You seem to be dancing around the fact that many Americans will end up addicted and lose their jobs, families, and homes due to legalization. I don't see how there won't be countless Americans affected by this who would not have otherwise been had all drugs not been legalized. For many, it wouldn't have been a problem to begin with without the facilitation of the government. And many, won't be able to recognize they have a problem until it is a major one, if at all. To say that legalization of all drugs will not increase it's use and abuse just doesn't make sense.

So these clinics, you say they should be able to take the drugs at these locations and the drugs should be restricted to people with medical prescriptions renewed annually like medicinal cannabis cards, which I assume wouldn't be that hard to get but also makes purchasing drugs not as easy as walking into a store.

Putting the onus on the clinic to overwatch the drug use is problematic in itself but I want to ask whether these clinics will be government run or be businesses? Also, will people be able to take the drugs home in regulated quantities? How many clinic locations will there be nationwide, will there be one or more in every major city?

I'm not dancing. I'm disagreeing with you.

Many of us who could do drugs illegally chose not to, often because we are scared. We're not going to start using them because it's legal. Sure there may be some who dont because it's hard for them to get currently but on the other hand there will be many who currently succumb to the easy access from dealers and friends.

I never said anything about medical prescription

Definitely government. Everywhere. Sure there are problems - loads of problems, it's horrible.

Best practice will have to be trialed and investigated by experts. Different drugs may require different approaches.

BTW it might help if I say I would be very happy if our governments did what you suggest. I think we will then have to face the fact it's not anywhere near enough but it would be a big step in a very good direction.

On rehabilitation. I do want to see it being free voluntary and with easy access to anyone. I don't think that should be controversial.

I realize you are disagreeing with me but you wouldn't admit that there would be a portion of people who would start using if it became legalized. As I said before, we could disagree to what extent that may be but it is not even a question that it would increase. The debate really starts at looking at whether or not the aforementioned benefits that come with legalization outweigh the cost. If, as you said earlier, there were no cost and usage would likely diminish, then I'd agree, that legalization would be the clear answer. But that is clearly, though somewhat arguably, not the case.

So no registering. Ok, I misread what you wrote earlier. I wouldn't have objected to the registering, it actually sounded like a good idea if legalization were to happen. I just wanted to understand what made you think access wouldn't increase.

I'll be honest, government run clinics selling drugs to people and having them lounge around and take the drugs there sounds like a ****ing nightmare.

Yea, I mean, we're just discussing the merits of each approach.

I do admit there will those who do drugs wouldn't have done but there will also be those who don't who would have done. I dispute the former will be greater than the later. We may disagree on this but there's definitely no certainty that the number of new addicts will increase.

Could provide them for free. But yes I agree it's horrible.

Wait, so you're saying there are those who will do it while it's illegal but some of those same people won't do if legalized? If yes, could you qualify that?

Yes. Some of the people who get tempted by dealers and users. Moving the supply to registered clinics will not be as tempting

why should anyone take this as true? like, we have a ton of evidence that points to the opposite.

This take actually makes a lot of sense to me, especially since there is a real world example of legalization actually working in Switzerland.

I was imagining it being sold in for profit stores like marijuana is, which I think would lead to wider use. But if you provided only the safest form of the drug for free and also provided housing and care for users to get back on their feet, I think that it could work.

has marijuana use increased?

Probably not by much, if at all, but marijuana isn't very addictive and, to my knowledge, it was legalized in states that already used it heavily.

Here in Canada its a bit strange as I don't think use has increased. Friends that used it continue to use it. Those that didn't I know of none that started. Though I do see folks using CBD's that never did. Also the illegal market is still there as its cheaper. Though why anyone wouldn't just pay more for a product that you know isn't laced with chemicals or Other drugs is beyond me.

The charts in this politifact article about marijuana usage rates in CO after legalization seem useful on this question.

I think this would be such an overwhelmingly positive development that it's almost silly to worry about whether we could go even further. It's not like we couldn't decide to go further later if it seemed like a good idea.

out of the handful of friends that obtained medical cards, one was not a regular user before being legally allowed to use.

i'd say it probably creates more return users than new ones.

marijuana is almost of topic. it should just be legal. As should alcohol. Ecstasy is tougher

My posts were about the drugs such as heroin etc

Yea this is definitely true and would be the obvious first step before legalization would even be considered in the US. But I was willing to have my mind changed on this particular issue because I've jumped back and forth between the two ideas since now and my college days.

Seeing that legalization has worked under strict and specific conditions in Switzerland, as mentioned in the Joe Rogan clip, I think that having a trial run in a place like Los Angeles' skid row would be a great place to test it out and slowly branch out the program to other areas of the US. Couple that with nation wide decriminalization and I think we have the best of both worlds. I don't think I will ever be for openly selling hard drugs to the public like marijuana is though.

why skid row? drug addiction is an economic problem. millionaires have very little issues doing drugs.

do you know how much drug use goes on in skid row? have you ever been there?

are you against helping these people get off the streets and curing their addictions?

some of them don't do drugs but could still use help getting off the streets and finding work. a portion of them didn't get there because of drugs but started using when they got there.

but if you want to make a case for free housing, free drugs and help finding jobs for millionaires then I'm all ears.

Depends on how you rank them. In an often quoted English study from 2007, ecstasy was rather least harmful out of these four.



You could also rank it from potential neurotoxicity, in which case I suspect marihuana would be ranked least harmful. But that isn't necessarily the best way of ranking a drug.

There is also the question about whether ranking drugs in one dimension is even useful at all, as it might be very misleading. As an analogy we could for example rate the medical dangers of nutrients, and a layman looking at the chart could surmise that he shouldn't eat fat or sugar, but protein is okay. Or we could order the chart in terms of nutrients you need, and a layman could conclude he better binge on fat, sugar and protein.

So your first order of business should probably get a system in place for deciding which drugs can be legalized and which should not. I know some in this thread have said "legalize all", but I think that is a very naive interpretation. We could simply imagine the ramifications if we had used "legalize all" when it comes to medicine or food. Regulation isn't always bad.

It's not just about danger (not really about danger at all imo). You're not going to make any serious impact on the illegal ecstasy market by making it available, even free, in clinics as people want to take it when clubbing etc. It's not going to work with MJ or alcohol either.

It's a different ball game with heroin, crack, etc where people are absolutely desperate for the next fix.

What I meant was that I we say something like "marihuana should be legal, because alcohol is", then you can make an even better case for ecstasy.

I guess I misunderstood what you meant by "trial run". like if you just legalize drugs and then come back in a couple years, I doubt things are much different. it doesnt really address the root cause of the despair. its more than just the drugs, its also lack of resources and health/counseling.

did you watch the video I posted? check it out if you haven't, it seems like a pretty good approach. The US is obviously much bigger than Switzerland, it looks like Los Angeles has half the population of their entire country, hence the experimenting in major areas like LA's skid row, where such programs would serve the most good, then moving forward from there.