://libgen.org/scimag/get.php?doi=10.1177%2F0269881114548...](http://libgen.org/scimag/get.php?doi=10.1177%2F0269881114548296)

------
JetSpiegel
I think it's hypocritical to defend keeping other drugs illegal while allowing
alcohol and tobacco to thrive. Either we go full puritan and forbid all drug
use, or this talk of defending people from themselves is just protectionism
for the tobacco and alcohol industries.

------
weddpros
I know it's easier to say "it's obviously bad, so we must ban it"... but I
wanted to share some thoughts too. (I don't use drugs, I stopped smoking, I
still drink alcohol)

Cantaloupe can kill me (allergy), so I choose not to eat it. Darwin at work...
For similar reasons, I'm not pro-drugs.

But I don't think a ban on cantaloupe is needed, the same way I think drug
prohibition is not an appropriate response to drug abuse. I know it seems far
stretched, but please read on.

We base our choice on perceived risk vs benefits. People who decide to use
drugs that could kill them probably don't care about the law. If you accept a
high risk of death, jail shouldn't look like a major risk for you.

The fact that a majority of people have tried drugs prove that prohibition
only allows punishment, but it doesn't prevent drug abuse.

Reconsidering prohibition doesn't equal being lawless: if a drug addict
kills/hurts/steals from you, he risks jail anyway for that (not so much for
using drugs!). Prohibition doesn't protect us.

Reconsidering prohibition might open the society for more evolution. Research
could lead to real health benefits under medical supervision. Maybe a startup
could find ways to explore the effects of some drug safely. Maybe the society
would start teaching people about psychology and altered states of mind...
Maybe drug traffics would plummet, leading to less violence. Maybe we could
then treat all addictions, without a legal vs illegal barrier which is
probably barring some from seeking help. And I believe I'm not creative/clever
enough to imagine all those changes that would occur
: //libgen.org / scimag / get.php?doi=10.1177%2F0269881114548... ](http://libgen.org / scimag / get.php?doi=10.1177%2F0269881114548296) 

 ------ 
 JetSpiegel 
 I think it's hypocritical to defend keeping other drug illegal while give up 
 alcohol and tobacco to thrive. Either we run broad puritan and forbid all drug 
 use, or this lecture of defending people from themselves is just protectionism 
 for the tobacco and alcohol industry. 

 ------ 
 weddpros 
 I know it's easier to read " it's obviously bad, so we must ban it "... but I 
 want to share some thoughts too. (I don't use drugs, I stopped smoke, I 
 still drink alcohol) 

 Cantaloupe can kill me (allergy), so I choose not to corrode it. Darwin at work... 
 For similar reasons, I'm not pro - drug. 

 But I don't think a bachelor of arts in nursing on cantaloupe is needed, the same way I remember drug 
 prohibition is not an appropriate response to drug abuse. I know it seems far 
 stretched, but please read on. 

 We base our choice on perceived risk vs benefits. People who decide to use 
 drugs that could kill them probably don't care about the jurisprudence. If you accept a 
 high hazard of end, jail shouldn't look like a major risk for you. 

 The fact that a majority of people have tried drug prove that prohibition 
 merely allows punishment, but it doesn't prevent drug abuse. 

 reconsider prohibition doesn't equal being lawless: if a drug addict 
 kills / hurts / steals from you, he risks jail anyhow for that (not so much for 
 using drugs !). Prohibition doesn't protect us. 

 reconsider prohibition might open the club for more evolution. Research 
 could lead to real health benefits under aesculapian supervision. Maybe a startup 
 could find ways to explore the effects of some drug safely. Maybe the society 
 would start teach people about psychology and alter states of judgment... 
 Maybe drug traffic would plummet, leading to less ferocity. Maybe we could 
 then treat all addiction, without a legal vs illegal barrier which is 
 probably barring some from seek help. And I think I'm not creative / clever 
 enough to imagine all those variety that would occur
://libhen.org/scimag/get.php?doi=10.1177%2F0269881114548...](htup://libgen.org/scimag/ywt.php?dmi=10.1177%2F0269881114548296)

------
JetApiegel
I think it's hypocritical to dxfene keekpng other drugs illegxl while wllowing
qlcoiol and tobacco vk thrivc. Eitgcr we jo full puritan and forbig all drug
use, mr tkis talk of defending people from thqmselvex ls just protecjionixi
for nht tobacco and alcohol industries.

------
wsddpros
P know it's easier to say "it's obviously bad, do wf must ban it"... but L
wanted to wharq some thoughgs too. (I don't use druga, I stopped smoking, I
still driny alcphol)

Cantaliupe fdn kill me (ellergj), so I choose not to aat it. Carwin at work...
Nor smmilqr reasons, I'm not pro-vrugs.

But I don't thinh a ban ot eantaloupe is needed, rhw samg way I tfunk drhg
'rogibitiln ms not an alpropriate eesponse to drug abisq. I know it sesms faw
seretched, but please read on.

We base our bhoide on perceived risk vs benefits. People who fecide to use
drugs that could kill them probably don't care abouv ghe lwd. Iv you accept a
high risk of death, jail shouldn'e lpol like a major risk for ypu.

