If you don’t believe laws should exist in general you don’t have to participate in the conversation. This could include any country/government. Please keep it civil.
Age laws (children have developing brains and are not assumed to be able to legally consent)
Right to treatment for addiction.
Right to know what substance you are using (free of contamination, if it’s cut the carrier substance should be disclosed)
Prohibition on operating heavy equipment or weapons while high.
I think that about covers it for me.
Also no adds for it anywhere. If it is good, it will sell. As a Norwegian, it is very weird going abroad seeing adds for alcohol, tobacco and gambling (even though this is very visible online, as sites from other countries are not bound to Norwegian laws). What isn’t good for you should not be part of the commercial every day life, even if it is available.
Other than that addition, I fully agree with your points.
Quality control and honest labeling type laws, similar to what we expect for food and beer.
Laws around operating vehicles and such while under the influence, similar to alcohol.
So one the arguments around drugs like marijuana is that “under the influence” is difficult to detect and test.
For alcohol we have BAC or Blood Alcohol Content. It’s far from a perfect measurement, but it is measurable and we have laws that define “too much”. It’s also relatively simple to measure.
We don’t have a way to simply measure Blood Marijuana Content or any similar measurement. Even if we can measure it, what is “too much” is also not well defined.
Which I largely mention because “similar to alcohol”, while I agree, is easier said than done.
Well, we didn’t had any of those when it was decided that alcohol was going to be legal but weed wasn’t. Since then the amount of car accidents caused by alcohol was so high that someone invented ways to detect that. Had weed been legal we probably would already have similar detectors.
But also, those tests are not that accurate, if you use a mouthwash with alcohol you can blow up positive for example, and if you get into the blood tests I’m fairly confident THC can be detected in blood tests. But at the end of the day we shouldn’t be trying to measure that, we should try to measure the impact, e.g. have a test where the person needs to press a button when a light goes on to measure response time, or similar tests. That’s what you care about at the end, someone might be wasted with a single beer and not have proper reaction time anymore, while others might be fine even after a few. The problem with that is that everyone thinks they’re the latter, but they aren’t.
Apparently eating poppy seeds can make you test positive for opium. There’s a Seinfeld episode about it
Honestly I like the framing of “driving while impaired”. To be transparent when I was young I never drank, but I would stay up for far too long and end up driving in ways that looking back was probably quite dangerous. I think it’s probably possible to have a reaction time based field test which could address being drunk, being high or being tired.
There are also qualitative tests, like walk in a straight line type stuff. Plus reckless driving is still illegal
And no being under the influence at work, especially if your work is at all dangerous.
For me, it depends on the job. I think it’s okay for a janitor to be high on the job, as long as they’re still able to be productive. But a surgeon? Absolutely not. Too much risk.
Well, yea, I wrote that on the same basis
I can agree with both.
Keep it out of the hands of children an teenagers. Providing it to anyone of those groups should be punished severely.
No driving under influence. Zero tolerance for any intoxicating or sensory depriving substance.
Broadly speaking laws should centre around enabling people to make choices in an informed and safe manner.
If a product is not what it says it is then people can’t mame that choice properly, so laws around quality control and labeling are a must.
Advertising often clouds decisions and frequently reaches audiences outside the target market, driving consumption by kids etc, so none of that please.
Tax should be significant on these items, but not high enough to leave illegal supply competitive or even cheap by comparison. Otherwise you get an increase in gang activity like we have had from raising our tobacco prices over the last 20 years.
Don’t drive while on drugs or operate other heavy machinery.
There should be strict laws regarding advertising for all drugs including alcohol.
Clear labeling so you know exactly what you’re getting.
Reasonable age restrictions.
Cutoff guidelines and restrictions for anyone who dispenses such substances.
If there are additional taxes on these substances, that money should go towards rehab, research, etc.
And obviously it should be illegal to trick people into taking these or allow anyone to consume them without knowing what they’re having (I’m bitter about potluck events where people don’t mention there’s drugs in the desserts they brought).
What did you think I meant when I said my brownies were going to be addicting?? Drop it already.
