drum of medical applicability is largely missing the point. We shouldn’t have to have an excuse to do dangerous things. We should be able to do what we please, as long as we aren’t harming people.
You can also see that in states where cannabis is illegal the use of less understood synthetic cannabinoids are much more prevalent. Synthetic cannabinoids are not inherently dangerous drugs or bad drugs, however people don’t know what they’re taking and some of them are much more potent than cannabis. If someone didn’t know what they were taking and accidentally consuming large quantities of any drugs they would face bad effects and have a bad time. That’s true of any drug, caffeine included. There are many reasons to legalize all drugs cannabis included, but pounding the drum of medical benefits is not that best way to do it. That’s what this whole debate really boils down to. Because there are also medical benefits to heroin, cocaine, Methamphetamine, etc. that isn’t something special cannabis has.
No it is not just based off of personal freedom although that is an aspect to it. It’s also based off the pursuit of happiness clause in the US constitution. I should be able to pursue happiness however I see fit as long as I’m not harming others or preventing others from doing so. Whether that is issuing heroin, exercising, using cannabis, etc. it’s also based off the fact that keeping drugs illegal makes them more dangerous because it’s a completely unregulated market. There’s no analysis done on the products no one knows the concentration of THC, or if it’s actually cannabis at all. It’s also based off the fact we have alcohol and tobacco that are legalized when they also have risks and harms associated with them but we allow adults to use this drugs and assume they are aware of the risks involved.
I also call for legalization because I have studied pharmacology for years at this point and it’s clear to see that 1: the general public knows nothing about drugs. 2: drugs are not near as dangerous as people pretend they are. The average person dying from drugs has 6 or more drugs in their system. This is due to contamination mostly, we know that is true because over 90% of powdered drugs seized from the streets have 4 or more substances in them. And 3: addiction is not as common or likely as people think it is even with drugs like heroin and cocaine and meth.
The ignorant and uneducated should not be the ones making legal decisions that can cause people to have their lives ruined by drug charges. It also shouldn’t be up to them to hinder scientific progress because scientists are reluctant to study drugs in schedule 1 because it takes years to get the permits to even have the drugs in the labs. So no it is not just personal freedom, although that is part of it. The more important parts are safety, negative impacts on society drug prohibition has, and hindering scientific progress as a basic overview.
My whole arguments is based around how to make the argument for cannabis legalization stronger. Because beating the drums of medical benefits only gets so far. The real argument should be about personal freedom to take risks. By acknowledging the risks associated with cannabis use, and still saying we are free to do many risky things is what strengthens the argument.
I’m for all drugs being legalized, see my other debate that I’m having on that topic which also forced my opponent to forfeit every round. I think being honest about drug use, risks, and benefits are the only way to legalize them. Because eventually there will be cracks in the armor, maybe cannabis isn’t as healthy or beneficial as once believed, then all of the argument goes away when the enthusiasts are basing their entire argument off of that.
I am fine with speaking about subjective benefits. The problem I have with the cannabis enthusiasts and psychedelic enthusiasts is 1: they seem to never speak about the risks about the drug. 2: they tend to always talk down on other drugs. They always talk about cannabis in the form of it being a medicine, or that other drugs are bad and cannabis should get a pass where others don’t. That annoys me, cannabis and psychedelics enthusiasts often pretend to be experts on their drug of choice simply because they enjoy it even though they know nothing about the substance.
You have a weird definition of suicidal. Dying does harm your children, not as bad as them being raised under a dictatorship who calls everything that can possibly end in death suicidal. I’d much rather them live in a country where dangerous and deadly things are possible.
“So that means you cant do anything dangerous, since harming yourself would also harm your children. Plus, it would harm people who would have to collect your pieces and bury them after you inevitably die from your suicidal activities.”
I mean harming people in a way that keeps them from being as free as you. Assault, battery, murder, stealing, raping, kidnapping, etc. can’t be afraid to harm your children by you dying because everyone dies.
That’s another point, are you going to outlaw death? Also now that I pointed even a minimal amount of evidence, you agree with me on drugs. So there’s no point in arguing with your nonsensical utopia you think is a genius idea.
“How do you have freedom without safety?” Doesn’t even mean anything. Freedom is inherently dangerous. Freedom of speech is dangerous because you can be racist and start fights in the street by saying stupid stuff. Freedom to own guns is dangerous because crazed people can kill others, but according to you new logic that doesn’t matter because guns protect and save more they destroy and kill. Freedom to to join the military because the military can run out of people and be dominated by others. It’s also dangerous because people who join can die in war.
