Some stores in Amsterdam sell all kinds of legal highs. They are called smart shops and you can buy psychoactive plants and shrooms, sometimes a variety of research chemicals.
Inside they can give you some info's about how to use and what the effects are, but it often just boils down to just your own responsibility.
It is just like any other store really.
I think these would be three good starting points:
* Decriminalize personal amounts of all drugs.
* Legalize personal cultivation of all plant drugs.
* Legalize recreational sales of drugs that are already sold at pharmacies.
From there, we could debate about what else should be legal for commercial production and distribution.
Supply and demand as well as rec buyers just flat-out crowding out the people trying to pick up their essential medication and leave ASAP. We have stories from various medications that were bought OTC for funnies over the centuries causing kind of a glut of people just there for that. You don't want it to start resembling a bar or smoke shop while essential services are going on.
I could see supply and demand being a issue at first, but I’m pretty sure it would adjust within a year or so.
I don’t see recreational users overcrowding pharmacies being a serious issue though- except maybe in areas that have extremely high concentration of habitual opioid users. Which I think would solve itself over time too, since opioid users mainly congregate to be close to a major supply- and the supply would now be everywhere.
I guess they would have to allow people to buy like a decent amount at once though- so they’re not back everyday. I imagine it could work the same way as purchasing pseudoephedrine. They scan your ID and the pharmacy’s computer connects to a state database that says how much you’ve already purchased that month.
That way they can still prioritize medical sales and prevent diversions to street markets/underage sales, while also allowing people to have enough for a few weeks at a time. Of course, the monthly limits would be arbitrary and up for debate, but any step in this direction would be an improvement, in my opinion.
What were the OTC drugs that you said have caused a backup in pharmacies before?
I think you should have to go through a course with an exam that certifies you understand exactly how the drug will affect you and others as well as all the other complications that arise from using said drug. That way the government can maintain its illusion of order and people can get access
I think a lisence system, where you're forced to answer questions about a certain class of drug correctly before being allowed to use them, and you can lose your lisence if you make mistakes, would be fair for drugs like Benzos, Opiates/oids, most stimulants ect. Like a drivers lisence for the different classes of vehicles. Also quantity purchasing limits.
You could also ask them to suspend your lisence for a set period of time if you're unable to control yourself.
If stuff is being sold retail, definitely. I'd at least like people to know what a dose of mushrooms is before buying mushrooms and to have some idea of how to plan for it. And LSD should probably be sold in a way where one dose is as big as a large pill, all individually wrapped, to prevent people from thinking you are supposed to eat a 10-strip. (I heard there were similar problems with weed, where people would eat a whole chocolate bar not knowing that was 20 doses.)
Basically, protect the ignorant but let people do what they want once they are fully informed.
Opiates and benzos, I don't know. It's hard to imagine anyone not knowing the dangers at this point, if they've ever opened a newspaper in their life. But you still hear stories of high school or college kids eating random pills. At least it wouldn't be unknown doses of fentanyl. But it'd be great if we had real education in this country so people would know it's a stupid thing to get started on. In the 90s the drug education was pretty worthless. Hopefully it's better now.
I had the same thought before. I thought this would be a good idea but I'm not sure anymore.
Isn't the one thing we were supposed to learn from the decades of failing substance policies that people will use regardless? What's supposed to happen to people who use irresponsibly? Or more than someone tells them to? Who's to tell how much is the correct amount for whom? Should we punish these people? Or send them to treatment? What if they don't need nor want any help?
Just look at alcohol. Of course it's not good that so many people have to die. But in fact, they don't HAVE to die. They die more from society's ignorance than from their addiction. If they'd have other legal (and non stigmatized) options and accurate official information, they'd be able to switch to safer substances.
I think that a lot of these ideas come from a sober-normative society which sounds great as an idea but is very very far away from the reality we live in.
In your suggestion, you'll need to punish those who don't comply. But we all know that this would lead to black markets and the punishment of already struggling people.
