Drug prohibition has failed. What's next?

[@antiprohibit]

Decriminalization without a safe supply is irresponsible.

[@bcommanda]

I don’t think the world would support them profiting off drugs tho unless they were given out for free but that’s costly as hell

[@taxevader7777]

@@bcommanda yeah sadly theyd rather have the cartels benefitting from selling drugs, and have the government and corporations benefiting addiction, violence, crime, poverty/homelessness, and general suffering, which is caused by prohibition.

[@ErichRaeder]

'Legalization' needs to ensure people are not punished for possessing, cultivating and manufacturing, these need to be cited clearly in any legislation once prohibition has ended

[@invertedreality4473]

Decriminalization is a half measure that's been a disaster. We need full LEGALIZATION, REGULATION, AND TAXATION. Decriminalization maintains the black market and does nothing for education and quality control.

[@taxevader7777]

Exactly. Decriminalization is literally just prohibition, but with less severe punishments for possession of very small amounts of substances.

[@danaaronmusic]

Sad that bodily autonomy isn't a sufficient argument for many Americans.

[@mrwilliamwonder]

Because even republicans are socialists.

[@michaellowe3665]

CA should think of their drug policies like their firearms policies. If they are going to allow drugs to be traded openly in public, they should allow the same for firearms. Or, they can move both into stores and off the street. How is this so difficult for them?

[@freesk8]

The prohibition of alcohol made things worse in the '20's. And making drugs illegal today is also making things worse. Let's leave the problem to churches, non-profit orgs, and private individuals. That works better to reduce the magnitude of the problem.

[@gordonjohnson1775]

An end to reduction of criminal charges for serious crimes to "simple possession" must be part of this discussion.

[@soulfuzz368]

This isn’t something that can just end with policy. A plea deal is mostly used when the prosecution thinks they don’t have enough evidence to convict on the tougher charges.

[@MeRiaNevaMynd]

Thank you!❤ Here in the US we have seen the devastating effects of prohibition in all forms... we don't need more prisons! Stop imprisoning our people over draconian senseless "laws"!!!

[@chito127]

Draconian laws would work. What doesn't work is locking people up.

[@Yodie208]

Drug prohibition will never end. There is too much money being made. from the CIA funding its black budget, the lawyers, police unions, the medical industry, privatized prisons, corporations, hedge funds, Banking, rehab facilities, and even the funeral industry. always remember, It has always been and always will be "Profits over People"

[@hastyhillfarmand4x480]

💯

[@ljwhitmire200]

And there is the key problem, "...small amounts for personal use." The Feds and most states have reduced the amount required to qualify for distribution so low that just about anyone with more than a bit will be charged with trafficking,. That's the other part of the equation that needs to be addressed. Forget decriminalization: just legalize everything. It can't be worse than the clusterscrew we have now. The War on Drugs has always been a War on Poor People. It was never about drugs, it was about oppression.

[@micheal2877]

You have my Maximum respect DR ABIOLA for putting an end to my HIV VIRUS, the report came out Negative after applying your medication❤

[@concernedliberal4453]

Oh, it can get a whole lot worse

[@Sue-ec6un]

Well, gee, maybe being honest and teaching the kids what the real dangers are. Instead of lying about it all the time. No, smoking pot is not gonna turn you into a drug addicted monster, but yes, smoking crack or taking fentynal might. As we also should be honest with our kids about the dangers of alcohol, if you have an built in addiction problem, your first drink might be the one that gets you, so make good decisions...instead, we keep kids in the dark and feed them bullshit so they feel like they have to find out for themselves. The government should stay the hell out of all of our lives, because in the end, their only job is to hurt us.

[@s0nnyburnett]

You absolutely can get addicted to weed, and blow all your money on cans on edibles. Cooking your own edibles wrong, which is easy to do, can easily cause an overdose. I don't want to see anyone end up like my friend, his dad struggled with crack for years and now he's going through over a can a day on edibles and driving out of state to buy whole bags of them.

[@toplobster7714]

The fact that you yourself are uneducated about what the underlying causes for drug addiction are (hint: it's not the substance!) and are talking about educating others about it is hilarious to me

[@markgreen4612]

Part of the program should require the opening of drug dispensaries selling drugs in their pure forms rather than people having to rely on street dealers who cut their drugs with harmful drugs such as fentanyl.