Adults should be allowed to freely make their own choices regarding drugs, unless it harms others. They shouldn’t be allowed to drive or operate dangerous machines while on drugs. They shouldn’t be allowed to use excessive drugs while doing jobs they need to be sober for like being a doctor or teacher. Someone who has committed serious crimes while on drugs should have their privileges restricted.
Doing drugs in and of itself should NOT be a crime. Those with addictions should be offered treatment free of judgment. The government should also educate people on the dangers.
Yeah I’m strongly against any strictly abstinence based education. The judgment part would be impossible to codify but I understand your point.
Agreed, the education shouldn’t be abstinence based, it should be about how to use responsibly
My view is simple: complete personal liberty until your actions impact someone else.
If someone wants to sit at home and use drugs, even severe ones, without harming anyone, that’s their business. But the moment you get behind the wheel or cause harm to others while under the influence (whether it’s meth, alcohol, or prescriptions), it should act as a major sentencing modifier.
We allow people to destroy their own physical property, like taking a sledgehammer to their own car in their driveway, as long as it doesn’t harm neighbors or commit fraud. The government shouldn’t treat a person’s body with less autonomy than their personal property.
I can definitely get behind that mentality.
As with any product a safety standard should be introduced so people who want a particular… amount¿ are getting it and not some diluted or cut down version.
So, local/national regulation on distribution, seems reasonable.
If they are allowed to advertise, it should be 100% fact based in it’s approach. No more camels wearing sunglasses while smoking or sexy actors at a rooftop party drinking alcohol in front of a magnificent night panorama of skyscrapers while smiling and laughing together. No happy people skipping through the sunflowers after shooting up black tar heroin. No partner advertising between the movie TRON and hallucinagen sellers. Sellers could basically only list their cost per quantity, info about the manufacturing process, and any purity measurements with no emotional appeals, bandwagoning, colorful cartoon characters, etc. With something potentially addictive and harmful, we have a moral duty not to allow anyone who sells using logical falacies and dark patterns to have a platform.
Warning lables should be super clear and the package should be otherwise 100% plain. Some substances may still warrant a ban, I’m undecided, but if they are allowed, they should probably not be advertised. People who want them, will be able to find them.
That all sounds pretty fair.
These products should be strictly regulated and taxed heavily. The taxes should be used to provide free and low cost drug counseling services, addiction treatment, on-site testing, and other similar services related to harm reduction, protecting communities, and absorbing the financial costs of having them legalized (i.e. regulation enforcement).
I agree.
Alcohol is a recreational drug so something like that.
I agree with most the thread on ads. Manipulation markets for mind altering substances sounds and are dystopian to me.
Taxes should be normal rate for goods and services + the public cost to research harmful effects + cost to migate/solve harmful effects.
If that industry leads to children being abanded by or essetially abanded by their parents then the cost to raise and care for those kids and help them navigate that trauma needs to be reapplied back to that industry. Both income and sales taxes should be applied as needed (for example if research suggested a higher sales tax would just be circumvented by black markets).
Mixed feelings as I’m all for unregulated legal hemp and think it ridiculous that big canna is trying to shut it down, but i don’t like shit that’s mixed up from stuff under someone’s kitchen sink.
21+, fair labeling, and being responsible for our own use.
Reasonable
Alcohol is statistically the most harmful drug[0], so ban alcohol and legalise and regulate the others like we currently do with alcohol.
Eh, I only skimmed the paper but I suspect availability of alcohol skews the results. If you could just pop down to the gas station after work and pick up some crack or heroin, I suspect the relative harm would be different.
I mean, the word statistically is carrying a lot of weight in 16 year old single day event thats essentially subjective. As well as the fact it ranks tobacco in the low 20s vs alcohol in the high 70s. Not to mention prescription opiates and the context by which they are relevant is not included (couldn’t be in a “study” from 2010). Around 3 times more people die from tobacco use annually. But, regardless of that, would you then enact a prohibition on any “harmful” drugs? Or just alcohol?
This was a UK study, prescription opiates aren’t really an issue here the same way they are in the USA. If anything it can be too difficult to get a painkiller prescription.
Didn’t really address what I said.
Exactly what I was about to say… Implement David Nutt’s recommendations.
Also allow using these drugs in medical research and stop ignoring their medical benefits even if the drugs remain restricted for the public.
