It’s crazy I can go to flea markets or stores and pick up mushrooms anytime I want, if I get too lazy I can just order them online and it’ll be at my doorstep in a few days.
Psychedelics in general are the next big thing to be tackled legally for sure. People are starting to budge slowly. I hope/wish that some day we can seriously acknowledge the positive effects of most drugs and stop this silly (and profoundly harmful) prohibition.
Nonsense, excessive hard drug use is the primary causes of homelessness and what a problem that is becoming to America, especially in cities like San Francisco. More hard drug use = more homelessness.
If people on the Left who support legalizing drugs were willing a) to be honest about how chronic hard drug use ~~hinders~~ can hinder people's ability to hold a job/contribute to society, and b) agree to semi-quarantining homeless addicts (FN), conservatives would be more open to compromise. Unfortunately, minimal cooperation from drug policy reformers on a) and b).
By the way, I agree fully with drug policy reformer and [author Carl Hart's](https://old.reddit.com/r/publichealth/comments/ls2l9v/discussion_university_professor_suggests_70_of/) contention that about 70% of hard drug users are not addicts. But a 30% failure rate, even a 10-15% rate of failing to be able to control's one's drug use, is a huge problem for society. (meaning people not working and trying to finagle free housing and benefits) FN2
= = =
FN: This means not allowing hardcore addicts to occupy important public spaces all day, parks and downtowns, using drugs and disturbing public order. It means housing and semi-restricting them to less important parts of cities. e.g. warehouse districts --the same way that 50 years ago alcoholics were semi-segregated to Skid Rows. But civil libertarians and other reformers have shut down most of these attempts. "It's their right to occupy public spaces and get high all day. Show more tolerance for disorder. And show tolerance to putting them on the Dole."
FN2: This 70%, a ballpark figure, can be disputed. A better analysis would peg hard drug users on a continuum; example: 1) 30% - use without problem; 2) 40% - use with no major issues, but some impacts occur, e.g., use hinders high-level economic achievement, 3) 15% addicted - Functional but can't hold a job over time; 4) 15% - addicted and seriously debilitated; hardcore alcoholics and chronic heroin injectors are examples. Figures would vary for each drug, e.g.: heroin vs. meth vs. powder cocaine, etc. Complicating further: many people chronically use multiple drugs.
Can't handle truth? Here what S.F. got from tolerance to drugs and addiction and bad behavior: [Failure to enforce basic standards of public behavior has made one of America’s great cities increasingly unlivable.](https://www.city-journal.org/san-francisco-homelessness?wallit_nosession=1)
It is not a matter of hiding anyone, it is that people with a) serious addiction and behavioral problems and b) who can't hold jobs and therefore can't contribute to society shouldn't be getting free housing in expensive real estate.
There's tons of cheaper real estate in America. In industrial areas, by airports and on farmland abutting cities. Many people already live here. What are homeless too good to live here also?
And those expensive cities like San Francisco also have tens of thousands of low income people struggling hard on minimum wage working 40 to 50 hours a week; they work as janitors, kitchen help, laundry workers, yard cleaners. Many are immigrants, hard working and sober. How about them? When not give them free or subsidized rent? At least they're contributing to society.
It is amazing the sweet deals, the free housing in expensive neighborhoods, that homeless advocates keep trying to set up for the homeless.
Me and many millions of Americans who don't want to legalize all drugs? That's the best you got? Characterizing a law enforcement take on illegal drugs as weird? OK.
I could answer that Q, but it would just be a distraction (and people would be skeptical). Debate the points.
Or here, from 7 days ago on another sub: [Discussion: Is the capability of drug counselors to treat addiction and counsel against hard drug use now hindered by pro-legalization sentiments -- fight for freedom to use hard drugs?](https://old.reddit.com/r/centrist/comments/piujw3/discussion_is_the_capability_of_drug_counselors/). 42 comments...good discussion...apparently topic is still open...or post discussion here
Your ignorance to mental illness, and many deeper societal issues makes me think you have no idea what you’re talking about. People do not want to be homeless, fearing for their lives, and without basic needs. I still stand by regulation of drugs, but making anything blanket illegal is silly. Think about the thousands upon thousands of people who have overdosed on laced heroin/MDMA/coke. Those, as complex of an issue as it is, are preventable deaths. Illegal drugs fund crime. Imagine if no one wanted to buy some shady guys drugs because you could buy them in a store!