[@soulfuzz368]

I support this on the west coast of America. The more of these dispensaries the better. I’m just going to stay far away.

[@whyjnot420]

For 25 years now I have been telling people that while harm elimination can be a nice ideal (e.g. a car with enough safety features to handle anything shy of incoming artillery fire), in many many different context. Harm mitigation/reduction is what we all do in reality for all of these things. E.g. we put features in cars that do (or are supposed to) a pretty good job of making it so people don't die in car accidents. Anyone opposed to reduction tactics is opposed to pragmatic solutions and is either bought and paid for or, simply put, they are morons. caveat: The only harm elimination success stories I know of are things like disease elimination via destruction of vectors and via vaccinations... and the insanity that is MAD in the world of nuclear strategy. There are a handful of examples to point at, but for every one of them, there are 10,000 successful mitigation/reduction stories. Ranging from stuff like drug use, to the kit soldiers carry, to the fact that your milk comes in plastic or paper containers which do not easily shatter when dropped. This BS of essentially saying "oh, you can't 100% guarantee in writing a perfect rate of success, guess we just stay with the same old crap" pisses me off wherever I see it. edit: Given this context I would like to point out that it was reading about different ways of helping to mitigate the many harms that can come about from drug use (e.g. sharing needles and everything that comes with them) back in the mid-late 90s, which really made me realize just how much of a fantasy these elimination concepts are. Even if they sound nice and, frankly speaking, the end result they wish for usually is a good one... there is no road in the real world that leads to those results. Everything is a compromise, thus elimination is literally an impossibility. I wonder how many of these shills walk a path they know gets them nowhere, so that they do not have to actually do anything.

[@toplobster7714]

Your comment is unintelligible

[@scarlet79225]

Prohibition should've never happened. It's the root cause of every problem related noted in this clip. Sadly, I think they'll just keep going with it no matter how many people die 😪

[@myplane150]

The biggest issue I see with legalizing to the point of legal sales is that the Gov't (local and Fed) would tax the crap out of the sales to the point where it would not be financially rewarding to the sellers. The black market would just take over the majority of sales. This is what is happening right now in California with Marijuana. The growers and dispensaries are getting taxed so much that more than two-thirds of all MJ is now sold in the grey market due to high dispensary prices. Profits started out great but the Gov/t always finds a way to f#ck things up...☺

[@hardpathpoet2859]

They tax the crap out of it as is. They seize the money and assets of prosecuted smugglers. A 100% tax. Most money laundering operations are taxed as capital gains, the highest rates. Some money markets and banks are structured to take advantage of money laundering operations, and those markets and banks pay high tax rates. The cost analysis of the drug war greatly underestimates how much money governments actually make on the drug war. The profits to governments and financial speculators arguably outweigh the costs of the drug war itself. I think the government would lose money overall if drugs were made legal.

[@nonyadamnbusiness9887]

California is run by communists who have no clue about economics. They think they can just endlessly tax anything and everything and everybody even after they flee California. Over most of the country alcohol is taxed high but not high enough to make a black market appealing. That's were it would land with drugs in normal times. Everything is so crazy now, who knows.

[@taxevader7777]

It needs to be like legal w33d in oregon. Here its cheapest to buy from dispensaries. Buying it illegally costs more, and thats cause generally the dealers either buy real w33d from the dispensary, or they buy grey area stuff like delta 8 and thca, which they then sell to people under 21 at prices higher than legally buying it.

[@aaronraycove9517]

Treat all these drugs like we do with alcohol and cigarettes. Drug use might go up in the short term, but with proper warnings and more importantly a social aversion to them will eventually reduce their negative impacts on lives.

[@s0nnyburnett]

You'd just get more average people who were afraid of serious consequences using. Look how many people no longer get their dopamine hits because they're all burned out from being chronically online and already use legal substances, they'd be the first to get in line.

[@jonatand2045]

​@@s0nnyburnett Legal substances aren't nearly as harmful though. Preferable to alcohol and tabaco. The war on drugs hurts poorer communities, which promotes drug use.

[@robertnewshutz1081]

Drug prohibition is bad public policy considering the general welfare, but if your goal was to disrupt lower class and minority communities, then drug prohibition has "worked".

