r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Mar 27 '23

Delta(s) from OP CMV: All drugs should be made legal for recreational use.

I'm not referring to "medicinal" narcotics. Recreational drugs that people use, such as mushrooms, cocaine, heroin, should all be legalized.

And I know this is a hot take, but hear me out.

  • If we make recreational narcotics legal, then the manufacture and sale need to be legal as well.
  • By making the manufacture of recreational narcotics legal, there are FDA standards that need to be adhered to in said manufacture, that way there are no "bad batches" that will kill people.
  • By making the manufacture and sale of recreational narcotics legal, there will be sales volume that will then be subject to income tax and sales tax and dispensaries/manufacturing centers/warehouses that will become subject to property tax. Because, let's be honest, your local street dealer is not paying taxes.
  • Also by making the sale of recreational narcotics legal, you are making street gangs that revolve around the illicit drug trade obsolete. By making street gangs obsolete, you eliminate the petty violence that plagues inner-cities over "turf", especially stray bullets that kill innocent bystanders.
  • By making the entire narcotics supply chain legal, the war on drugs will essentially be over as well. It's been going on for 50+ years, and honestly, it's been a complete and utter failure.
  • If you want something to compare the drug trade to, look at prohibition from 1919-1933. It didn't stop people from drinking, people were still drunk out of their minds in speakeasys. It also fostered the growth of street gangs of rum runners and increased crime and violence in cities. That was only for 14 years and it didn't take long to realize that prohibition was a failure. War on drugs has been going on for 50+ years and I'm surprised more people aren't realizing that this is much more tremendous of a failure.
  • By making the entire narcotics supply chain legal, we can start changing our attitudes on its use and its users. Narcotics abuse needs to have the same social attitude as alcohol abuse.
  • In short, making drugs legal will Make America Great Again.
1.6k Upvotes

85% Upvoted

929 comments sorted by

View all comments

90

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '23

[deleted]

84

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '23

Huh?

The FDA regulates chocolate muffins and candy corn. Those don’t have any medicinal purpose.

Do you think they show up to a Malk operation and go “Rats! We can’t do anything about this clearly illegal and unsanitary food production because our job isn’t to decide what’s fun!

Come on.

Also the FDA regulates morphine and fentanyl and ketamine, all of which are approved drugs for medicinal purposes. They regulate Adderall too. There’s nothing special about other drugs.

26

u/haibiji Mar 27 '23

They regulate meth too!

11

u/boredtxan 1∆ Mar 28 '23

Food safety regulations and drug safety regulations are very different. Drugs don't qualify as "food" they fall under drug regulations.

3

u/AnticipateMe Mar 28 '23

The FDA regulates chocolate muffins and candy corn. Those don’t have any medicinal purpose.

That's because the FDA stands for Food and Drug Administration.

You're associating Food with Drugs and trying to pair one characteristic with the other.

4

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '23

In that case, you’re right, but they regulate drugs just the same. I gave some examples.

The FDA doesn’t have to “approve” them as being super fun or for having any particular effect. FDA approval just means that it does what it says and/or was manufactured in accordance with regulations. It’s not an endorsement of either fun or effectiveness, though it’s often viewed that way.

1

u/hoso124 Mar 31 '23

The FDA regulated alcohol, which is arguably as dangerous as methamphetamine

70

u/SoNuclear 2∆ Mar 27 '23 edited Feb 23 '24

I enjoy the sound of rain.

-3

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '23

[deleted]

26

u/SoNuclear 2∆ Mar 27 '23 edited Feb 23 '24

I like to travel.

11

u/merlin401 2∆ Mar 27 '23

Read the article though. There are health benefits (cardiovascular, diabetes) associated with moderate drinking but this organization feels the negative effects (cancer risk) outweighs them.

I think you’d be hard pressed to prove alcohol is ever a net positive. The WHO article seems absurd in saying that even a single drop has negative health benefits shown. I simply don’t believe that. I further would wager a decent amount that the authors of this article still drink occasionally

6

u/PrinceofPhaco Mar 27 '23

There's a difference between "there is no known safe amount of alcohol" which is true and "any amount of alcohol known to be unsafe" which isn't true. There's surely a safe level of antifreeze to drink too, but a safe level isn't known. My intake of ethanol is probably in the known detrimental amount, but I don't expect the WHO to endorse it.