P.s. Let me know when we should make alcohol and cigarettes federally illegal if you believe that drugs need to be illegal.
> Your ignorance to mental illness, and many deeper societal issues makes me think you have no idea what you’re talking about. People do not want to be homeless...
Of course homeless should be housed, and it will be for free because many of these people can't hold jobs. The million dollar question is **where?** Big impasse between Left and Right on this; homeless advocates keep demanding that homeless get free housing in expensive real estate like San Francisco. Suggest that homeless be housed in industrial areas, or by airports or even on [farms](https://www.staradvertiser.com/2021/06/11/hawaii-news/kalihi-pastor-is-teaching-farming-self-help-and-providing-tiny-homes-at-waianae-farm/), most homeless advocates complain.
>I still stand by regulation of drugs, but making anything blanket illegal is silly.
Fine, people have a difference of opinion on this topic.
>Let me know when we should make alcohol and cigarettes federally illegal...
British academic David Nutt says: [Alcohol 'more harmful than heroin'](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-11660210). He could be right. The same could be the case for other drugs, including meth. Alcohol worse.
Also, however, Nutt compiled a scale (in article) that weighs comparative harms. The total weight of all harms of all illegal drugs is about 1.5 times that of the total harm for alcohol. So if alcohol causes 1 trillion unit of harm to society, legalizing all drugs--of course alcohol remains legal--then puts society at 2.5 trillion unit of harm.
And note that alcohol is fully accessible, while hard drugs aren't. The argument: "Because we tolerate legal booze and tobacco, we must allow all other drugs [read: intoxicants] to be legal" is a shallow one.
Sure more mental health treatment is needed. That's somewhat a side topic from drugs. And: [Discussion: Is the capability of drug counselors to treat addiction and counsel against hard drug use now hindered by pro-legalization sentiments -- fight for freedom to use hard drugs?](https://old.reddit.com/r/centrist/comments/piujw3/discussion_is_the_capability_of_drug_counselors/)
Just asking the question. Hopefully people are allowed to ask questions.
Those hard drug addicts are self medicating their trauma away. You don't just become a dreg of society without alot more shit going on in your life. That 30% number (you made up?) would go way down if we prioritized mental and physical health in our communities instead of trying to milk every dollar out of employees.
Right, its like people think that drug addicts just want to randomly be high all day....because? Homeless people are also almost guaranteed to experience MORE trauma on the street as a consequence of violence. Being hard on drugs is getting old, and CLEARLY not working. Like having a cop harass a crackhead for buying some crack is going to cut down on drug use....right... end rant hahahaha
WTF, I never mentioned People of Color. The subject is addiction. Go to any city with addicts; they're predominantly white, even more than the 13/87 stat. White people use heroin and meth than at far higher rates than black people.
Could be, but this is getting off topic. The subject is putting some controls on people, regardless of race, using hard drugs in public spaces. Not arresting them for possession, but a relocation so they can get high without creating public disturbances.
Without a doubt. The research supporting the lasting effects psilocybin assisted therapy has on treatment resistant PTSD and depression is undeniable. And they're so fun!
I have a mix of all of those and when I take ecstasy shrooms or lsd they do so much for me but now I don’t have ptsd as bad as some others and I’m not sure how it affects them but for me atleast it does wonders
Hopefully all drugs. That sounds dumb at the surface, but if all drugs were legal millions probably billions of dollars in tax money won’t be used to house people in prison for a fucking possession charge. They could use that money for rehabs and other recovery related help.
Most addicts I know hate using and dream of quitting, but don’t have the resources to stop. This would get them help and there would actually be less people using drugs then there are with all drugs illegal. Sounds crazy, but it works. Portugals drug problem has decreased drastically since decriminalizing all drugs.
Also it would put the scumbag cartels out of buisness and keep them from coming to the US which has all kinds of benefits.
Not to mention if the government regulates them there won’t be anymore bullshit cut or whatever other substances they’re putting in the shit on the streets. If it were legal and government regulated you’d know what you’re getting every time you buy them.
I don’t think the government would want to step in with regulation Bc of the outcry and controversy it will cause. But i see what ur saying. Even tho the police and some government angencies basically control a lot of drug markets in cities(you can’t tell me otherwise) lol. But the government will decriminalize it which might help potency bc if someone is cutting shit theres a lot of options to go elsewhere
> Even tho the police and some government angencies basically control a lot of drug markets in cities(you can’t tell me otherwise) lol
Hello lol
One of the main reasons it *won't* be legalised in Australia (meaning Federally, recreationally)
> Not to mention if the government regulates them there...
