aTmAg said:

---

With heroine, people think they could just try it a few times and not get addicted. And dealers certainly push that narrative (especially to kids).

---

"heroin"

-Tanya93

RIP T93!

1) They publicly cane people for vandalism. These people do not tolerate crime in any form.

2) Psychedelics, when used clinically and not for recreation, have great clinical data that show they help a lot with PTSD and addiction problems. GLP1 drugs seem to do the same thing. We are going to see a lot more brain wiring medicines in the next couple of decades.

BigRobSA said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

As a little L libertarian, I used to be pro-drug legalization. Now my stance is more nuanced.

---

I'm a little "L" libertarian-minded person, fiscally conservative and socially leave-me/mine-the-****-alone, and I'm still pro-legalization of all drugs, for adults.

I've never taken/indulged in any illicit drugs and don't drink alcohol, never have, but as an adult I should be allowed to inject automotive coolant into my veins if I so chose.

Singapore can do what they want, though. I never ever even wanted to go there, anyway. But they're a sovereign nation and can have whatever rules they so choose. No different than my beliefs on Russia when they held that dude from the WNBA for a bit, for weed juice.

---

I've never taken any drugs either, and I used to be a "adults can do to themselves what they want" guy too.

But then I thought about it more. Imagine if Budweiser spiked their beer with something that made it 100x more addictive and didn't tell you, making it very likely to turn you into an alcoholic. Is that not an infringement of your rights?

---

If that were to happen, then sue Budweiser. One of the few actual powers granted to govt. But you still made a decision to use something that has zero nutritional, or positive, effect on your body. As you should be able to do.

---

What if they taint it with poison that kills me outright? Sue them?

---

Your descendants can, you're pushing up daisies.

Again, though, you chose (as an adult, I'm assuming) to partake in something that has zero positives to it even when not given a deadly poisonous additive.

Same as me, a diabetic, buying and chowing on a Cheesecake Factory cheesecake.

---

The difference is that you KNOW what you are getting when you ask for a cheesecake.

I'm talking about the case where your Cheesecake Factory waiter adds cyanide to your food without your knowledge.



That is flat out murder, dude. Not a civil action.

---

Ok. Then go after drug dealers that do that. I'm fine with that. None of that is going to change my mind on my belief in legalization of all drugs. Freedom is its own reward. Dealers would be dumb to poison their product and killing off their clientele.

---

The poison question was to see how far you would take your logic and hopefully get you to realize that you can't solve everything with civil lawsuits. And besides, lawsuit rules and amounts are set by law anyway. Those laws have to be decided somehow. Giving a jury 100% leeway to inflict whatever monetary punishment they want on the offender would be basically vigilantism.

Let's just consider the addiction and behavior changing aspect by taking it to an extreme. Imagine some drug that would turn you into a compliant slave after one hit. That after one hit you would be willing to do ANYTHING they ask for the rest of your life. Empty your bank account, become their sex slave, perpetually give them 99% of your salary, etc. Obviously, you would NEVER take that under your own free will. But what if they lied to you, and told you it was a tasty soft drink? Then after that moment, you are their slave forever.

Do you not think THAT should be illegal?

aTmAg said:

---

jacketman03 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

As a little L libertarian, I used to be pro-drug legalization. Now my stance is more nuanced.

---

I'm a little "L" libertarian-minded person, fiscally conservative and socially leave-me/mine-the-****-alone, and I'm still pro-legalization of all drugs, for adults.

I've never taken/indulged in any illicit drugs and don't drink alcohol, never have, but as an adult I should be allowed to inject automotive coolant into my veins if I so chose.

Singapore can do what they want, though. I never ever even wanted to go there, anyway. But they're a sovereign nation and can have whatever rules they so choose. No different than my beliefs on Russia when they held that dude from the WNBA for a bit, for weed juice.

---

I've never taken any drugs either, and I used to be a "adults can do to themselves what they want" guy too.

