@thor

This is generally my impression. A lot of addiction, too, which is why I favor making addiction as inexpensive and easy as possible.

At least localizes the problem.

I don't know how to save everyone. It's not in nature's plan at least.

I hope things work out for your sister.

@amerika @thor

It has been said many times we are losing the war on drugs.

If you legalise supply you control not only the supply but the purity and strength, that way you know what you are getting.

10mg of paracetamol from a pharmacy should be just that for example but in this case applied to I guess Heroin and cocaine among others.

Then you work on reducing the dependency, a t the same time as that try and deal with the mental health or other issues that have caused the addiction

Of course this also means that these substances can be tax, so lets tax them and put 100 percent of that in to providing free detox, mental health and other support.

As with other problems, it is fixable if we are prepared to be tough enough to have these hard discussions and make hard decisions as to how to solve the issues involved.

@zleap @thor

I oppose legalization and favor decriminalization.

Our goal is not to make drug use safe, only to make it less destructive.

In my view, the markets do a good job of regulating quality.

I also have very little faith in detox programs.

It's all up to the user, and most who quit do it on their own.

@amerika @zleap @thor I think opening up legal markets for what are currently considered illicit drugs would be beneficial for a number of reasons. A non violent drug user who isn't stealing to feed their habit literally harms no one except potentially themselves first and foremost. Keeping things in gray or black markets leads to impurities and dangerous additives, but more than that it creates a scenario where violence becomes perceived as necessary for businesses to secure their profits. The legal markets are protected by the government who claims monopoly on use of force. Illegal markets have to do this for themselves.

This isn't to say other black markets should be given legal status, but in the case of individuals partaking in activities that only put themselves at risk I see no reason for disallowing it.

Alcohol is one of the hardest drugs on the body, and we have nearly 100k deaths a year from excessive use. Drunk driving adds to that number victims of bad decisions while intoxicated.

@thatguyoverthere @zleap @thor

I tend to agree with legal but unregulated/untaxed markets.

Localize the damage.

@amerika @zleap @thor One regulation I do think is important is that ingredients should be accurately listed. One big problem with a dark drug market is that there is no way to ensure potency or even content is what's expected which can lead to unnecessary premature death. I don't think it's the government's place to decide what you put in your body, but if you think you are buying substance "a" at potency "x" that's all it should be. no extra additives unless they are listed.

@thatguyoverthere @zleap @thor

If our legal system was awake, it would permit fraud suits for anything other than listed ingredients.

For example, honey. Bad sellers replace much of the liquid with corn syrup.

To my mind, that's fraud if the container says HONEY.

But regulations shield this.

@amerika @thatguyoverthere @thor

In the UK that would probably breach the trade descriptions act.
Food laws have been updated here so that all ingredients have to be listed even on shop made sandwiches, this is to help people with allergies avoid items that have known allergens in.

It helps everyone else too, but hopefully will avoid people dying from eating products containing something they are allergic to.

@zleap @thatguyoverthere @thor

It's one of the reasons why UK tobacco is so good: the laws historically favored natural ingredients, not weird flavorings.

@amerika @thatguyoverthere @thor

Indeed, we have some pretty tough regulations here.

@zleap @thatguyoverthere @thor

It's everywhere now, part of the modern makeup.

I think it's wrong.

The tobacco law pre-dates regulations, incidentally. It was a Royal act, and I'm not sure what those are called in current law.

Regulations make it easy to circumnavigate them. I prefer having standards, and simply destroying any business that violates them.

Business understands that kind of risk.

@amerika @zleap @thor yeah I'm good with standards as opposed to regulations. There need to be teeth though when it comes to things you are putting in your body being hidden from. I think Subway recently found themselves in trouble in France because by the French standard, what subway calls bread is actually cake. In that case they weren't hiding secret ingredients per se, but they were selling a product that did not fit the definition. I think more recently there was a report that the tuna was lacking certain proteins found in tuna (using PCR), but I don't remember where that went.

I just think that while it's not the government's responsibility to regulate my choices, I should be able to participate in the free market and buy things and have them turn out to be what I think I am buying. Period. If I buy things that can harm me, but I know what they are, that's on me. The honey example is perfect. I think anyone selling corn syrup as honey should be punished in some fashion.

@thatguyoverthere @zleap @thor

I agree. I'd also like people to be able to sue for another entity, like rivers and lakes, instead of needing "standing" and a direct, personal, financial injury.

@amerika @thatguyoverthere @thor

Yeal that is doable if a company pollutes a river, that then has a direct impact on say your local business.

So environmental law should fine them and pay you compensation.

@zleap @thatguyoverthere @thor

In my view, no: you should be able to sue them for wrecking a river even if it cost you nothing, because you're out a river.

That way, there's a private incentive to sue, which works better in my view than government bureaucracies.

@amerika @thatguyoverthere @thor

Ah i get you there so you basically represent the river in court.