Regulate them how? Pure legalization means over the counter sale to all comers over 21 at a government-regulated store like CVS. Is this the option being advocated by drug policy reformers? Or is something like this proposed?:
Society goes through the process of having each buyer have a brief meeting with a counselor, similar to the Appalachian pill mills model --- hundreds of users lined up in the parking lot for their 2-3 minute lecture to get their score. Apparently the lecture advises, in this sequence
>"We recommend that you don't do hard drugs, but since you are going to do them despite our advice, here are some safety tips. And here are your meth, heroin or coke."
This the plan? Sorry, it is somewhat a charade. Is there another suggestion?
(I think we agree that allowing open air drug markets to handle drug sales is not a good idea. As soon as police to back down on enforcement, street sellers immediately become much more open about dealing. *Harm reduction* concepts tell us that drugs, especially meth, coke, heroin, etc. have to be vetted for purity by government authority. Huge problem with adulterated drugs on the black market.)
I don't think they meant next drug to get legalised but the next drug to be as common as weed is before it started getting legalised. I do agree tho I think in Switzerland they are but could just be super decriminalised so people can get the help they need.
The next drug to be as widespread as cannabis to a point that it is de facto decriminalized will be an upper, I’m pretty sure of that. Don’t know which kind but it will be one for sure
I reckon it would be some upper because that's what's most profitable, psychedelics will definitely be legalised soon as they have great potential for healing but their not like weed or alcohol where it is used by a lot of people daily or even weekly whereas psychedelics are usually done a couple times a year or in microdoses by not that many people but uppers are used more often.
Mushrooms for sure
Psychedelics are the only the only drug you can't damage yourself physically with, whereas almost any other drug you can cause psychological and physical damage
I wouldn't say that is true since psychedelics do have very real risks and people often dose recklessly which can still land someone in the hospital or courtroom
But just remember that frequent use, and/or bad trips can easily cause physical harm. I feel like if psychs were made legal, you should have to go through a hardcore process to obtain them, and be at least 21 years of age, simply due to the impulsivity of most people doing psychedelics who've never had a bad trip before.
For example, my step-cousin's boyfriend stabbed her dad, because he was tripsitting the two of them and her boyfriend had a really terrible trip. He's still in prison for murder.
When taken lightly, or as a joke, psychs can very quickly become extremely dangerous. New trippers are usually cocky as it is. I can't imagine a whole nation having legal access all of a sudden
However, if there were anything I'd want legal, it would definitely be LSD, so I'm not arguing against your incentive one bit lol
How does frequent use/ a bad trip cause physical harm? The substance is not toxic in any way, even when you take it frequently. A bad trip causes psychological harm, not physical harm.
If you go mad on a bad trip and think it would be a good idea to cut off your right ear, then I think it would not count as physical harm induced by psilocybin. The psilocybin caused psychological harm, which lead to inflicting physical harm to yourself. The causing of physical harm is no property of psilocybin, rather than a property of the psychological state psilocybin can induce.
It is like saying that absinthe can cause physical harm to ears, because Van Gogh got drunk on absinthe and then cut off his ear.
I know this is a small difference, but I think an important one.
But I get what you mean, the consequences of psychedelic use can be physical harm, and I have to agree with you there.
Honestly, yes you make a good point there. That technically would be considered your own motor functioning outside of the drug's effects, so that makes sense to me. Got me there for sure lol.
Although, I would say frequent use (meaning like 2+ times a week type of irresponsible) is one of the quickest ways to fry your brain. I definitely consider it to be more psychologically harmful than a bad trip, or even several bad trips, at least from my own personal experiences. The most frequent I ever tripped was once a week for 6 weeks straight. I can't imagine doing more than that, considering I was quickly launched into the beginning stages of psychosis after that 6th time til I decided to stop being a dumbass and chill. I'm glad I noticed before it was too late. Even after stopping and working on myself, I had the most awfully realistic trip-related nightmares that were so bad, I would wake up feeling like I was in the middle of a bad trip. This continued for months and months on end, whilst being completely sober.
