Kinda but you would need to limit corporations abusing addiction for profit like they already do with things like nicotine
Portugal. They've essentially been doing this for years.
Drugs are decriminalised and in themselves legal.
It's still technically a crime to use them but generally you are treated as a patient with addiction. Not a criminal.
There's still a massive body of criminal law around supplying, and producing them.
So they are not dismantling controls on drugs but targeting the issues drugs cause instead of criminalising users needlessly.
Not perfect there but certainly lessons to be learnt.
People need education not prohibition..
All the "just say no" stuff didn't count as education.
D.A.R.E. was objectively a massive failure.
Turns out when you tell kids that weed is just as bad as crack, they start wondering "what else did they lie about" when they figure out weed is fine.
It's all based on lies though. You tell them weed is as bad as other drugs then they try weed and it's fine you can imagine the conclusion drawn from that.
Meh, having everything instantly legal would be too much especially without the funding for care centers where addicts can get help. As well as preventative systems for addicts.
Decriminalization is a step better but it doesn't solve the problems of dealers lacing fentanyl into things people dont expect.
That said, it's absurd to not already have things like psychedelics/weed/kratom decriminalization and small amounts of party drugs. The fact that the punishment for doing drugs far more harmful than the dugs themselves is mind boggling.
Not really unpopular. Most Scientists and even some politicians agree that the war on drugs only made things worse and that prohibition is not working.
I think we should legalize and hand off distribution and production to major colleges. Have a lot of the profits go toward lowering tuition that way we can elevate our citizens to a higher standard where we can eventually lessen the use of drugs for escapism.
Actual unpopular opinion: people obsess over legalization models for everything because they have bad enforcement models to base their data off of
Law enforcement in the US distributes drugs. Corruption has turned "informants" into a system where the police are essentially gangs which monopolize both criminal activity and the law. Our air force got caught cooking MDMA on a nuclear base in the Netherlands. We have a base here in Texas that changed names because they keep having suicides mass shootings and sweeping SA allegations under the rug. Two of the soldiers got caught with a middle schooler man. There's so many goddamn drugs
Anyways my point is sociologists studying the US actions will assume it is impossible to make anything illegal without causing havoc.
There are ways to eliminate issues like prostitution and drug abuse without locking up prositutes or giving people possession charges or locking up street dealers making less than minimum wage. That kind of criminalization does absolutely nothing other than ruin lives
Which ways, can you detail them?
You go after the pimps and distributors, to begin with. Help get low level members of these orgs out and back into society. Genuine rehabilitation is not the goal of our prison system, just slavery. To state the obvious you prolly know.
I am not a huge fan of the Nordic model but it is miles better than trying to get the UN orgs to call pimps "sex workers" ugh
But what about all the shareholders who have a stake in the prison-industrial complex?
They can go to rehab for money addiction.
Checking in for the struggling sober. Controlled access and decriminalisation need to go hand in hand with
he ded rip
Yeah kinda my point we cant just consider the criminal impact like OP is doing with blinders on
I think most people would agree on the surface but the devil's in the details: that statement could mean anything from making schedule 1 drugs available at detox centers to removing prescription requirements on antibiotics to grabbing a bag of ricin at the corner store on your way to work
To clarify strictly, I mean recreational drugs. Drugs that have been used for recreational and medicinal purposes that have been legally restricted in some way.
Very libertarian point of view and one that I've held for years. Not unpopular.
I am genuinely surprised that AI has not already been used to discover countless drugs all with chemical properties that are different and not illegal. It will come of course at some point likely before the end of the decade but who knows. I suspect that there will be some pretty awesome drugs that have e lower side effects and or there will be counter measures discovered to offset negatives etc.
We don't need AI, we've had those chemicals for decades. They're called Research Chemicals and some countries (like the UK I think) preemptively ban them, while in others they have to be explicitly banned. It's an ongoing cat and mouse game, but if you asked me I'd rather take a well known compound and not some random crap that was invented last year and like 6 people took.
The awesome drugs with lower side effects are the well known ones, like LSD.
Of the drugs are free then it's a problem that solves itself.
Poisonings and overdoses skyrocket.
Edit: Not to mention antibiotic resistance.
Because right now everything is dandy, right?
By treating addicted users as criminals instead of people in need of help, they don't get the help they need and it creates a taboo around the issue, just like it was a few years ago for mental health or sexual orientation.
At the strict minimum, decriminalize and controlled access is a good stop gap.
And those people get proper medical care instead of revolving door prisons.
If drugs are produced with the same requirements as pharmaceuticals poisonings go down massively. That is usually due to it being cut with other shit.
I was talking to OP’s opinion, which is different from yours.
This user is just on a roll with stupid takes.
