the thing i dont understand about drug schedules

[fidelis]

hey, im an american, so let me know if its different for you guys but i dont get how literal METH (desoxyn) is a schedule 2 drug (allowed if you have a prescription) while weed and psychedelics are schedule 1 (not allowed at all). no matter how much the government wants to preach about caution and safety, the controlled substances act is NOT about the health of the people. its about what drugs make money and what drugs the people will accept. its about keeping american citizens complacent in 2 ways:

1. drugging the ones with dissenting opinions/anyone with creativity/anyone DIFFERENT in any way (for example, notice how every fucking overactive child is diagnosed with adhd? my dad didnt even have anxiety, he was just a barhead, he just lied about some stuff and got a script. its absurdly easy to get medicated because anyone who isnt perfectly neurotypical (very few people are) just gets a pill bottle thrown at them. i will admit, its much harder to get meds for certain conditions, but that usually just ends up hurting the people who ACTUALLY HAVE those conditions. also the two can overlap, like with adhd and the adderall shortage. i know so many people who just got hit with an adhd diagnosis that they dont even agree with and they got put on meds they dont even like, but people who actually have adhd are unable to get the meds they need)

2. not promoting anything that may cause social unrest (since america has trained the people to be afraid of certain drugs, such as mdma, they need to be separate from the "good" drugs like adderall (literally just amph under another name, why are we trained to be afraid of one and love the other) and apparently meth. even though mdma shows promising results in treating autism, the government cant just backtrack and say "oh actually this is good and well let you do this" because the people will say "b-b-but the druggies!11!!1!! we cant have that in our good clean america." also the government cant just go change its opinion or else theyll look stupid and then people will trust them less. they have to be stagnant and unchanging, some kind of godlike figure)

the only reason the government (nationwide but mainly in certain states) is becoming more lenient about weed is because thats what people WANT. the government just wants to look good. its about keeping people obedient. its not about our safety or wellbeing. sorry if any of this doesnt make sense, i just typed it out on the spot because i was thinking about it lol

 

[fidelis]

i understand the need for separation and the need for laws, but just punishing those who are in active addiction does NOTHING! yes some people dont want help but help should be AVAILABLE! and no it absolutely shouldnt be forced, i dont support just shoving every addict into rehab because honestly sometimes that can lead to even more harmful behaviors. i tried to go cold turkey once and just started trying to light myself on fire. but i believe there should be harm reduction resources available, like supervised use sites, clean needles, and naloxone. its not promoting drug use, its preventing death. and just shoving people into prison cells does nothing but put them in a situation thats just as unsafe. imagine overdosing and almost dying and worrying about what the cops are going to do more than your actual life. its not right. people who support strict drug laws dont care about drug users, they care about their stupid false sense of order. they care about upholding a silent dictatorship. they either have no humanity or have no eyes.

 

[miner21]

So the drug scheduling system is definitely out of date. Weed was scheduled as a drug with no medical use. This may have been the opinion back in the day, but clearing weed is being successfully prescribed to treat certain things

If you have time check out some of Dr. Carl Hart from Columbia university. He is doing some great research with drugs. His view on drugs is they are a chemical with known and expected effects and shouldnt be thought of as the scary propaganda we have all been fed

 

[HIGGS BOSSON]

Portugal has shown the whole world the right and effective approach to drugs. But many countries are far from that, especially the US

 

[Frit Buchner]

So drug scheduling in the US works like this
1. An illicit drug with high potential for abuse
2. A prescription drug with high potential for abuse
3. A drug with moderate potential for abuse
4. A drug with some potential
5. A drug with little potential for abuse

Since you can get a prescription for meth or cocaine they are schedule 2, even though cocaine is never prescribed ( you don't need a prescription as a doctor doing a surgery) cocaine will never leave schedule 2 because it is the drug of politicians and wealthy people

 

[vis]