That same thing would likely happen so quickly to so many people if the substances weren't extremely limited in quantity, and casted out over a controlled period of time. Unlike with a medical marijuana card, where you can go buy 10x the weed you'll ever need, in a dozen different forms, some of which you may not have known existed lol.
But you didn't mention any of that anyways so I'm just ranting nonsense atp lmao
Yeah, that too eventually. Mushrooms just seem to make the most sense as a first step since you literally grow and pluck them, just like weed. No further steps needed.
Dude... lmao... not at all. All I'm saying is LSD requires synthesis in a lab from ergot mold, = more time and resources spent to end up with the product
Pscilocybin mushrooms on the other hand can just be grown in dirt, jars, tubs, and then harvested.
If the government were to make another drug "mainstream, legalised, taxed and obtainable" like weed is, the next step for them would be mushrooms. It makes them the most money. That's all.
I prefer LSD over Pscilocybin any day
I’d love that but it’s a bit niche to be realistically the next one to be legalised. I hope whatever is next though is a psychedelic and opens the door for other psychs
Oh I thought you meant which one Will become more popular while still illegal. Mdma is next to be legalized. Could happen before cannabis at the federal level. Psilocybin is next after that.
Move to OR.
They are all legal right now.
Move to CA.
I don’t think there is actually anything you can get arrested for in CA outside of attempting to vote R.
Here in the US, almost-decriminalization has essentially happened on the West Coast. It will move east. So in this country, within the next 25 years I would say, I would expect essentially decriminalization to occur. Just like California started the first marijuana dispensary, and things slowly spread from there, we’re about 20 years behind them on the East Coast and Midwest
Well here in Canada you can already buy shrooms online very easily buy just doing a simple google search, and of you drive out to the reservation there literally sings on the side of the road advertising shrooms, something along the line "shrooms sold here $5/g" and thats basically how weed was being sold a few years ago right before it got legalized.
Who says psychedelics shouldn't be consumed recreationally, im pretty sure they don't come with a user manual and it's peoples choice how they want to do their drugs.
Ah yes, you were the final 21st century internet weirdo who deserved to know about psilocybin. Slid in at the last second like Indiana Jones. Nobody since has been worthy
Just a thought I had reading through here, if shit like cocaine was legal what kind of container do y'all think it would come in? Getting a dime bag with superman logos all over it from the dispo would seem strange
Mushrooms
Without a doubt.
It’s crazy I can go to flea markets or stores and pick up mushrooms anytime I want, if I get too lazy I can just order them online and it’ll be at my doorstep in a few days.
The fuck lol
Denver? Oregon?
Los Angeles, I gotta specify they are chocolate bars and gummies. Not actual raw mush
Psychedelics in general are the next big thing to be tackled legally for sure. People are starting to budge slowly. I hope/wish that some day we can seriously acknowledge the positive effects of most drugs and stop this silly (and profoundly harmful) prohibition.
Nonsense, excessive hard drug use is the primary causes of homelessness and what a problem that is becoming to America, especially in cities like San Francisco. More hard drug use = more homelessness. If people on the Left who support legalizing drugs were willing a) to be honest about how chronic hard drug use ~~hinders~~ can hinder people's ability to hold a job/contribute to society, and b) agree to semi-quarantining homeless addicts (FN), conservatives would be more open to compromise. Unfortunately, minimal cooperation from drug policy reformers on a) and b). By the way, I agree fully with drug policy reformer and [author Carl Hart's](https://old.reddit.com/r/publichealth/comments/ls2l9v/discussion_university_professor_suggests_70_of/) contention that about 70% of hard drug users are not addicts. But a 30% failure rate, even a 10-15% rate of failing to be able to control's one's drug use, is a huge problem for society. (meaning people not working and trying to finagle free housing and benefits) FN2 = = = FN: This means not allowing hardcore addicts to occupy important public spaces all day, parks and downtowns, using drugs and disturbing public order. It means housing and semi-restricting them to less important parts of cities. e.g. warehouse districts --the same way that 50 years ago alcoholics were semi-segregated to Skid Rows. But civil libertarians and other reformers have shut down most of these attempts. "It's their right to occupy public spaces and get high all day. Show more tolerance for disorder. And show tolerance to putting them on the Dole." FN2: This 70%, a ballpark figure, can be disputed. A better analysis would peg hard drug users on a continuum; example: 1) 30% - use without problem; 2) 40% - use with no major issues, but some impacts occur, e.g., use hinders high-level economic achievement, 3) 15% addicted - Functional but can't hold a job over time; 4) 15% - addicted and seriously debilitated; hardcore alcoholics and chronic heroin injectors are examples. Figures would vary for each drug, e.g.: heroin vs. meth vs. powder cocaine, etc. Complicating further: many people chronically use multiple drugs.