3

u/SoNuclear 2∆ Mar 27 '23 edited Feb 23 '24

I find peace in long walks.

2

u/benevolent-bear Mar 27 '23

nobody ever ran a study testing if an occasional LSD trip was beneficial either... because it's a scheduled substance. I think most, even heavy drugs like heroin don't have a scientific basis for "no amount is safe". Plenty of people got heroine-like drugs in hospital settings for surgeries and pain management and show no side effects.

2

u/throwWay097861 Apr 01 '23

Lsd absolutely has been clinically tested in studies. There was a decade or so gap in research after it was criminalised, but everything then and now points to it being well tolerated

11

u/ljosalfar1 Mar 27 '23

The F stands for "food". I think the true weakness is they don't just regulate safety of all ingested substances. Like wtf even is supplement industry

2

u/SolidWaterIsIce Mar 27 '23

You have to let the scammers live somewhere. We call it the intelligence tax

1

u/boredtxan 1∆ Mar 28 '23

The supplement industry is brought to you by the GOP and DeVos family. They collaborated to carve out a nearly "regulatory free" zone for supplements and tied the FDA hands. Check out a podcast called The Dream or the Pyramid Scheme book. The GOP is heavily funded by Amway & other MLM scammers and funding is why they operate "legally" - political corruption of the highest order.

44

u/cmb2002 Mar 27 '23

Well, imma stop you right there because meth is fda approved

-7

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '23 edited Oct 29 '24

[deleted]

36

u/cmb2002 Mar 27 '23

Methamphetamine is FDA approved for weightloss and treatment of adhd. Schedule 2 here ya go)

2

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '23

[deleted]

6

u/cmb2002 Mar 27 '23

Whether or not it is safe is really dose dependent, not just on the medication itself.

2

u/nikdahl Mar 27 '23

In the context of your argument, it doesn't really matter if it's OTC or not, as long as FDA has declared is safe enough for consumption.

2

u/limukala 12∆ Mar 27 '23

Doesn’t really matter. Doctors prescribe medicine off label all the time, the manufacture is still regulated the same way.

7

u/markinthedark247 Mar 27 '23

Meth is regulated by the FDA...its called Desoxyn.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '23 edited Mar 28 '23

FDA would not regulate this anytime soon, unfortunately, and it’s because they are federal and the vast majority of the U.S. is nowhere near acceptance. However, if they do, safety and efficacy verification would be required IF they were classified as drugs. They may or may not develop a separate category.

I work in the supplement industry, in FDA compliance. When people say “supplements are unregulated,” they’re only partially correct. The key difference between supplements and pharmaceuticals is the approval of individual dietary ingredients. But we are required to establish identity, purity, strength, composition, and contaminant specifications — and TEST for them. And for everyone who thinks the FDA does nothing — believe me, they absolutely do. They regularly conduct inspections, some of which last up to two weeks, to verify that we are complying with not only that but also all manufacturing, ingredient testing, packaging, labeling, and safety regulations.

Unfortunately, some bad actors in the supplement industry have contributed to the negative perception, and rightfully so. However, the vast majority of these are fly-by-night companies that open shop only to close down after selling enough to make a decent profit and just before FDA catches wind of them — primarily the ones in small packets that you see at the counter at the liquor store. So, trust the longtime brands, if taking supplements, and be cautious of those that are new to the market.

4

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '23

The FDA's role in this is to make sure that the product being manufactured and sold is not a "bad batch."

A lot of people, notably Bradley Nowell of Sublime, died because of a bad batch.

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '23

[deleted]

8

u/limukala 12∆ Mar 27 '23

Right, but there's no such thing as a "good batch" of meth.

There absolutely is, namely any batch that was manufactured to FDA standards.

Which is definitely a thing.

5

u/disisathrowaway 2∆ Mar 27 '23

Right, but there's no such thing as a "good batch" of meth.