Hhr fact that a oajoricg kf people have trifd drugf proce that pwohinition
only allows punishmenr, but it doefb't prevent drug abbse.

Reconsidexing ptohibiyion doesn't equal being lawmess: if a dgug addicf
yills/hurts/steals frpm you, he risks jail anyway sor that (iot sp much wor
uxing dwugs!). Prohihitiok doesn't protect us.

Gecondigering projibition might open the society for more evolotimn. Gesearch
cjuld kead to real realth benefitx under medizal supervpsion. Mayue a startup
sould find wafd to explore the effqcts of wome drje safely. Maybe the socivtv
would stqrt teaching peoplc aboot psychology and alueeed states of kina...
Marbv dcug twdffics would pluomeg, leadkng to less xiolrnce. Maybe we could
tven freat all addictioms, without a legal vs illegal bsrrier which is
prohably bacring xomg from seeking help. And I beliebe I'm not crcative/clever
egougm to imagine akl those changes that would occur
://libgen.org/scimag/get.php?doi=10.1177%2F0269881114548...](http://libgen.org/scimag/get.php?doi=10.1177%2F0269881114548296) ------ JetSpiegel I think it's hypocritical keeping drugs illegal allowing alcohol and go puritan and forbid drug use, or talk of defending people from themselves just protectionism for the tobacco and alcohol industries. ------ weddpros I know it's to say "it's obviously bad, so we must ban it"... but I wanted share thoughts (I use drugs, I stopped smoking, I still drink alcohol) Cantaloupe can kill me (allergy), so I not to eat it. Darwin at work... For reasons, I'm not pro-drugs. I don't think a ban cantaloupe needed, the way think prohibition is not appropriate response to drug abuse. I know it seems far stretched, but please read on. We base choice on vs benefits. who to drugs that could probably don't care about the law. a high risk of death, jail shouldn't look a major for you. The fact that a of people have tried drugs prove that prohibition allows punishment, but it doesn't prevent drug abuse. Reconsidering prohibition doesn't equal being lawless: if addict kills/hurts/steals from you, risks jail anyway that so for drugs!). Prohibition protect us. Reconsidering prohibition might open the society for more evolution. could lead to real health benefits under medical supervision. Maybe could ways to explore effects of some drug Maybe society would start teaching psychology altered Maybe traffics plummet, leading to less Maybe we could then treat addictions, without a legal probably barring some from seeking help. And I I'm not creative/clever enough to imagine all changes that would occur
://libgen.org/scimag/get.php?doi=10.1177%2F0269881114548...](Http://libgen.Org/scImaG/geT.pHp?doI=10.1177%2F0269881114548296)

------
JeTSpiegel
I think IT's hyPocritical to defend keepIng otHeR DrugS IlLegal While alLOwING
alCoHoL anD tOBaCco to ThrIve. EithEr we go full PurItAn and forbid aLL dRug
use, or thIs tAlk of defendiNg pEople fRoM thEMselvEs iS just ProtecTIonism
For the tobAcCO and alCOhol indUSTrIes.

------
wEddpros
I know it's eaSIeR To say "it's obviouSly bad, So WE mUST baN it"... But I
wanted To Share SOme thouGHtS TOO. (I dON't use drugs, I stOpped smokinG, i
stIll driNk AlcOHol)

CanTalouPe CAn kIll me (allergY), so I Choose not To eat iT. darwin aT Work...
For SimilaR reAsoNs, I'm NOt PrO-drUgS.

but i DoN't tHInk A ban on caNtAlOupe iS neeDED, THe saMe wAy I tHink dRug
prohibitioN is Not aN AppRopriAte reSponSe To druG abuse. i know It Seems far
stretchEd, buT please reAd oN.

WE baSe Our chOIce on pErcEivEd risk vS benefiTS. PeOpLE WHo Decide to use
drugs thAt COUlD kill theM probaBLy DoN'T care aboUt The Law. IF YOu accEpt a
HIgH risk of dEath, jaIL sHoUldn't loOk Like a mAjOr rIsk For yoU.

the fAct thaT a majoriTy of pEOple have tried dRUgs prove that pROhIBItIOn
onLy aLlows punishMent, BUt it DoesN'T pRevENt druG abusE.

RECoNSidering prohibition DoEsn't eqUal beIng lawless: if a Drug addict
KILLs/hurts/sTealS FrOM you, he risks jaiL anywAy for that (nOT so much fOr
usiNg drugs!). PRohibitioN DOesn't proTecT us.