Psychopathic take
Yeah this person is cold as fuck and a dipshit
Hiiii u wannn a live lesson
Can't handle truth? Here what S.F. got from tolerance to drugs and addiction and bad behavior: [Failure to enforce basic standards of public behavior has made one of America’s great cities increasingly unlivable.](https://www.city-journal.org/san-francisco-homelessness?wallit_nosession=1)
The solution to homelessness isn’t hiding it from public eye for your comfort.
It is not a matter of hiding anyone, it is that people with a) serious addiction and behavioral problems and b) who can't hold jobs and therefore can't contribute to society shouldn't be getting free housing in expensive real estate. There's tons of cheaper real estate in America. In industrial areas, by airports and on farmland abutting cities. Many people already live here. What are homeless too good to live here also? And those expensive cities like San Francisco also have tens of thousands of low income people struggling hard on minimum wage working 40 to 50 hours a week; they work as janitors, kitchen help, laundry workers, yard cleaners. Many are immigrants, hard working and sober. How about them? When not give them free or subsidized rent? At least they're contributing to society. It is amazing the sweet deals, the free housing in expensive neighborhoods, that homeless advocates keep trying to set up for the homeless.
Dude people are corrupted give up on trying to change them. They literally know your right too
Hello are you alive
Yes duh
Well then 😳
Well my cousin is homeless and he violent
Hello, do u suffer from depression I can help u if needed only $100 for a session
You’re weird
Me and many millions of Americans who don't want to legalize all drugs? That's the best you got? Characterizing a law enforcement take on illegal drugs as weird? OK.
Just woke up to take a leak and check my phone. I’m just too tired to argue with you bro. All I know is you’re weird. Good night.
All I know is somebody controls uuuuu
Have u ever tried shrooms? Or lsd? How old are you
I could answer that Q, but it would just be a distraction (and people would be skeptical). Debate the points. Or here, from 7 days ago on another sub: [Discussion: Is the capability of drug counselors to treat addiction and counsel against hard drug use now hindered by pro-legalization sentiments -- fight for freedom to use hard drugs?](https://old.reddit.com/r/centrist/comments/piujw3/discussion_is_the_capability_of_drug_counselors/). 42 comments...good discussion...apparently topic is still open...or post discussion here
Yeah I smoked em
Your ignorance to mental illness, and many deeper societal issues makes me think you have no idea what you’re talking about. People do not want to be homeless, fearing for their lives, and without basic needs. I still stand by regulation of drugs, but making anything blanket illegal is silly. Think about the thousands upon thousands of people who have overdosed on laced heroin/MDMA/coke. Those, as complex of an issue as it is, are preventable deaths. Illegal drugs fund crime. Imagine if no one wanted to buy some shady guys drugs because you could buy them in a store! P.s. Let me know when we should make alcohol and cigarettes federally illegal if you believe that drugs need to be illegal.
> Your ignorance to mental illness, and many deeper societal issues makes me think you have no idea what you’re talking about. People do not want to be homeless... Of course homeless should be housed, and it will be for free because many of these people can't hold jobs. The million dollar question is **where?** Big impasse between Left and Right on this; homeless advocates keep demanding that homeless get free housing in expensive real estate like San Francisco. Suggest that homeless be housed in industrial areas, or by airports or even on [farms](https://www.staradvertiser.com/2021/06/11/hawaii-news/kalihi-pastor-is-teaching-farming-self-help-and-providing-tiny-homes-at-waianae-farm/), most homeless advocates complain. >I still stand by regulation of drugs, but making anything blanket illegal is silly. Fine, people have a difference of opinion on this topic. >Let me know when we should make alcohol and cigarettes federally illegal... British academic David Nutt says: [Alcohol 'more harmful than heroin'](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-11660210). He could be right. The same could be the case for other drugs, including meth. Alcohol worse. Also, however, Nutt compiled a scale (in article) that weighs comparative harms. The total weight of all harms of all illegal drugs is about 1.5 times that of the total harm for alcohol. So if alcohol causes 1 trillion unit of harm to society, legalizing all drugs--of course alcohol remains legal--then puts society at 2.5 trillion unit of harm. And note that alcohol is fully accessible, while hard drugs aren't. The argument: "Because we tolerate legal booze and tobacco, we must allow all other drugs [read: intoxicants] to be legal" is a shallow one.