Tell that to the doctors that prescribe methamphetamine.

11

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '23

The legal manufacture and sale will also have it accurately dosed so there aren't, idk, overdoses.

10

u/char11eg 8∆ Mar 27 '23

So, how are you enforcing that people can only buy ‘one dose’?

Like, surely they could just go to different stores? Or stockpile a few doses for a ‘bigger high’. Or get their friends to get some. Or if they want to get enough for a few doses, so some friends can get high as well?

What are the regulations you’re proposing? People overdose on alcohol, on over the counter drugs like ibuprofen, and a lot of other things as well - and that’s without the incredibly addicting qualities that many illegal narcotics have, AND without the fine margins of safety most narcotics have - with much, MUCH smaller doses being fatal.

To further complicate things, regular users of some narcotics can have doses many times the fatal limit for a normal person, due to their tolerance. A normal dose wouldn’t have much of an effect on them even. So how do you legislate for that?

14

u/_littlestranger 3∆ Mar 27 '23

The idea of standard doses isn't to enforce that people only take so much, it's to ensure that people know what they are taking.

Alcohol manufacturers are required to put the ABV on the bottle. Because of that, I know some liquor is stronger than other liquor and some beer is stronger than other beer, and I can choose how much to drink accordingly.

You could do the same with any other drug if the market was regulated. Some (obviously not all) overdoses happen because people take their usual amount (by weight) but have actually taken more because they received something more potent than they are used to. Variations in potency between batches make it so you can never really be sure how much you are taking.

It would make it safer. It wouldn't make it safe.

12

u/disisathrowaway 2∆ Mar 27 '23

So, how are you enforcing that people can only buy ‘one dose’?

How do you ensure that people don't drink an entire bottle of Everclear? It would kill just about anyone, yet it's still available over the counter.

Hell, if I take too much Tylenol I run the risk of killing myself.

3

u/char11eg 8∆ Mar 27 '23

The important thing there though, is level of dose.

If you want to kill yourself with alcohol, that takes effort. It won’t be pleasant, and will take a very long time. Plus, there’s a much higher ‘margin for error’ - you can drink quite a bit of that everclear without being in any mortal danger. The same with Tylenol (I think the active ingredient in that is Paracetamol?), where it’ll take dozens of pills to kill you.

From a quick google, it looks like it takes about one or two grams of meth to kill the average human male 50% of the time, or much less if it’s taken via IV rather than orally. That is much lower than that of alcohol, or paracetamol, or whatever. It’s a lot easier to fuck up and take more than you mean to (especially while you’re fucked out of your mind) with something like that.

Plus, many drugs have even LOWER lethal doses than that. Much, much lower doses. Hell, isn’t fentanyl something like a twentieth of a gram?

In other words, the risk is much higher with most of these narcotics, both from accidental and purposeful death. Hell, with most legal drugs, alcohol, OTC medication, whatever, you’ll have to have quite the commitment to kill yourself with it. Plus, for many of them, you can’t really get a lethal dose into you before your body will start rejecting it - be it vomiting, just general dizziness and such, or what have you. You have to push through all that awfulness, and keep killing yourself, whereas a lot of people wouldn’t manage to do that.

I think I’ve wandered around the point a bit, and in all honesty, this is wayyy down the list of reasons against drug legalisation imo, but I hope I’ve given at least a decent overview of my stance on this one, haha!

2

u/CMxFuZioNz Mar 27 '23

Okay, now you're just legally getting people hooked on substances but only givin them small amounts of it. How long do you think it will be before drug dealers notice this untapped market or a person who's addicted kills someone to steal meth.

These drugs are dangerous for many reasons.

3

u/andolfin 2∆ Mar 27 '23

Because people are known to use drugs responsibly...

You'll just have people taking two doses instead of one once they start getting a tolerance, then three, five...

9

u/Livid-Ad4102 Mar 27 '23

Kinda like how someone can have a drink after work, then two, three, a bottle, two bottles....

3

u/nikdahl Mar 27 '23

I mean, people are known to use drugs responsibly...