[@bigbone1369]

Appeal the Control Substance Act including all of it's drug scheduling. It's Unconstitutional. The federal government has no authority to prohibit anything. Why did they have a Constitutional Ammendment to prohibit alcohol?

[@michaelfielding7723]

Sounds like advocating for smaller government by creating larger government. If drugs are legalized, then the government shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing their use. If someone commits a crime while in drugs, the drugs should not be used as a mitigating factor. For example, killing someone while drunk, high, or stoned should be treated the same as shooting a gun randomly in a populated space.

[@hanamlchl]

If they legalize drug use, don't subsidize housing and healthcare, then you get SF/Seattle/Portland homeless encampments. It's bleeding heart progressive empathy and vote buying whilst simultaneously enabling drug use.

[@darylpreston7505]

The government doesn't subsidize anything. It's ALL taxpayers money.

[@josheternal]

Huh????? Drug prohibition caused LITERALLY the largest expansion of government in American history.

[@jonatand2045]

​@@hanamlchl The answer is to legalize drugs to stop the wasteful war. Allow lots of construction by bypassing nimbys and eliminating restrictive zoning so the market can supply the needed homes. The more we go towards those goals, the better.

[@hanamlchl]

@@jonatand2045 The politicians will never allow the market to address the housing crisis because that would devalue the real estate. Since that is simultaneously the investment shelter for foreign investors and the invisible chain of inflation and wage slavery amongst the middle and lower class, it cannot be permitted.

[@smashingthreeplates2171]

…And the Libertarian Party has failed.

[@RobertLanden1]

What would happen if "we" legalized drugs? What would happen if they stopped threatening peaceful people with violence to force them to obey and pay like slaves? If you need permission to be free then you're not free

[@soulfuzz368]

I bet you live in a pretty nice neighborhood Robert.

[@hastyhillfarmand4x480]

💯

[@juliablack6619]

Legalize medicine first. As of now beside paying for meds, you need to pay doctors and convince them you're ill enough, be polite to the point of kissing their ass, when most of the time you barely have energy to go to hospital in the first place, and ONLY THEN you can purchase something that can actually help you

[@chrissheffield5468]

"The same country which has the most oppressive drug policy..." Translation: "I have never head of Saudi Arabia."

[@28ebdh3udnav]

Same should go for prostitution. Time and time again, people are jailed for it yet its the world's oldest profession. Legalize and regulate prostitution.

[@elizabethhurtado2829]

Not all drugs should be legalized on a street level. Decriminalize the users with small amounts of narcotics and go after the high level pushers that are targeting kids.

[@elieli9650]

No one is “targeting kids” they don’t have money to buy drugs.

[@elizabethhurtado2829]

eli wrong answer

[@Hobohunter23]

lol nah i like distributors. where am i gonna get my shit? also, who tf are these 'pushers'?

[@elizabethhurtado2829]

@@Hobohunter23 some people drug kids just so they can arrest them and keep them in their custody

[@jonatand2045]

​@@Hobohunter23 Obviously it should be illegal to sell to kids, but selling should be legal to slash the profits of drug lords amd the incentive to be outside the law.

[@darylpreston7505]

Legalize it all, everything and for everyone. Then send in the wagons like the Monty Python skit. Bring out your dead. Bring out your dead.

[@soulfuzz368]

This made me laugh

[@darylpreston7505]

@@soulfuzz368 Who needs MAID when we can legalize drugs and let people overdose themselves. Saves a lot of money in healthcare. Ontario is now looking at a program similar to BC except it includes youth. What does that tell us?

[@timtrainage]

I'm not a proponent of needle exchanges and safe injection sites. I'm sure IF HARSHLY REGULATED they could work, but more often they're left to their own devices and they become an injection quadrant of the city, rather than the intended site.

[@CountArtha]

Considering how much more money goes to police departments and the federal agencies, I'd say the War on Drugs was a roaring success.

[@FrankMacDonell]

Just make Narcam illegal.

[@strhopper1]

Zac seems to be one of the few fair interviewers on reason

[@rexxer2792]

Easy access from stores no jail time for use or possession and no accountability for their actions in public ... What could go wrong...