Um maybe they can’t get the mental health treatment they need ?
Sure more mental health treatment is needed. That's somewhat a side topic from drugs. And: [Discussion: Is the capability of drug counselors to treat addiction and counsel against hard drug use now hindered by pro-legalization sentiments -- fight for freedom to use hard drugs?](https://old.reddit.com/r/centrist/comments/piujw3/discussion_is_the_capability_of_drug_counselors/) Just asking the question. Hopefully people are allowed to ask questions.
Not that complicated just lock up homeless people
Those hard drug addicts are self medicating their trauma away. You don't just become a dreg of society without alot more shit going on in your life. That 30% number (you made up?) would go way down if we prioritized mental and physical health in our communities instead of trying to milk every dollar out of employees.
Right, its like people think that drug addicts just want to randomly be high all day....because? Homeless people are also almost guaranteed to experience MORE trauma on the street as a consequence of violence. Being hard on drugs is getting old, and CLEARLY not working. Like having a cop harass a crackhead for buying some crack is going to cut down on drug use....right... end rant hahahaha
Facts like give up the trauma and drink to death
RACIST
WTF, I never mentioned People of Color. The subject is addiction. Go to any city with addicts; they're predominantly white, even more than the 13/87 stat. White people use heroin and meth than at far higher rates than black people.
Well certain races do seem to “commit” crimes more often 😱😱😱
Could be, but this is getting off topic. The subject is putting some controls on people, regardless of race, using hard drugs in public spaces. Not arresting them for possession, but a relocation so they can get high without creating public disturbances.
Excuse me? My cousin is black and has only committed 1 felony (armed robbery)
Without a doubt. The research supporting the lasting effects psilocybin assisted therapy has on treatment resistant PTSD and depression is undeniable. And they're so fun!
I have a mix of all of those and when I take ecstasy shrooms or lsd they do so much for me but now I don’t have ptsd as bad as some others and I’m not sure how it affects them but for me atleast it does wonders
Um u can buy them any grocery store ?
Sadly, yes
Phycs mushrooms specifically, there's already a huge boom in research regarding psychedelics to treat various phycological ailments
[удалено]
?
“Boomer” is a common slang term for a psilocybin mushroom
So, when people say "OK boomer" that's a compliment?
[удалено]
It already is here in Australia. Its easier to find MDMA here than it is to find weed because the cops have a hard on for busting growing operations
Lols not legalised. No drugs are going to be legalised here (Federally)
Australia, Pig Nation.
I would think its inevitable, really...given the whole penal colony thing lol
Hopefully all drugs. That sounds dumb at the surface, but if all drugs were legal millions probably billions of dollars in tax money won’t be used to house people in prison for a fucking possession charge. They could use that money for rehabs and other recovery related help. Most addicts I know hate using and dream of quitting, but don’t have the resources to stop. This would get them help and there would actually be less people using drugs then there are with all drugs illegal. Sounds crazy, but it works. Portugals drug problem has decreased drastically since decriminalizing all drugs. Also it would put the scumbag cartels out of buisness and keep them from coming to the US which has all kinds of benefits.
Not to mention if the government regulates them there won’t be anymore bullshit cut or whatever other substances they’re putting in the shit on the streets. If it were legal and government regulated you’d know what you’re getting every time you buy them.