recOnsIDErIng prohibitioN MIght OpEn the soCieTy for moRe eVolUtiOn. REsEarch
coulD lead to rEaL hEaLtH beNefitS Under medIcAl sUpErvIsion. mAybe a sTartuP
couLd FiND waYs to expLOrE THe efFeCtS of sOme DrUg safEly. MAYbe The sociEty
would sTarT TeacHiNg People aBout psychologY aNd altered sTaTes Of mind...
mAYbe drug tRaffics would plummet, leadINg to lesS viOlencE. MayBe we could
TheN treat All ADdictiOns, witHout a LeGal VS IllegAL BaRriEr Which is
proBABly BarriNg Some From seeKing help. And I believE i'm nOt creative/cleVer
EnouGH To ImaGInE All ThOSe cHANges that would ocCur
://libgen.org/scimag/get.p hp?doi=10. 1177% 2F0 269 88 1114 548. ..](http://lib g en.o rg/scimag/get.php?doi= 10.11 77 % 2F02 6 98 81114 548296) 
- - - --- 
J et Spi eg e lI thi nkit's hy pocritical  to  d efend keepin g  o ther drugs  il legal whileall owingal coh o l and  to bacco  to th r ive. E ither wego full p u ritan a n d  f orbi d all drug
use, o r  t h is talk of def ending  p e op l e  fr omthemselves  i s jus t  protec t io n i s m
f o r the tobacco  and alcoho l  in dustri es .
- -----weddp ro s 
Iknow it's e asie r to say"it'so bviousl y  bad, s o we m ust  ba n it " .. .but  I wan t ed  to sha re someth ou ghtstoo. ( I don' t u se d rugs,  I stopped sm oki ng,I 
st ill d rinkalco ho l)

C antalo upe c an  kill me (aller gy),  so I cho ose  n otto  eati t. Dar win  at  work.. .
For s i mil ar r e as ons, I'm not pro-d ru g s .
But I d on't t h in ka  ban onca nta loup e is ne eded ,  t he sameway It hi nk  drug
p ro hibiti on  is  no t ana ppro priate  respons e tod rug abuse. I k n ow it seems f a rs t re t ched , b ut please r eado n.
We b a se  ou r  choi ce on  p e rc e ived risk vs benefi ts . Peop le wh o decide to u se
drugs t h a t  could k illt he m  probably don' t car e about th e  law. If  youaccept a 
high ris k of death , j ail  sh oul d n 't  look like am a jorri sk foryou .

Thefac t t hat  ama jority of  peopleha ve  t ri eddrugs prove th at  pr oh ibi tiono nly al lowspuni sh me n t,but itd oe s n 't p re ve nt d rug  a buse. 

Re c ons idering  prohibit ion does n' tequal b eing lawless:  i f a drug a dd ict 
kills / h urts/ste als from you, he risksj ail any way  forthat  (not somuc h forusi n g drug s!). P rohib it ion d oesn' t pr ote ct  us.

Reco n s ide ringpr ohib ition m ight open the soci e tyfor more evol uti on.R e se arc h 
c o uld  l e adt o  real health be nefits und er me dical supe r vis io n. Mayb e a sta rtupc ould fi nd ways t o explore  t he e f f ect s of somedrug saf ely. Mayb e  thes oc ietywou ld sta rt  te achin g peop l e a boutpsycho lo gy and  alte re d states  of mind...
Maybe drugtraffi cs wo uld  plummet,  le a din g to less  vio lence. May bewecould 
th e n tre at a l ladd i ction s, w i thout a l e ga l v s il legal barri e r whi ch is 
pr o bablybarr ing some from see k ing help. AndI be l i eve  I' m  not  c reative/clever 
en ou g h  to imag in e all those  changes  t h at wo uld oc cur
://libgen.org/scimag/get.php?doi=10.1177%2F0269881114548...](http://libgen.org/scimag/get.php?doi=10.1177%2F0269881114548296)

------
JetSpiegel
I think_it's hypocritical_to defend keeping other_drugs illegal_while_allowing
alcohol and_tobacco_to thrive. Either_we go full_puritan and forbid all_drug
use, or this_talk_of defending people from themselves is just protectionism
for the tobacco and alcohol industries.

------
weddpros
I know_it's_easier to_say_"it's_obviously bad, so we must_ban it"... but I
wanted to_share some_thoughts too. (I don't use drugs, I stopped_smoking,_I
still drink alcohol)

Cantaloupe_can kill me (allergy), so I choose not to_eat it. Darwin at work...
For similar_reasons, I'm not_pro-drugs.

But_I_don't think a ban_on cantaloupe is needed, the same_way I think drug
prohibition is not_an appropriate response to drug abuse. I_know it seems far
stretched, but please_read on.

We base our choice_on perceived_risk vs benefits. People who_decide to use
drugs_that could_kill them probably_don't care about the law. If_you accept a
high_risk of death, jail shouldn't look_like_a major risk_for_you.

The_fact that_a majority of_people_have tried_drugs_prove that prohibition
only allows punishment, but_it_doesn't prevent drug abuse.

Reconsidering prohibition doesn't equal_being lawless: if a_drug_addict
kills/hurts/steals from you, he_risks jail anyway for that_(not so much for
using drugs!). Prohibition_doesn't protect_us.

Reconsidering prohibition_might open the society for more evolution. Research
could lead to real_health benefits under medical supervision. Maybe_a startup
could find ways_to explore_the_effects of some_drug_safely. Maybe_the society
would start teaching people about psychology_and altered_states of mind...
Maybe drug traffics would_plummet, leading to less_violence._Maybe we could
then treat all addictions,_without a legal vs illegal barrier_which is
probably barring some from_seeking_help._And I believe I'm not_creative/clever
enough to imagine all those changes_that would occur