The government can make freedom more dangerous by regulating the freedoms minimally. With free speech you can’t actively call for violence. With weapons there are background checks and age limits, new laws are currently being placed to make it more safe. To ride motorcycles you must pass tests to show the government you can ride them well enough to be on the street. To join the military you have to pass tests to show the government you’re not going to be a liability to yourself and others around you. To use drugs the government the can pass regulations on purity and anti-contamination laws to keep drug users as safe as possible.
Safety and freedom can go hand in hand, but it is important to keep freedom>safety because as soon as governments go the other way dictatorships inevitably form. It’s also implausible for every reason I pointed out earlier. Everything is dangerous, as you pointed in mg other debate which sort of undermines you’re entire “consistent” logic.
But what I’m saying is that 5 messages ago you claimed all of that should be illegal. You’re not consistent at all, you just go with the wind.
And my value tends to be freedom over safety yes. As Long as the activity isn’t harming people other than the person willingly engaging in that activity they should be able to do that.
You’re correct education is important. I believe legalization is just as important to keep contamination minimal.
I agree with basically everything you just said. I think the dispensaries should be privately owned, but have to meet regulatory standards. Standards like purity, serving sizes, and what you said about providing information on the drugs sold.
I also don’t necessarily think drug dealers shouldn’t be able to own these dispensaries if they’re able to show they’re capable of doing so. I know a lot of drug dealers, I’ve interviewed them for the book I’m writing. Most of them a pretty god damn intelligent and good, average, people. Obviously there are some that aren’t either of those things, but a good amount of them are decent, smart people. So I don’t think the government nor some millionaire should be able to come into their market and steal the customers they’ve locked down.
With that said I also don’t think the millionaires shouldn’t also have the ability to open dispensaries in any are. Let capitalism and competition drive the prices down so the drugs in dispensaries are priced well enough to make people willing to buy them instead of sticking with the street drugs.
I’m in the process of working with a literary agent to publish a book I’ve written on drugs, if you’re still on this website by the time I get it on the shelves I’ll send you a link to it lmao.
Have you ever heard the saying if one person says your crazy then they may be crazy, but if everyone says your crazy you’re probably crazy?
See you’re not even consistent. Sugar saves lives too, we need sugar to live. Guns save more lives than they take, so they increase life. Drugs save more lives than they take, so drugs increase life. You’re not even consistent with your own viewpoint yet you’re claiming everyone is inconsistent with theirs.
Life is very complex. It would be insane to think you habe to live your life by one viewpoint. That’s just absurd. The reason you think people are inconsistent is because most of the time they are more realistic than you seem to be. There is no one viewpoint or one right answer. Life is way too complex for that.
No, I promise that’s not it. You are completely overestimating the logic of your opinion. You are also underestimating the people who disagree with you. If you live by protection of life> over freedom and you’re claiming you want to ban everything that kills people. You will be forcing people to sit in an empty room with only water and capsules full of pure nutrients because that’ll be the only source you can find that hasn’t killed someone.
The other problem you have is that you have the belief that people don’t want to live by your rules because it’s too consistent. That’s not it, it’s just nonsense. People have died from being outside too long, so that would have to be illegal now. People have died from having sex, so that would have to be illegal now. And you can say sex is necessary but it’s not. Have men ejaculate into a cup and artificially impregnate women with that. Humans are no longer allowed to be near to each other because they kill each other. Religion is now banned because that starts wars. Bed sheets, shoe laces, ropes, chains, belts, chords, are also now illegal because people bang themselves with it. Sugar is now illegal, meat is now illegal, shape edges are now illegal, scissors are now illegal, knives are now illegal.
The reason no one agrees with you is because what you’re saying is nonsense. I don’t know if you’re just trying to have a different opinion than most or trying to seem ultimately righteous in your care for life, but it is simply nonsense.
Yes I am very aware of Mr. Trott and his work. I’m more interested in the actual pharmacology over self reports but that book is very useful for a lot of things.
Im more into the work of Dr. Carl Hart and Hamilton Morris.
Well we seem to agree on some stuff. I could argue about the toxicity and have a much deeper pharmacological debate than this if we needed. But it’s good we agree at least on how drugs should be handled
Have you ever considered it’s not accepted or implemented because your views don’t make sense?