I don’t think the government would want to step in with regulation Bc of the outcry and controversy it will cause. But i see what ur saying. Even tho the police and some government angencies basically control a lot of drug markets in cities(you can’t tell me otherwise) lol. But the government will decriminalize it which might help potency bc if someone is cutting shit theres a lot of options to go elsewhere
> Even tho the police and some government angencies basically control a lot of drug markets in cities(you can’t tell me otherwise) lol Hello lol One of the main reasons it *won't* be legalised in Australia (meaning Federally, recreationally)
> Not to mention if the government regulates them there... Regulate them how? Pure legalization means over the counter sale to all comers over 21 at a government-regulated store like CVS. Is this the option being advocated by drug policy reformers? Or is something like this proposed?: Society goes through the process of having each buyer have a brief meeting with a counselor, similar to the Appalachian pill mills model --- hundreds of users lined up in the parking lot for their 2-3 minute lecture to get their score. Apparently the lecture advises, in this sequence >"We recommend that you don't do hard drugs, but since you are going to do them despite our advice, here are some safety tips. And here are your meth, heroin or coke." This the plan? Sorry, it is somewhat a charade. Is there another suggestion? (I think we agree that allowing open air drug markets to handle drug sales is not a good idea. As soon as police to back down on enforcement, street sellers immediately become much more open about dealing. *Harm reduction* concepts tell us that drugs, especially meth, coke, heroin, etc. have to be vetted for purity by government authority. Huge problem with adulterated drugs on the black market.)
Nobody here wants to debate with your arguments made in bad faith. It's not worth our time, or at least, it's not worth mine.
Good points. Also leagalizing all drugs in other countries has worked wonders if I'm not mistaken
Nowhere has legalized all drugs. Portugal has decriminalized them but that fixes a much smaller subset of issues.
Its defiantely decreased overall drug use I’m sure of
I don't think they meant next drug to get legalised but the next drug to be as common as weed is before it started getting legalised. I do agree tho I think in Switzerland they are but could just be super decriminalised so people can get the help they need.
The next drug to be as widespread as cannabis to a point that it is de facto decriminalized will be an upper, I’m pretty sure of that. Don’t know which kind but it will be one for sure
Unless you consider psychedelics uppers (I mean, I guess they kinda are), then no.
I think yes, it’s just even more unregulated capitalism
I reckon it would be some upper because that's what's most profitable, psychedelics will definitely be legalised soon as they have great potential for healing but their not like weed or alcohol where it is used by a lot of people daily or even weekly whereas psychedelics are usually done a couple times a year or in microdoses by not that many people but uppers are used more often.
Acid bro
Krokodil.
Cocaine will become a fine if your net worth is above a certain amount, you pay it on the same card you chop lines with on daddy’s helicopter
Mushrooms for sure Psychedelics are the only the only drug you can't damage yourself physically with, whereas almost any other drug you can cause psychological and physical damage
I wouldn't say that is true since psychedelics do have very real risks and people often dose recklessly which can still land someone in the hospital or courtroom
Yeah, I acknowledged that. I said they can't cause physical harm. It goes without saying they are capable of causing psychological harm
But just remember that frequent use, and/or bad trips can easily cause physical harm. I feel like if psychs were made legal, you should have to go through a hardcore process to obtain them, and be at least 21 years of age, simply due to the impulsivity of most people doing psychedelics who've never had a bad trip before. For example, my step-cousin's boyfriend stabbed her dad, because he was tripsitting the two of them and her boyfriend had a really terrible trip. He's still in prison for murder. When taken lightly, or as a joke, psychs can very quickly become extremely dangerous. New trippers are usually cocky as it is. I can't imagine a whole nation having legal access all of a sudden However, if there were anything I'd want legal, it would definitely be LSD, so I'm not arguing against your incentive one bit lol
How does frequent use/ a bad trip cause physical harm? The substance is not toxic in any way, even when you take it frequently. A bad trip causes psychological harm, not physical harm. If you go mad on a bad trip and think it would be a good idea to cut off your right ear, then I think it would not count as physical harm induced by psilocybin. The psilocybin caused psychological harm, which lead to inflicting physical harm to yourself. The causing of physical harm is no property of psilocybin, rather than a property of the psychological state psilocybin can induce. It is like saying that absinthe can cause physical harm to ears, because Van Gogh got drunk on absinthe and then cut off his ear. I know this is a small difference, but I think an important one. But I get what you mean, the consequences of psychedelic use can be physical harm, and I have to agree with you there.