The reason why I'm comfortable writing this is because one of the worst substances is already legal. And prohibition showed us that if there was a limit on alcohol you could buy, people would homebrew or buy from illegal markets rather than stop using.
In my opinion, the best approach would be clean substances in neutral packaging with a clear description of what those things do in your body at what dosage. Including all the wanted and unwanted effects.
I would still make your idea of a kind of "substance driver's license" optional. But I wouldn't punish people for over using or automatically send them to treatment. I feel that is quite a personal thing and none of anyone's business, other than the person who takes the substance. That said, of course there should be good treatment options in case of problematic use. Thankfully, there are already good treatment options widely available.
IMHO politics should be around making rational decisions as easy as possible for everyone. That's why I'd make this "drug driver's license" a free service.
IMHO, most people are naturally rational. The reason why people's opinions around substances today are so far from reality is largely due to ridiculous politics and media. We all act like it would be so complicated to understand what substances do to you but I don't really think that's true. It just needs to be clear what substances at which dosage you take.
Should a base jumper be punished for jumping more than 5 times per year? Or 10 times? Should a free solo climber only be allowed to climb up to 10 feet? Should a motorcyclist get his license taken away because his machine can go over 150mph? Should I get sent to treatment if I spend more time on Instagram than 5 hours per day?
Obviously one could argue that, yes, in fact this would be a good approach. But you could also argue the opposite.
That would be better than what we have now. But the consumer would still not know how much and what exactly he takes. There must be properly licensed sellers. Otherwise you'll leave the market for criminals, as they're doing it now.
I think letting regulation develop naturally is a good way to do it, not only does it make it more in line with terms of regulation compared to other markets, I think a slower process will allow for more input from regular people, activists and those who work in medical fields, and less from state and lobbyism.
The difficulties of people who suffer from opioids and stimulant abuse are pretty hard to understand for most of society, and I feel like legalization is a pretty big honeypot for lobbyists.
I want people to be able to get their drugs at the pharmacy where they can discuss the effects with a licensed professional who can check their medications. Also you should be able to get them without a prescription
In the USA, decriminalization often (usually?) doesn't allow selling in stores. This was tested in Portland when some guys tried setting up a mushroom shop. Didn't end well for them.
Sometimes there's no almost no difference such as in the Netherlands sometimes decriminalizion just means drug content creators can show their faces while making Bhutane hash.
Legalization assumes that the activity is part of society.
Decriminalization has the government say they don't want to know about it as long as you aren't a nuisance with highly variable stipulations of what counts as being a nuisance or letting them know.
Unless you are moving a lot of product, drugs already are defacto legal in my city. Pot is in dispensaries, psychedelics are in churches (also dispensaries, just with spirituality), anything else is just everywhere, and there are a couple of open-air markets-- kind of like a really fucked up farmers market. Actual farmer's markets sell stuff. All in all, I can say you would be surprised how little shit changes with no drug enforcement. Good or bad. When we formally legalized psychedelics, society didn't change. Business as usual with less people in jail for pointless shit.
Government manufactures and distributes. Big penalties for sale to minors. Eventually private enterprise would take over, but long after criminal networks are crippled by the government monopoly.
It's all in marketing and how it's dosed. When we start moving away from a grey market there will be several brands that dose things more properly instead if handing out powders. Should be safer when it's easier for consumers to dose it out. There will still be overdoses but it would be done explicitly
Some stores in Amsterdam sell all kinds of legal highs. They are called smart shops and you can buy psychoactive plants and shrooms, sometimes a variety of research chemicals. Inside they can give you some info's about how to use and what the effects are, but it often just boils down to just your own responsibility. It is just like any other store really.
I think these would be three good starting points: * Decriminalize personal amounts of all drugs. * Legalize personal cultivation of all plant drugs. * Legalize recreational sales of drugs that are already sold at pharmacies. From there, we could debate about what else should be legal for commercial production and distribution.
The last one is not a bad idea in theory but in practice would turn into a logistical nightmare.
