I 'like' this post, in so far as I think 'recreational substances' should be governed by evidence-based policy.
That's right! Should, could, aren't. When we're ruled by misinformed peoples' moral panics everyone suffers.
I wouldn't call them "recreational substances" though.
Let's call them what they are, which is to say psychotropic substances. They can be used for a lot more than kicking back and having a laugh. There are valid medical uses for all sorts of psychotropics, many of which are currently used and many of which are not because......well, don't ask me, I don't have a clue. Apparently because of "abuse potential".
Ahem.....yeah....I know, ridiculous when you consider the legality of seriously abuse potentiating drugs such as benzodiazepines, ethanol, and nicotine (by the way, nicotine is by some measures the most addictive psychotropic known to science).
Never mind that the abuse potential of many illegal psychotropics is less than half of some of the legal ones. This fact alone is a great place to start when discussing the absurdity of drugs laws in this country.
I also take a permissive tone, which is to say, if you're an adult, or somebody that could pass for one, LOL, I think your body is your own, as long as you injest, whatever, in a manner that minimizes the risk of harm to others, its not my place to tell you what to consume, and not the governments either.
This too. Isn't this a requirement in our Charter for sovereignty over oneself? Wasn't that the logic behind striking down anti-abortion laws, for example?
That said, I don't object at all to wider sales of alcohol, in so far its a legal product, and I thoroughly enjoy a good glass of Chianti, I don't see the sense in arbitrarily limiting time and place of access just enough to be a nuisance without otherwise changing a thing.
I don't object to the wider availability of alcohol either. Believe me, I'm a football sort-of hoolie and a semi-retired raver...I know about having a drink and I smoke. I just like to point out the absurdity of our drugs laws and make people question their misinformed assumptions in regards to drugs, because damn are they legion and wrong as hell.
For example, when I was younger, I was told regularly that one dose of insufflated cocaine was enough to get one addicted. LOL! Wow, is that ever a crock of shit. Most people will do it a few times and realise it's a waste of time and money.
Or how about the old frying eggs "this is your brain on drugs" rubbish? What drug is that, pray tell? Frying eggs, my eye! As I've said in another post in some thread or other the frying eggs "this is your brain on drugs" most closely resembles what excitotoxicity in the brain looks like. Excitotoxicity that is caused by GABA-ergics, by the way....benzodiazepines and alcohol mostly. GABA is a neurotransmitter (gamma-aminobutyric acid).
Now, I wouldn't mind if there were a few requirements to help people who wanted to consume moderately, or less.
Deffo. This should be part of any rational drugs policy. It's a part of harm reduction.
Harm reduction is woefully absent in our society at large because discussing safe use is seen in many quarters as being akin to encouraging drug use. Never mind the fact that harm reduction in regards to legal drugs is pretty well non-existent! How many people know that alcohol can cause excitotoxicity in the brain? That withdrawal can kill you? That its metabolites are toxic? Or how it even works in the body/brain?
Shouldn't the LCBO have been providing this information this entire time? What sort of irresponsible government agency has a near monopoly on a toxic psychotropic and doesn't even bother attempting to educate the populace? That's some back alley "trust me, these pills are sick, double stacked" drug dealer shit.
Such as requiring the seller of wine or beer to offer some non-alcoholic versions; and to market a at least a few lower-alcohol versions (beer at 4%, wine at 10% etc)
I also think modest portions being on offer, such as 375ml or 500ml bottles of wine, for those who need help w/portion control makes sense.
Yeah, I like this idea. Smaller doses are healthier doses.
While I agree other substances might be less unhealthy, I'm realistic that it will take some time before we see those legal, regulated and available.
But 15 years ago, no one thought pot legalization was on the horizon, or serious discussions of decriminalizing drug possession across the board, but we're here.
Maybe in 20 more years we can finish the rest of the adult conversation.
In my life time? I will be stoked af and I'm not the only one. I used MDMA and psilocybin to get over my near-crippling depression, social anxiety, and self-esteem issues, but that somehow made me a criminal at the time and is not an option that most people who have various SSRIs and MAOIs pushed on them even know about. Except that if I didn't get over my depression I might not be here chatting up the internet. All it takes is some real and complete information. Knowledge is power...or, well just a catalyst for making informed decisions.
There is some light at the end of the tunnel in that trials of psilocybin and MDMA for therapeutic uses are being tested on human subjects now again.
Slowly but surely we'll kick the habit of irrationality and hypocrisy in drugs policy, I'm sure.
See what I did there?
It's because our drugs policy is like an addiction to irrationality....or just straight foolishness.
I'm just going to put this here for anyone's perusal
http://www.maps.org/
PS: I look forward to being able to grab a six pack with my mates on the way to the beach. Oh, wait, that's still illegal.