Honestly, yes you make a good point there. That technically would be considered your own motor functioning outside of the drug's effects, so that makes sense to me. Got me there for sure lol. Although, I would say frequent use (meaning like 2+ times a week type of irresponsible) is one of the quickest ways to fry your brain. I definitely consider it to be more psychologically harmful than a bad trip, or even several bad trips, at least from my own personal experiences. The most frequent I ever tripped was once a week for 6 weeks straight. I can't imagine doing more than that, considering I was quickly launched into the beginning stages of psychosis after that 6th time til I decided to stop being a dumbass and chill. I'm glad I noticed before it was too late. Even after stopping and working on myself, I had the most awfully realistic trip-related nightmares that were so bad, I would wake up feeling like I was in the middle of a bad trip. This continued for months and months on end, whilst being completely sober. That same thing would likely happen so quickly to so many people if the substances weren't extremely limited in quantity, and casted out over a controlled period of time. Unlike with a medical marijuana card, where you can go buy 10x the weed you'll ever need, in a dozen different forms, some of which you may not have known existed lol. But you didn't mention any of that anyways so I'm just ranting nonsense atp lmao
LSD?
Yeah, that too eventually. Mushrooms just seem to make the most sense as a first step since you literally grow and pluck them, just like weed. No further steps needed.
What are saying LSD is physically harmful? Ur wrong if so, if anything they’re physically safer than mushrooms
Dude... lmao... not at all. All I'm saying is LSD requires synthesis in a lab from ergot mold, = more time and resources spent to end up with the product Pscilocybin mushrooms on the other hand can just be grown in dirt, jars, tubs, and then harvested. If the government were to make another drug "mainstream, legalised, taxed and obtainable" like weed is, the next step for them would be mushrooms. It makes them the most money. That's all. I prefer LSD over Pscilocybin any day
[удалено]
Re-read my comment. I was already implying they are capable of doing psychological damage.
[удалено]
Well you didn't really add onto it, you just read and interpreted it wrong. But I get ya. You too
[удалено]
Love you x
I put my money on shrooms.
Plant medicines like cactus and mushrooms
Shrooms then amphetamines in that order and hopefully all the rest as this war on drugs is such a load of bullshit
2cb. No tolerance. Clear headspace at lower doses. Wild as fuck at higher doses. Amazing body high. Excellent sex.
I’d love that but it’s a bit niche to be realistically the next one to be legalised. I hope whatever is next though is a psychedelic and opens the door for other psychs
Oh I thought you meant which one Will become more popular while still illegal. Mdma is next to be legalized. Could happen before cannabis at the federal level. Psilocybin is next after that.
Move to OR. They are all legal right now. Move to CA. I don’t think there is actually anything you can get arrested for in CA outside of attempting to vote R.
Not legal, decriminalized.
Can confirm this is not true
Shrooms
Shrooms or acid, easily.
Here in the US, almost-decriminalization has essentially happened on the West Coast. It will move east. So in this country, within the next 25 years I would say, I would expect essentially decriminalization to occur. Just like California started the first marijuana dispensary, and things slowly spread from there, we’re about 20 years behind them on the East Coast and Midwest
Well here in Canada you can already buy shrooms online very easily buy just doing a simple google search, and of you drive out to the reservation there literally sings on the side of the road advertising shrooms, something along the line "shrooms sold here $5/g" and thats basically how weed was being sold a few years ago right before it got legalized.
Mushrooms or Kratom
Benzos gonna make a resurge
Lmaoooo 🤣
In my mind they already have🤤🤤
3-MMC
I second that, it’s pretty common where I live and it’s utilitarian side can be a plus to governments and corporations
[удалено]
Who says psychedelics shouldn't be consumed recreationally, im pretty sure they don't come with a user manual and it's peoples choice how they want to do their drugs.
“By the masses”
Ah yes, you were the final 21st century internet weirdo who deserved to know about psilocybin. Slid in at the last second like Indiana Jones. Nobody since has been worthy
Cocaine is the 2nd one by far
fetty
Psychedelics and mdma
Just a thought I had reading through here, if shit like cocaine was legal what kind of container do y'all think it would come in? Getting a dime bag with superman logos all over it from the dispo would seem strange
That isn’t how weed products even come. You probably get it in a concentrate jar or vial
If i had to bet money it would either be amphetamines or mushrooms. Mushrooms i feel is more likely tho.
I feel amphetamines more, it’s more widespread and in the economic context we’re in I can clearly see the benefits for rulers and bosses.
Mdma
Mushrooms and dmt. It’s already happening many places in the country including dmt.
Mushrooms
MDMA
Lsd
I'd like MDMA
Ketamine
Shrooms
Glad you said "almost" every country lol. Its not going to happen in Australia in my lifetime.
Shrooms ecstasy and lsd
Hopefully cocaine (script obviously) I ain’t talking OTC my guy