It was just the browser.
I’ll see if I can figure it out in another browser.
For some reason this website just doesn’t work on my phone. It says I’m 25,000 characters over the limit before I type a word, so it’ll be early tomorrow morning before I post an argument because I’m working Night Shift.
If you’d like you should go look at my other debate I’m having about drugs.
Almost All drugs are relatively harmless if used responsibly. That’s why most drugs have a medical prescription. Methamphetamine is prescribed as Desoxyn. Morphine is heroin only difference sre two Acetyl Bonds.
I’m not arguing what risk should be accepted, I’m saying that risks exist and the cannabis crows pounding the drums of medical benefits should not be the point used to help legalize the drug.
You would like to live in a dictator ship. While you think it’s a simple rule, I think this is also pretty simple. You can’t tell me what to do. I am able to pursue happiness however I see fit, that is not your choice to make.
If you truly believe you just get to tell people what to do on the moral high grind of “protecting life” you’re just selfish. If society is just you and I who are you to tell me I can’t free solo climb a mountain just because it can possibly kill me. Fast food Leads to obesity and heart disease which is the number one cause of death in America, are you going to say that should be illegal? Are you going to say snowboarding and skiing should be illegal because people die doing those sports? Are you going to say that going to space should be illegal because have died doing that? Are you going to say that driving cars should be illegal because people die doing that?
You can’t protect people from death because you say “life is precious” that’s just not how the world works. Water can kill people, food can kill people, sex can kill people, cars can kill people, oxygen can kill people. There’s nothing on earth that can’t find it’s way into a human death. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be free to do things that are dangerous.
See that’s the thing about freedom though, you don’t get to tell people they can’t ride motorcycles because you think safety is more important. That’s their decision as adults. So yes legalization does save lives and does promote freedom, that is usually where I keep the argument. I don’t know if you’re American, but the pursuit of happiness clause in our constitution essentially states I can pursue happiness in anyway I see fit as long as I don’t prevent others from doing so. That should be applied to drug use, motorcycles, guns, etc. if I cause harm or disruptions to others lives with those activities, there are already laws in place protecting people from that type of behavior. Drugs alone should not be a crime.
Not good at debating* not senator lol
I’ll be honest I am not a good senator at all. I just know this topic very well so I can beat people who are far better than I am.
I don’t feel I need to make that argument to win the debate. Also what you’re calling for is basically what we already do. I have this debate to try and convince people our current system needs to be changed.
I bet you can’t beat me in a debate on this topic using that argument. Pretty much every time I’ve had this debate on this website someone has tried to apply that basic opinion everyone who is uneducated in drugs and pharmacology shares. It has never worked.
The evidence and data I present is simply too much for that argument, if you stay around and watch this debate you will see. Feel free to vote against me, I won’t report you no matter what, but keep your mind open to the possibility you may not have enough knowledge in this topic to make a truly educated claim about how it should be handled.
I think both of those things have to go hand in hand. Which is why things that are dangerous are regulated.
But cyanide isn’t illegal, lead isn’t illegal, mercury isn’t illegal, all these deadly poisons are not illegal. Just enjoyable drugs. It’s not about safety, these laws aren’t about safety. And you can’t just say protecting lives > freedom because you can find many many things that are dangerous and kill people yearly that are legal, like rscing cars, driving motorcycles, etc. we just assume adults are able to weigh the risk of the situation and decide on their own whether or not they want to do something dangerous.
That doesn’t happen with drugs, it can’t because most people don’t even know what they’re taking.
I appreciate you’re willing to pay attention to the debate.
I promise it’s not technobabble lol I’ve been studying this topic for years of my life and have studied it in college and independently. There is a lot of people who don’t know anything about drugs that try to preteens they do. If you watch this debate you’ll see I’m not one of them.
We’ll be careful basing your entire opinion based off of incident reports. Methamphetamine is much easier to synthesize than Amphetamine. So of course you’re going to see more issues with the drug that’s easier to make and more accessible. That doesn’t necessarily mean one is more harmful or less harmful than the other.
That article basically said nothing honestly. Just said that street meth is more harmful than adderall. Of course it is because street chemists don’t know what they’re doing, that doesn’t mean methamphetamine is more harmful or significantly different than Amphetamine. Which is why that article conveniently neglected to mention Desoxyn and it’s medical uses across the country.
