Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I think they're actually worse than the cartels. Are the cartels more violent and scary? For sure. Do they pull off heinous crimes? Yeah.
But...
Do they have to, in order to stay in business? Yes. Did Purdue Pharma have to? Not in the slightest.
What I mean by that is that Purdue made all it's money at least somewhat legally. A doctor who took bribes from them and pushed Oxycontin knowing it wasn't actually as legit — as in "doesn't cause addiction", pushing the medication to pretty much whoever from teenagers to grandparents, unsuspecting people in need of medical advice — is arguably of poorer moral character than a dealer selling cocaine to people who know they're buying cocaine.
And what I mean by the cartels having no choice is that whilst I definitely don't agree with the violence, I can understand that without it, they'd have practically no control over the trade. If however, they were given the option of actually doing it legally, I think they might give up the violence. Or at least the trade would shift away from it, because it would mean that legit cocaine traders would have the justice system and law on their side. Currently it doesn't mean much in South-America I think, because the cartels are just so big, powerful and violent. But with time.
Responsible people should even be allowed to use those drugs. But like with alcohol, there should be products which aren't just as pure as they can get. Like I compared earlier, buprenorphin is to hard cider as fentanyl is to moonshine.
It's very different having a few beers which are 5% alc than downing a glass of moonshine. Same with so called "hard drugs". I wouldn't fuck with opiates too much, but with the proper regulation, I think even those should be allowed, and if they were, they'd eat the legal market of poisons away. Ask yourself, when's the last time you had a chance to buy illegally made alcohol? It's not too often that that happens. But illegally made class A drugs? Can get them about anywhere in the world.
And especially for drugs like cocaine, milder versions would be fantastic, as people could still have plenty, just wouldn't get as affected. Like how you wouldnt' really be able to kill yourself by drinking 4% beer. It's just incredibly hard to get an alcohol poisoning from that because how mild it is. But with wine, it's possible yet unlikely, but with something like 40% vodka/whisky/rum, it's almost probable if you don't know how much you should drink and you're a teenager or something and with moonshine it's almost inevitable if you actually force yourself to drink the stuff.
So for cocaine I'd say something which is perhaps a bit stronger than just coca leaves, or equivalent, but nowhere near pure face-numbing cocaine.
Bring back real Coke! Original recipe! (Coca-Cola Company is btw the largest legal producer of cocaine in the world, they still make it during the process but just sell it off to... 'pharmaceutical companies', or that's what I've heard.)
edit sorry for the essay I just saw your reply after taking a half an ambien so I rambled a bit
The main reason moonshine is illegal is to do with taxes and historical reasons. Not because home distilling is actually dangerous. You don't have to make moonshine to be any stronger than something you would buy in a supermarket. You can legally buy 90% spirits that are stronger anyway.
You can, but for instance here in the Nordics, it's every much harder than just getting a bottle of 40-50%abv from the store.
Estonia sells quite a lot of high abv vodka, but we Finns really don't have everclear or an equivalent of that, and that's common in of populations that got hard booze later. As in actually drinkable hard liquor is only about 500 or so years old, although some exited for medical purposes almost 700 years ago.
So if I walk into an Alko in Finland, I won't find anything stronger than 60%, and those in very small bottles. The strongest drinks in larger bottles are like at most 50-55%.
But you can order rums that are up to 72% and something like 80% vodka perhaps.
But no, Nordics mostly can't actually legally purchase quality 90% ethanol. And it's because the stronger drinks came here later which is why we have a bit more alcoholism. It's just evolution honestly. That's why also a lot of native American populations have problems with alcohol, because it was introduced relatively recently and the fast evolution is yet to cull out the worst drunks. Sounds super racist but it's true for us Nords as well, we only got hard liquor properly like 200 years ago when anglosaxons had it for around five centuries.
So Tldr the point is regulation does matter quite a lot. It doesn't completely prevent and whatnot. But neither does banning murder prevent murder yet we're alright.
People want to get inebriated, but not lose control. So if the regulations help with that, there's less losing control, ie less abuse.
Just imagine how horrible it would be if there's was no regulations in traffic, licenses to drive, etc,
And usually watching US traffic I am kinda horrified by the people you allowed to drive — and don't even have regulations to have studded tires in winter or winter tyres without studs,
We have to drive on a soap-oil course / water-ice course to get our licences.
So while I disliked bureaucracy and authorities currently in power and whatnot, I can see the benefit of regulations.
Edit today i haven't taken ambien, just rum and glög
That is awesome about the soap ice course. This helps explain why Finland has many of the best rally drivers haha. It is taken seriously there.
I feel that in the U.S. they don't really want to make it too difficult to get a driver's license because it would reduce the travel abilities of too many of the slave citizens to get to their jobs supporting the system. Regardless of why, we definitely see some ridiculous driving shit here.
A functional society requires compromises in order to protect its vulnerable members. Sure, some people may be able to handle the 70%+ alcohol. Or the Fentanyl. But there will always be those who can't. Maybe pre-disposed to addiction, have a physical condition or whatever the reason. That is why the regulations against the ridiculously potent shit exist. It is not to take away your responsible enjoyment. It is to protect those who cannot enjoy responsibly. A sacrifice that basically the stronger members of society (stronger in that specific aspect) are making to benefit the weaker members.