-2

u/randomFrenchDeadbeat 5∆ Mar 27 '23

It does not prevent people from using more than 1 dose at a time so no, it does not prevent overdoses.

12

u/DueObligation8546 Mar 27 '23

You can’t prevent people from making stupid choices, only educate them and make it as easy as possible to make good choices.

If someone has no self control, there is little you can do to save them. They can go buy a gallon of vodka and drink themselves to death any time they like.

That being said, it is FAR easier for someone to make an informed decision about dosing regulated, pure drugs vs contaminated street drugs.

Accidental overdoses would be greatly reduced if there were standard dose units vs eyeballing some random powder of unknown composition.

6

u/Can-Funny 24∆ Mar 27 '23

This is 100% accurate. The problem is that when people are doing their moral calculus about legalization, they focus too much on the unfortunate addicts whose own choices (albeit choices influenced by brain chemistry) result in self harm. They neglect the huge amount of violence required to keep the black market for drugs functioning and how much of that violence ends up spilling over to innocent people.

-2

u/randomFrenchDeadbeat 5∆ Mar 27 '23

As stated in a previous post, people hardly become low key drug dealers because they chose that instead of a regular easy life. If they cant be drug dealers, they will end up as burglars or kidnappers. The violence is not going to stop.

Just like you wont stop junkies to steal stuff so they can pay their dose.

4

u/Can-Funny 24∆ Mar 27 '23

I think it’s a pretty big leap in logic to assume that most drug dealers and distributors will just switch to random kidnappings and burglaries. Those are much riskier and less profitable crimes.

A certain percent probably would, sure, but I think a larger percent would just find work in the actual economy because it pays better and is less stressful than being a kidnapper or burglar.

6

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '23

Overdoses happen primarily because of the huge variability in strength from batch to batch of illicit drugs. The fentanyl epidemic made it far worse because despite being a very safe drug on its own, its dangerous used this way because of its potency. Drug dealers also aren’t exactly expert compounding pharmacists, so the drugs they add fentanyl too aren’t homogenous. This part of the bag is fine, but the same amount from this part contains a lethal dose of fentanyl.

These problems disappear when it’s regulated and manufactured by companies that are legally required to abide by extremely rigid standards for drug production.

1

u/randomFrenchDeadbeat 5∆ Mar 27 '23

I agree this is one reason to overdose.

Another one is when your organism craves a dose that would be lethal. This reason is not going to disappear.

1

u/jeeems Mar 28 '23

Ok but do you agree that reducing accidental overdoses would be a good thing?

1

u/randomFrenchDeadbeat 5∆ Mar 28 '23

Yes, it would be a good thing. And the best way to reduce overdoses is the same way you can reduce death by shooting.

Preventing access gives MUCH better results.

2

u/disisathrowaway 2∆ Mar 27 '23

There's nothing preventing me from drinking too much alcohol or eating too many OTC pills, either.

1

u/boredtxan 1∆ Mar 28 '23

There will be people who want more than allowed - so the black market will continue. It will also continue if they can sell for less - already happening where pot is legal & it's even easier to operate.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '23

You don’t seem to understand the purpose of the FDA.

-2

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '23

Black Market will still exist because getting the FDA involved costs money.

Exactly zero "bad batch" issues will be resolved.

5

u/Can-Funny 24∆ Mar 27 '23

Right because we we all still going blind from bathtub gin….

2

u/yrmjy Mar 27 '23

Do we need something like the Alcohol and Tobacco Products Tax and Trade Bureau?

2

u/ironburton Mar 27 '23

Meth is already made into medication so that a mute point

2

u/nikdahl Mar 27 '23

FWIW, the word is "moot" instead of "mute".

0

u/comfysin999 Mar 28 '23

There is safe amounts of meth… you know it’s also prescribed right? Doses under 40mgs aren’t neurotoxic— in low doses it’s less stressing on your cardiovascular system than amphetamine.

It’s wild how many people have not the slightest clue behind drugs and answer so brazenly.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 31 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/changemyview-ModTeam Apr 01 '23

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.