[@jonatand2045]

The police would loose their sweet tax dollars assigned for the failed war on drugs. Cartels would have lower profits. Public use could be made illegal instead.

[@rexxer2792]

@@jonatand2045 I wish you were right... Tax dollars will be reallocated for other Police activity... Once a Tax is created it never goes away... However Seizure of assets may stop but since most Seizures occur from the use of these property's as a part of either in transportation, storage or manufacturing of drugs are then sold at auction and has less return than other similar property since many do not want a drug house that all the copper has been taken or a addicts car that was not maintained and needs multiple repairs since most if not all addicts cash goes to drugs these proceeds are negligible since a cost to obtain and sell is attached prior to acquiring the cash from the sale ... Cartels will just use the legalities to continue to maintain power use it as they wish only now in the Courts and in the streets as they have begun in California and most likely the status quo will be maintained in their country of origins... Public use of drugs is already illegal as is the public consumption of alcohol and since some drugs are already legal in many US States and the use in public has actually grown their is evidence that will stay this way and most likely to grow...

[@jonatand2045]

@@rexxer2792 For other activities is preferable, since their current activities give the inflated market to the cartels. Legalization reduces the profits of cartels due to competition and tge lack of risk. They can't possibly maintain the same amount of power. If public use is illegal but not enforced, is it really illegal. The solution to this, which is part of the wider housing crisis, is to allow lots of construction by liberalizing zoning and giving more permits.

[@rexxer2792]

@@jonatand2045 Cartels will not give up their power look into California and the illegal growing of weed while they continue the smuggling ... There are News reports out there of how they are undercutting Legal growers today thereby reducing the Tax intake... As for laws not being enforced the Courts or DA's office will often dismiss or wave prosecution so the Cops stop arresting people and maybe a new law is put into effect similar to the Shoplifting Laws for the amount for misdemeanor vs felony in both California and New York however the Business and the Public in these instances are not happy for having to pay more for products to cover LOSS or the Business closing from to much LOSS thereby lossing jobs and a source of taxes and the products people want or need to live... A Law not being enforced does not mean it should not be ... Also... Imagine being a cop that gets a call for Domestic Abuse but you saw a couple smoking in a park which is the obvious choice to handle... Stop the guy beating his wife or Run a couple out of the park... There is always a depth to these things and sometimes multiple factors such as overburdened from workload and or understaffed or poorly staffed or laziness in the office or maybe just not enough time in the day or room... I am not saying the system does not need attention and fixing but thinking everyone can sit around getting legally High and everything will be "GOOD" is as wrong today as it was when the Hippies of the 1960s thought the same thing or that Legal drugs could cause no more harm except we have the Opioid Epidemic from the USA FDA and the Pharmaceutical Companies that have proven in real life the falsehood and fallacy of that...

[@hastyhillfarmand4x480]

Your a hypocrite

[@hardpathpoet2859]

The trouble is, it arguably hasn't failed. The trouble with the perspective that it has failed is that it assumes the wrong aims. The drug laws are not to help drug users or eliminate the market. It's simply a particular method of taxation and regulation. It also intends to make a particular kind of abusive individual vulnerable to prosecution. Something of a "pre-crime" policy. Just or not, prohibition achieves it's implicit aims, while the anti-prohibition movement argues against an intentionally false understanding of the intent of the laws. An understanding that they have been deceived into.

[@micheal2877]

You have my Maximum respect DR ABIOLA for putting an end to my HIV VIRUS, the report came out Negative after applying your medication❤

[@jonatand2045]

Genius. Criminalize a market and then get those people who were incentivized to join that market by the money. Who cares that not all dealers have harmed or were going to harm someone. Then future generations of poor people will have an incentive to join gangs. And it just costs a lot a money.

[@hardpathpoet2859]

@Jonatan D The people that are incentivized into that market are going to attempt high risk/ high reward whether or not drugs are legal. The drug market still may be high risk/high reward, whether or not drugs are legal. And if they aren't, people lured in to a life of crime won't have any other criminal market to enter, except human trafficking. More people may be lured into human trafficking, if drug trafficking were to be legal. If drug businesses are permitted to have locations, there may still be public outrage towards those places, and if drugs were legal, police would be obligated to protect the business locations of drug producers and distributors. One could make the argument that the government expense of that obligation should be included in the debate. I think the legal system should move in the direction of legalization, but I also think that my fellow libertarians should develop a more nuanced understanding on the matter of drug laws and use.