But then I thought about it more. Imagine if Budweiser spiked their beer with something that made it 100x more addictive and didn't tell you, making it very likely to turn you into an alcoholic. Is that not an infringement of your rights?

---

If that were to happen, then sue Budweiser. One of the few actual powers granted to govt. But you still made a decision to use something that has zero nutritional, or positive, effect on your body. As you should be able to do.

---

What if they taint it with poison that kills me outright? Sue them?

---

I see somebody has never heard of Big Tobacco. You should look it up, big, big, BIG lawsuit settlements, and guess what, they're still able to sell the death sticks.

---

The difference there is that people know damn well the result of tobacco in 1999. That was like suing Ford because you drove your car off a cliff. It was nothing more than a government money grab. Such a lawsuit would have made sense in 1960 when customers were unaware of the danger and tobacco companies were.

With heroine, people think they could just try it a few times and not get addicted. And dealers certainly push that narrative (especially to kids).

---

Yes, by 1999, but RJ Reynolds and friends knew how wildly addictive nicotine was well before then, and actively worked to hide that from consumers.

Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew said that one death was far too kind, because if the traffickers get in they will destroy children, families and society.

The next time you see a strung out woman or man on the street just remember that they were once a shy kid in 1st grade. They are now on the street because we are too nice to drug dealers.

You destroy them or they will destroy you.

Serotonin said:

---

Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew said that one death was far too kind, because if the traffickers get in they will destroy children, families and society.

The next time you see a strung out woman or man on the street just remember that they were once a shy kid in 1st grade. They are now on the street because we are too nice to drug dealers.

You destroy them or they will destroy you.

---

While I completely agree with you on one hand, on the other hand, individuals are responsible for their actions and decisions. Everyone should know that drugs are bad for you, highly addictive and are illegal. Life is all about decisions. Make bad ones, suffer the consequences; make more good than bad, then you might have a nice life. Pretty simple.

Bottom line: both should be held accountable and severely punished until it is not an issue.

jacketman03 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

jacketman03 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

As a little L libertarian, I used to be pro-drug legalization. Now my stance is more nuanced.

---

I'm a little "L" libertarian-minded person, fiscally conservative and socially leave-me/mine-the-****-alone, and I'm still pro-legalization of all drugs, for adults.

I've never taken/indulged in any illicit drugs and don't drink alcohol, never have, but as an adult I should be allowed to inject automotive coolant into my veins if I so chose.

Singapore can do what they want, though. I never ever even wanted to go there, anyway. But they're a sovereign nation and can have whatever rules they so choose. No different than my beliefs on Russia when they held that dude from the WNBA for a bit, for weed juice.

---

I've never taken any drugs either, and I used to be a "adults can do to themselves what they want" guy too.

But then I thought about it more. Imagine if Budweiser spiked their beer with something that made it 100x more addictive and didn't tell you, making it very likely to turn you into an alcoholic. Is that not an infringement of your rights?

---

If that were to happen, then sue Budweiser. One of the few actual powers granted to govt. But you still made a decision to use something that has zero nutritional, or positive, effect on your body. As you should be able to do.

---

What if they taint it with poison that kills me outright? Sue them?

---

I see somebody has never heard of Big Tobacco. You should look it up, big, big, BIG lawsuit settlements, and guess what, they're still able to sell the death sticks.

---

The difference there is that people know damn well the result of tobacco in 1999. That was like suing Ford because you drove your car off a cliff. It was nothing more than a government money grab. Such a lawsuit would have made sense in 1960 when customers were unaware of the danger and tobacco companies were.

With heroine, people think they could just try it a few times and not get addicted. And dealers certainly push that narrative (especially to kids).

---

Yes, by 1999, but RJ Reynolds and friends knew how wildly addictive nicotine was well before then, and actively worked to hide that from consumers.

---

Which is why I said it would have made sense in 1960.