Look up the molecule of methamphetamine then look up the molecule of adderall, that’s the face of what is entering your brain and changing your neurochemistry.
Also looking up “meth isn’t so bad” is just bad research honestly. Look up the mechanism of action for methamphetamine, then look up the me Hanson of action for amphetamine. It’s the exact same thing because they’re the same drug. Studies have also shown people can’t even tell the difference between the two when participating in a placebo controlled blind trial.
I ran out of characters to post my sources for some of the claims I made, don’t worry I’ll back them up in the coming rounds.
Stick around for this debate, maybe I can change your mind. Read my first argument and let me know what you think.
With that logic, DMT takes 5 minutes too, most of the 6 hours is just having it sit in a freezer.
If you can follow a cake recipe you can make meth, MDMA, and extract DMT easily. It takes no skill or knowledge, just following a short process.
Read my argument I just posted and let me know what you think, I hope you vote on the debate.
"But I'd require they be banned from public office, be taken into custody if too insane, regularly be evaluated by mental health."
You realize most presidents in recent history have had some sort of stimulant prescription correct? drugs like methylphenidate, vyvanse, adderall, etc. All have very similar pharmacological properties to methamphetamine and rarely make people go insane. Those people make up the small minority of total users of those types of drugs. Methamphetamine is still prescribed to be used to treat obesity and ADHD today, the name brand that is prescribed under is desoxyn. Methamphetamine is also already sold over the counter in most pharmacies in a Vick's product because it is an effective nasal decongestant. You seem to have a very specific idea of what a meth user is, probably due to popular culture surrounding the drug, shows like breaking bad for example, great show, but gives an ignorant view that all meth users look like Jessie or skinny Pete.
The majority of meth users are responsible adults who do not have addiction, who take care of their families, who pay their taxes, etc. They certainly aren't insane. that doesn't mean those people don't exist, they certainly do, but that is not the drugs fault. Just like it isn't a vehicles fault when someone uses them to run people over. Addiction does not exist simply because of the existence of a molecule. It exists because well over 90% of addicts had mental illnesses or were experiencing emotional crises before they started using the drug. The drug served as a coping mechanism for the struggles they were facing. Addiction is easily predictable and easily preventable, and most people who use drugs prevent it from forming.
Well nicotine and alcohol are psychoactive substances lmao
It is also incredibly easy to make vast quantities of methamphetamine and MDMA in your garage as well. It’s easy to extract DMT in vast quantities as well. Mimosa Hostilis grows all over my state and with 6 hours of work and ingredients bought at Walmart, I can easily extract the DMT from the root.
It’s not about ease of creation, it’s about safety and freedom to pursue happiness in anyway I see fit as long as I am not preventing others from doing so.
I argue the exact opposite of what you’re claiming.
My website is glitching out, saying I’m 25,000 characters over the limit before I type anything. Gonna try and figure this out before I have to forfeit.
Barney do you know how I can fix this? Or anyone else reading this
“ A long term user of meth, crazed by the drug, ought not be trusted in many jobs,
Ought not be held to be in reason or control of themselves in court.”
The vast majority of people who use methamphetamine, do not fit the description you just described.
We allow people to legally ruin their bodies and minds with alcohol, we allow people to destroy their bodies with tobacco. The vast majority of alcohol and nicotine users do nothing of the sort.
Analysis is necessary, I’m not advocating Stores to Just have a bag of random powder saying “Here ya go” just like with legal drugs they have to know what they’re purchasing and how strong it is.
A psychoactive drug, psychopharmaceutical, psychoactive agent or psychotropic drug is a chemical substance that changes functions of the nervous system, and results in alterations in perception, mood, cognition, and behavior.
And part of my argument is that the biggest downfall of prohibition is contaminated substances which legalization and legal Sale on a regulated market would stop that.
It does matter, alcohol is analyzed, so is nicotine and cannabis. And the reason I say Independent is because Land have been caught exaggerating THC concentration in their weed to charge more money.
Interested in having this debate with me?
The drugs will be sold out of dispensaries like we do with cannabis in some states, they will be synthesized by American Chemists, analyzed by American analytical chemists independent of the synthetic chemists, then sold by Americans to Americans
Yes it should be sold the same way alcohol is, same for heroin, PCP, etc.
Accept the debate I hope I can change your mind and make you a supporter.