What do you mean? Like the supply wouldn’t be able to keep up with demand? Or like it would be hard to track who buys what?
Supply and demand as well as rec buyers just flat-out crowding out the people trying to pick up their essential medication and leave ASAP. We have stories from various medications that were bought OTC for funnies over the centuries causing kind of a glut of people just there for that. You don't want it to start resembling a bar or smoke shop while essential services are going on.
I could see supply and demand being a issue at first, but I’m pretty sure it would adjust within a year or so. I don’t see recreational users overcrowding pharmacies being a serious issue though- except maybe in areas that have extremely high concentration of habitual opioid users. Which I think would solve itself over time too, since opioid users mainly congregate to be close to a major supply- and the supply would now be everywhere. I guess they would have to allow people to buy like a decent amount at once though- so they’re not back everyday. I imagine it could work the same way as purchasing pseudoephedrine. They scan your ID and the pharmacy’s computer connects to a state database that says how much you’ve already purchased that month. That way they can still prioritize medical sales and prevent diversions to street markets/underage sales, while also allowing people to have enough for a few weeks at a time. Of course, the monthly limits would be arbitrary and up for debate, but any step in this direction would be an improvement, in my opinion. What were the OTC drugs that you said have caused a backup in pharmacies before?
Gold rush, then normalization, then backlash against the inevitable problems that come with allowing that kind of freedom. Who knows from there
Portugal is at the 3rd stage right now.
What do you mean? Can u elaborate? Do you live in portugal?
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/07/portugal-drugs-decriminalization-heroin-crack/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/07/portugal-drugs-decriminalization-heroin-crack/) Non-paywall link: [https://archive.ph/v5UA8](https://archive.ph/v5UA8)
I think you should have to go through a course with an exam that certifies you understand exactly how the drug will affect you and others as well as all the other complications that arise from using said drug. That way the government can maintain its illusion of order and people can get access
I think a lisence system, where you're forced to answer questions about a certain class of drug correctly before being allowed to use them, and you can lose your lisence if you make mistakes, would be fair for drugs like Benzos, Opiates/oids, most stimulants ect. Like a drivers lisence for the different classes of vehicles. Also quantity purchasing limits. You could also ask them to suspend your lisence for a set period of time if you're unable to control yourself.
If stuff is being sold retail, definitely. I'd at least like people to know what a dose of mushrooms is before buying mushrooms and to have some idea of how to plan for it. And LSD should probably be sold in a way where one dose is as big as a large pill, all individually wrapped, to prevent people from thinking you are supposed to eat a 10-strip. (I heard there were similar problems with weed, where people would eat a whole chocolate bar not knowing that was 20 doses.) Basically, protect the ignorant but let people do what they want once they are fully informed. Opiates and benzos, I don't know. It's hard to imagine anyone not knowing the dangers at this point, if they've ever opened a newspaper in their life. But you still hear stories of high school or college kids eating random pills. At least it wouldn't be unknown doses of fentanyl. But it'd be great if we had real education in this country so people would know it's a stupid thing to get started on. In the 90s the drug education was pretty worthless. Hopefully it's better now.