[@jonatand2045]

@@hardpathpoet2859 Goverments not protecting drug businesses from crime like any other business can't be good for the rule of law.

[@hardpathpoet2859]

@Jonatan D Precisely. Can you get cops to protect drug businesses like any other business? They would probably side with the people that would claim to be victims of drug businesses. Unless the use of a particular drug is well-integrated into the social fabric, I don't think you could. I think systems that deal with harm reduction and addiction need to perfected before legalization is a plausible next step.

[@osdreadlord3205]

Immediately society would collapse.

[@hanamlchl]

Ask China, Seattle or Portland.

[@josheternal]

Who told you that?

[@jonatand2045]

​@@hanamlchl Ask Portugal. The examples you gave have more to do with nimbysm. Except China, maybe you mean because of opium.

[@brandonkenney6310]

So long as a single cent of taxpayer dollars is used for any type of assistance for people who use harmful/addictive drugs, it is folly to believe that the legalization of harmful/addictive drugs will result in a better society. Legalization of drugs no more solves the problem of the harm they cause than raising the legal blood alcohol level does to solve the issue of drunk driving.

[@josheternal]

Your statement is utterly made up

[@concernedliberal4453]

Excellent points. I respect many of the libertarian points of view, but they definitely put the cart before the horse on drug policy.

[@jonatand2045]

Until you realize that the war on drugs isn't free, Brandon. You pay with your taxes to unsuccessfully limit drugs. The war brings only instability to Latin America. How much more should be wasted?

[@Weirdomanification]

I support legalization, but no government funded assistance. This is the realm of private charities, which can enforce rules and discriminate.

[@Designation6]

Legalize em all. Don’t want people to use em to fuck up their life? Find out why they do

[@soulfuzz368]

Because getting high is fun and their lives suck, it’s not a mystery

[@mroie]

Just take them out

[@Hobohunter23]

even if prohibition succeeded, i still wouldn't have supported it. it failing has absolutely no relevance on drug legalization.

[@soulfuzz368]

Depends how long ago it succeeded. I bet you support drug use because you use them. If you were never allowed to try, your opinion would be much different. Just a hypothesis

[@Hobohunter23]

@@soulfuzz368 i own my body, so i can put whatever i want in it. end of story.

[@jonatand2045]

​@@Hobohunter23 I only support legalization because the war on drugs is a massive failure. If truly dangerous drugs could be stopped without societal cost, they should be. It is less freedom, but it is utilitarian.

[@Hobohunter23]

@@jonatand2045 which drugs are dangerous, by your account? i dont find heroin addictive at all. and opioids are less toxic than alcohol. and that's nice, but you can't tell me what I can and cannot consume. that isn't any of your business.

[@jonatand2045]

@@Hobohunter23 Fentanyl is the obvious example right now. But i would go as far as making tabaco and alcohol dissappear if i could. Drugs can have negative consequences for those who don't consume them amd society, which i care about more than freedom. Freedom just happens to be very useful for society.

[@Iconoclasher]

Well what can I say about this. In 60 years and a trillion dollars later not one drug has been removed from the streets. In fact, there's more now than ever before. If an addict is cured, he cured himself. (drug treatment only can help) Maybe I'm jaded, but I don't care anymore. It's time to give up. If they want drugs, then give them drugs.

[@chito127]

Parents have to tell children not to ruin their lives; don't get a criminal record, don't be an addict to alcohol, drugs or gambling. Also, don't cheat on your marriage...if you do, keep it to yourself. I'm very old.

[@hanamlchl]

If the cautionary tale of Portland, Seattle and San Francisco shows that enabling drug use simply grows the dependent population. ReasonTV focuses on "fewer overdoses" but then wants to leapfrog into socialist nannystate providing free housing, food and healthcare for those same homeless addicts. Or we could simply let Darwin clean them out.

[@soulfuzz368]

Plenty of countries have effectively got rid of drug use. It’s amazing how much of the planet doesn’t exist to some people.

[@KoshN]

Sure, legalize all drugs and let the users take themselves out.[s] ⚰️ How about having some self-discipline and not using drugs?