Why should others pay for the consequences of your addiction? You pay drugs and we pay your rehab after your fun backfires. Drugtaking is a choice. Normal people don't do narcs (only secret maybe) but if they do they are normally careful not to poison themselves and get addicted. Legalizing drugs means more collateral. To save? Be a normal user like the jet set keeping it tidy. I don't agree in a actual government conspiracy on drugs. It is a cause and effect development that's nothing surprising. The addicts don't help our cause the freedom cause. It is a choice for most users as they are not that insane otherwise, but high they can rob you blind, I hate it and show no leniency. Utilitarism - live and let die

 

[fidelis]

Why should others pay for the consequences of your addiction? You pay drugs and we pay your rehab after your fun backfires. Drugtaking is a choice. Normal people don't do narcs (only secret maybe) but if they do they are normally careful not to poison themselves and get addicted. Legalizing drugs means more collateral. To save? Be a normal user like the jet set keeping it tidy. I don't agree in a actual government conspiracy on drugs. It is a cause and effect development that's nothing surprising. The addicts don't help our cause the freedom cause. It is a choice for most users as they are not that insane otherwise, but high they can rob you blind, I hate it and show no leniency. Utilitarism - live and let die

visi agree with higgs bosson, look at what WORKS. decriminalization and destigmatization lower rates of drug use. when people are allowed to be open about their addictions, they are much more likely to get help. if you truly support what is good for society, then decriminalization would be the best course of action

perhaps the addicts dont help you currently, but once you stop beating them down, theyll probably be more willing. even if they dont, a persons value isnt based on what they can contribute to society. then what about disabled people? what about the elderly? are they supposed to just fuck off and die? not everything is about what a person can do for you. humans have inherent dignity

and while i agree that in most cases no one forced addicts to start taking drugs, addiction is a genuine mental disorder. active addiction is not a choice, it is an illness. you wouldnt tell a person with cancer that they did it to themselves, would you? even if say, they exposed themselves to risk factors. its a terrible thing to deal with and should be treated with compassion

if you want to FIX the problem, then show users kindness. treat them like people and offer help, but dont force their hand. they will come to the other side when they are ready. there will always be addicts among us but that would drastically lower their numbers

 

[vis]

i agree with higgs bosson, look at what WORKS. decriminalization and destigmatization lower rates of drug use. when people are allowed to be open about their addictions, they are much more likely to get help. if you truly support what is good for society, then decriminalization would be the best course of action

perhaps the addicts dont help you currently, but once you stop beating them down, theyll probably be more willing. even if they dont, a persons value isnt based on what they can contribute to society. then what about disabled people? what about the elderly? are they supposed to just fuck off and die? not everything is about what a person can do for you. humans have inherent dignity

and while i agree that in most cases no one forced addicts to start taking drugs, addiction is a genuine mental disorder. active addiction is not a choice, it is an illness. you wouldnt tell a person with cancer that they did it to themselves, would you? even if say, they exposed themselves to risk factors. its a terrible thing to deal with and should be treated with compassion

if you want to FIX the problem, then show users kindness. treat them like people and offer help, but dont force their hand. they will come to the other side when they are ready. there will always be addicts among us but that would drastically lower their numbers

fidelis"a person's value is not based on what they can contribute to society". If there is a fixed value, that's the chart to follow. Then what to do about this low/negative value? Private charity is a given. State charity(taxed) to a minimum. You work in a street soup kitchen and I keep working on getting the best joy chems to a better narcotics market. I been misused enough by (unhelpful) lowlifes "needing help" while they love to freak out and disturbing the human contracted calm safe free enlightened society (like this BB gate). Libertarianism is the umbrella word. Follow the money to what works - natural law, not cater to the parasite lowlifes. I look high up to be a spacefaring civilization. The carbon based human is a means to a cyborg

 

[zfhxI]

Why should others pay for the consequences of your addiction? You pay drugs and we pay your rehab after your fun backfires. Drugtaking is a choice. Normal people don't do narcs (only secret maybe) but if they do they are normally careful not to poison themselves and get addicted. Legalizing drugs means more collateral. To save? Be a normal user like the jet set keeping it tidy. I don't agree in a actual government conspiracy on drugs. It is a cause and effect development that's nothing surprising. The addicts don't help our cause the freedom cause. It is a choice for most users as they are not that insane otherwise, but high they can rob you blind, I hate it and show no leniency. Utilitarism - live and let die

visI think your argument sort of ignores that a lot of people do narcotics, legally. The opioid crisis is as large as it is in large part because of over-prescription of opioids. You aren't going to tell your doctor "no, I will not use the medicine you prescribed", are you? And then they end up addicted, and when their supply of legal drugs runs out, they turn to illegal drugs.