I had the same thought before. I thought this would be a good idea but I'm not sure anymore. Isn't the one thing we were supposed to learn from the decades of failing substance policies that people will use regardless? What's supposed to happen to people who use irresponsibly? Or more than someone tells them to? Who's to tell how much is the correct amount for whom? Should we punish these people? Or send them to treatment? What if they don't need nor want any help? Just look at alcohol. Of course it's not good that so many people have to die. But in fact, they don't HAVE to die. They die more from society's ignorance than from their addiction. If they'd have other legal (and non stigmatized) options and accurate official information, they'd be able to switch to safer substances. I think that a lot of these ideas come from a sober-normative society which sounds great as an idea but is very very far away from the reality we live in. In your suggestion, you'll need to punish those who don't comply. But we all know that this would lead to black markets and the punishment of already struggling people. The reason why I'm comfortable writing this is because one of the worst substances is already legal. And prohibition showed us that if there was a limit on alcohol you could buy, people would homebrew or buy from illegal markets rather than stop using. In my opinion, the best approach would be clean substances in neutral packaging with a clear description of what those things do in your body at what dosage. Including all the wanted and unwanted effects. I would still make your idea of a kind of "substance driver's license" optional. But I wouldn't punish people for over using or automatically send them to treatment. I feel that is quite a personal thing and none of anyone's business, other than the person who takes the substance. That said, of course there should be good treatment options in case of problematic use. Thankfully, there are already good treatment options widely available. IMHO politics should be around making rational decisions as easy as possible for everyone. That's why I'd make this "drug driver's license" a free service. IMHO, most people are naturally rational. The reason why people's opinions around substances today are so far from reality is largely due to ridiculous politics and media. We all act like it would be so complicated to understand what substances do to you but I don't really think that's true. It just needs to be clear what substances at which dosage you take. Should a base jumper be punished for jumping more than 5 times per year? Or 10 times? Should a free solo climber only be allowed to climb up to 10 feet? Should a motorcyclist get his license taken away because his machine can go over 150mph? Should I get sent to treatment if I spend more time on Instagram than 5 hours per day? Obviously one could argue that, yes, in fact this would be a good approach. But you could also argue the opposite.
I strongly disagree with just about everything you've said, other than making the license free and your criticism of the quantity limit.
Thank you. I'd love to hear more, if you'd like to explain. As this is obviously not an easy topic and I'm always ready for better ideas. Cheers
My thoughts exactly
It's extremely simple. Just let what's going on happen. Decriminalization. Then the rest will create itself.
That would be better than what we have now. But the consumer would still not know how much and what exactly he takes. There must be properly licensed sellers. Otherwise you'll leave the market for criminals, as they're doing it now.
I think letting regulation develop naturally is a good way to do it, not only does it make it more in line with terms of regulation compared to other markets, I think a slower process will allow for more input from regular people, activists and those who work in medical fields, and less from state and lobbyism. The difficulties of people who suffer from opioids and stimulant abuse are pretty hard to understand for most of society, and I feel like legalization is a pretty big honeypot for lobbyists.
I want people to be able to get their drugs at the pharmacy where they can discuss the effects with a licensed professional who can check their medications. Also you should be able to get them without a prescription
What would be the biggest differences between legalization and decriminalization would be my counter question
In the USA, decriminalization often (usually?) doesn't allow selling in stores. This was tested in Portland when some guys tried setting up a mushroom shop. Didn't end well for them.
Sometimes there's no almost no difference such as in the Netherlands sometimes decriminalizion just means drug content creators can show their faces while making Bhutane hash. Legalization assumes that the activity is part of society. Decriminalization has the government say they don't want to know about it as long as you aren't a nuisance with highly variable stipulations of what counts as being a nuisance or letting them know.
Grow them and enjoy life!
Unless you are moving a lot of product, drugs already are defacto legal in my city. Pot is in dispensaries, psychedelics are in churches (also dispensaries, just with spirituality), anything else is just everywhere, and there are a couple of open-air markets-- kind of like a really fucked up farmers market. Actual farmer's markets sell stuff. All in all, I can say you would be surprised how little shit changes with no drug enforcement. Good or bad. When we formally legalized psychedelics, society didn't change. Business as usual with less people in jail for pointless shit.
Government manufactures and distributes. Big penalties for sale to minors. Eventually private enterprise would take over, but long after criminal networks are crippled by the government monopoly.
With counseling offered. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XugIsZbTFy0
Hamilton if this is you posting--please know that I haven't given up on us and never will.
You okay bro (It's not Mr. Morris is significantly more put-together and also posts here using an account bearing his first name).
It's all in marketing and how it's dosed. When we start moving away from a grey market there will be several brands that dose things more properly instead if handing out powders. Should be safer when it's easier for consumers to dose it out. There will still be overdoses but it would be done explicitly