[@benjamindover4337]

Do you drink coffee or soda?

[@Hobohunter23]

yeah, put away the booze man!

[@josheternal]

How about leaving the government out of your consumption decisions?

[@mrwilliamwonder]

You use drugs and probably deny it.

[@jonatand2045]

@Mac Breck That isn't going to happen because we can't count on individuals to stop consuming. However the failed war on drugs can be terminated if people become aware that it is a scam.

[@HarHah]

Legalize drugs would reduce the prison population

[@soulfuzz368]

Punishing dealers like Singapore does would also reduce the prison population. Just sayin

[@jonatand2045]

​@@soulfuzz368 Singapore is a tiny urban island though.

[@soulfuzz368]

@@jonatand2045 there are other examples. Saudi, Iran to some extent South Korea, they all have almost zero drug use and relatively low prison populations.

[@jonatand2045]

@@soulfuzz368 Wonder how long it will take the drug market to grow there. It may be good idea to contain it while it's small, but all America is way past that. It needs to be legalized here because prohibition makes the cartels richer.

[@soulfuzz368]

@@jonatand2045 American exceptionalism on display right here folks.

[@tiberiuswise]

If you're going to advocate for legalizing it, fine. Just don't sell it as is harm reduction or a path to rehabilitation. That's where the logic fails and the results never support the argument.

[@jumbowana]

How the fuck can a Libertarian be for needle exchange?

[@kevinjackson4933]

It's reductive to pretend that all prohibition is the same. There are lots of variations/variables to prohibition. It absolutely works if you make the punishments harsh and enforce the law. To a large extent, we don't do that in America. The border is wide open to smugglers, and gangs and street dealers are left feeling the benefits outweigh the costs, even in times when legal jobs are abundant. The common idea that prisons are full of over-sentenced minor drug offenses is mostly false. In reality, the streets are full of under-punished drug dealers. Make the risk of getting caught outweigh the benefits (like, oh I don't know, 10 years no-parole for a first-time felony drug charge), and within several years, you'll see a serious reduction in new drug dealers and users. Incentives are real. It'll be painful for the current crop of dealers and users, sure, but that's the price you pay for a civilized society. I find that when libertarians argue that prohibition has 'failed,' they are actually unwilling to accept the idea of harsher prohibition because, in my opinion, because they fundamentally disagree with it even it DOES work because it involves the government enforcing morality, and therefore are disincentivized to explore how to make it work. So it's deceptive (or self-deceptive) to claim you believe that no form of prohibition can work well enough to be justified. At least be honest with yourselves, folks: even if we could guarantee effective prohibition, you wouldn't be interested if involved punishment.

[@missano3856]

You're still left with the question of which drugs to prohibit, you'll never get a case where people don't use psychoactive substances at all.

[@kevinjackson4933]

@@missano3856 True. Life is full of nuance. I think most people could agree that drugs that are known for destroying lives would qualify as worthy of effective prohibition.

[@kevinjackson4933]

@@missano3856 That's the same problem with have with, say, sex. People will always haver sex, but some sex isn't permissible in a civilized society. It's up to the society to agree on which sexual acts. Same for drugs.

[@dragonfurry69]

Being LGBT in middle eastern countries like Egypt and Iran is strictly and harshly prohibited. Are you seriously suggesting that they simply haven't instituted harsh enough measures to eradicate what they see as undesirable?

[@kevinjackson4933]

@@dragonfurry69 Rape is harshly prohibited in civilized countries, but it doesn't eradicate rape. You'll never stop a fringe of humans who will commit certain acts at any cost. But your LGBTQ example isn't very analogous to drugs, because most drugs requires infrastructure of mass production and distribution, which is much more involved and risky than secret homosexual thought or actions. You'll never stop any specific behavior, but severe penalty massively disrupts supply chains, and also dissuades casual users (reducing addiction, incidentally). I probably wouldn't have done drugs when I was younger if I knew that buying or possessing it was a severe crime that would literally result in me doing hard time. And even if I was stupid enough to try it anyway, it would have been much harder and more uncomfortable to find. The goal of laws is not perfection, but improvement. And I see no reason why strict and harsh drug laws wouldn't dramatically reduce usage and sales within a few years.

