Comment · Thu, September 5, 2013
RANT on "Should ALL drugs be legal?"
Original post in this thread
[deleted] · 30 points
I am a firm believer that I have the right to put whatever chemical I want in my body (from a legal standpoint), and I am not alone in this mindset. This logical type of thinking brings a lot of us to the idea that all drugs should be legal and regulated. I used to agree with this for a long time until one day I was browsing the web and noticed that Scopolamine could be easily bought with a quick click and a loss of a small amount of btc. I do understand that this drug can be used recreationally at low doses, but the majority of the time it is not. What I am trying to say is what is the rebuttal to the argument that not all drugs are used for recreation and therefore should be prohibited? Some are used to rape, poison, torture, etc. We could just say "Oh, well, only some drugs should be legal and regulated," but doesn't that defeat the argument that once drugs are legal and regulated, people can approach them safely? If we went ahead and legalized marijuana, psychedelics, dissociatives, mdma, and just about any other favorable drug without legalizing "life-ruining" drugs like methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, scopolamine, rufilin, etc., what are we accomplishing? The existence of…
What they were answering
[deleted] · 1 points
I said unwillingly. UNWILLINGLY. Now, again, as I have said so many times. These other chemicals you talk about are important to society and some are even required for survival. Scopolamine is not one of those. There are alternatives to scopolamine when it comes to sea sickness.
Edit: Let me put it this way, I could slip scopolamine in your drink and you would never know. You would drink it and die. THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY THAT I COULD SLIP YOU ENOUGH ALCOHOL TO KILL YOU OR IMPAIR YOU WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE.
u/MisterYouAreSoDumb
You could slip enough Xanax in my drink to kill me too. Or you could stab me in the neck with a pen. At that point it's really you who are evil, not the method used.
Your argument is that it's easy for an evil person to use it do do harm, so it should be illegal. The same can be said of automobiles and guns. You clarify that by saying things like that are important to society. However, who decides that? Who makes the determination between when something is easy to harm with but useful, and something that is too easy to harm with to justify it's use? Why are we even qualifying that at all? Is it not the action that is harmful and evil? Don't we already outlaw causing harm to others? Why do we need to outlaw the things people choose to harm with?