[@KoshN]

If you legalize drugs, you will encourage more people to try them. That is *_NOT_* something you want to do.

[@josheternal]

So what and says who?

[@KoshN]

@@josheternal Says anybody with any common sense. If you lower the barriers to drug use, people, especially the weak minded, who wouldn't have tried the stuff if it was illegal, might be inclined TO try it, might get hooked and might OD and die. The people who get a thrill from breaking the law, the slackers and future criminals who break into houses and vandalize (e.g. stealing installed copper tubing, to sell), burglarize, etc. to support their habit, will do drugs whether or not the drugs are illegal.

[@jonatand2045]

You prefer your taxes going into a lost war on drugs then.

[@KoshN]

@@jonatand2045 I prefer not incentivizing people to destroy themselves.

[@jonatand2045]

@@KoshN Then i guess you don't like the war on drugs, because it makes selling drugs more profitable and violent. It also makes drugs more dangerous because they are outside regulation.

[@thatsworrisome]

Being human, saying “NO” to one is like saying “SIC ‘EM” to a dog, and everyone who made these laws knew that perfectly! Or THEY were brain dead drug runners without a workable business model. Njmo💧

[@viorelpiscanu9425]

Well....just take an easy guess! For health IT will be a TERRIBLE blow.....

[@SDsc0rch]

tremendously dangerous

[@jonatand2045]

The war on drugs is dangerous. Look at all the violence it has unleashed in Latin America.

[@topcatcoast2coast579]

I think they should sell Opium and actual Heroin the way they do medical marijuana. With the prevalence of fentyal in everything I can't see it being a bad idea. I'd rather controlled Heroin then Uncontrollable Fentyal

[@breachperplex8846]

Wish drug using was unillegalized and drug dealing should be regulated

[@Wolfdogs_US]

Legalization is not decriminalization. We literally need to allow the gov. Yea. I said that. Let the pharmaceutical industry manufacture these drugs for us so that the gov. Can tax it & the drug dealers are out of jobs which will take crime off the streets & allow drug users to know what they’re buying. .

[@sharkar8]

PA Fetterman is pushing for it

[@SirApesALot]

that vegetable isn't pushing anything, people around him are pushing this. He can barely walk and speak.

[@BloodTar]

Crime Prohibition has also failed. Should we just get rid of police, courts, prisons and just do away with all law? *Yes.*

[@josheternal]

Yep. America was a far safer country in the 1800s before pig departments started springing up everywhere. And all drugs were legal in those days too

[@jonatand2045]

The difference is that prohibition has a high societal cost, specially in poor areas and countries.

[@cahivx]

What the hell does my body my choice mean anymore?

[@FirstLast-cd6vv]

Few things would be more foolish and cause more harm than legalizing highly dangerous Schedule 1 narcotics.

[@micheal2877]

You have my Maximum respect DR ABIOLA for putting an end to my HIV VIRUS, the report came out Negative after applying your medication❤

[@concernedliberal4453]

Sorry, I respect much of the libertarian agenda, but this part of their platform doesn't work for me. Rehab has a terrible success rate and hard drugs jack dopamine levels too high to allow for casual use. Addicts are too big of a burden on our society, and I can absolutely 100% guarantee that legalizing hard drugs will result in more people trying them, and in most cases, becoming addicts themselves.

[@DavidCraig-go1zv]

Execute users and sellers

[@missano3856]

Legal drugs doesn't have to mean legal public use. Cannabis is really different than the others(including booze) and ideology shouldn't blind people to that.

[@soulfuzz368]

True but you will inevitably get more public use. Written laws are only so effective.

[@zsolt96478]

USA Democratic Society?😂😂😂

[@Scoots1994]

We can't eliminate all of the prisons, but fundamentally the US' philosophy of prison is broken. It needs to be about rehabilitation not punishment. No prison time for non-violent criminals, decriminalize drugs. Make the prisons safer and focus on education and encouraging people to be positive on the people around them in the world.

[@hermenegildoc3933]

See

[@azsunburns]

Prohibition has failed, so has freedom.

[@micheal2877]

You have my Maximum respect DR ABIOLA for putting an end to my HIV VIRUS, the report came out Negative after applying your medication❤