This all happened to a family member. They were over-prescribed oxy after a (relatively minor) car accident, ended up hooked, and now they're dead. Another anecdotal story, a number of family members have received fentanyl from their doctors, because they needed it for breakthrough pain.

Other people (rich pharma companies in particular) should pay for the consequences of peoples addictions, because they caused a lot of them. I'm not a big fan of just letting them walk around with large amounts of money they got from knowingly hurting people.

 

[vis]

I think your argument sort of ignores that a lot of people do narcotics, legally. The opioid crisis is as large as it is in large part because of over-prescription of opioids. You aren't going to tell your doctor "no, I will not use the medicine you prescribed", are you? And then they end up addicted, and when their supply of legal drugs runs out, they turn to illegal drugs.

This all happened to a family member. They were over-prescribed oxy after a (relatively minor) car accident, ended up hooked, and now they're dead. Another anecdotal story, a number of family members have received fentanyl from their doctors, because they needed it for breakthrough pain.

Other people (rich pharma companies in particular) should pay for the consequences of peoples addictions, because they caused a lot of them. I'm not a big fan of just letting them walk around with large amounts of money they got from knowingly hurting people.

zfhxII don't like downers, to down and not up, so I would sell the opiods I don't need. I can't get hooked as I stop if its getting too much load. I ain't had a legitime opioid need that could get me addicted. Addiction is like putting me under slavery, I don't do that. Overprescription in USA is a special thing and those responsible should pay up, but I is almost only weak lowachieving poeple that stay hooked on drugs, they cost alot to try helping with bad results. Oxy is a weak opioid medicine, mostly tablets, and something much less serious than heroin. But legalize all drugs and let nature take its course.

 

[fidelis]

I don't like downers, to down and not up, so I would sell the opiods I don't need. I can't get hooked as I stop if its getting too much load. I ain't had a legitime opioid need that could get me addicted. Addiction is like putting me under slavery, I don't do that. Overprescription in USA is a special thing and those responsible should pay up, but I is almost only weak lowachieving poeple that stay hooked on drugs, they cost alot to try helping with bad results. Oxy is a weak opioid medicine, mostly tablets, and something much less serious than heroin. But legalize all drugs and let nature take its course.

visu have no fucking empathy, which is one of the basic marks of humanity. ik im using an ad hominem attack rn and idc. if u cant argue with logic then i wont either.

btw i also dislike downers but addiction is a disease and i would never talk bad about someone with an opioid addiction. also arent u a user? wtf happened to solidarity. not everything is about what u can gain from others. thats called selfishness and entitlement, even if its on a nationwide scale in ur dream world. if anything benefitted others but not you, i dont think you would still support it. not to sound like im better than you cause im not, but if i could push a button and have many peoples lives improved under the condition that mine continues to suck, i would. drug decriminalization laws may be inconvenient for u because users will be more open/drug use will be less stigmatized (not glorified though), and maybe ur clean mainly majority neighborhoods might have... *gasp* an addict! even 2! scandalous! but in all seriousness, decriminalization has saved so many people. people are less afraid to get help and less likely to have a fatal od because of safe consumption sites. also, it decreased the spread of blood borne diseases due to more easily accessible, clean paraphernalia such as needles. think about that. real peoples lives are being improved (and even saved) by a simple law change. what do you really have to lose? these people have so much at stake here and u only care about money and ur own happiness. thats fucked beyond words. do u ever think about anyone but urself?

its good that u arent addicted, im a relatively high functioning user (most of the time), but that doesnt mean im much better than the average gas station tweaker. we are all drug abusers at different stages/with different drugs of choice. we have the same mental disorder. get off ur high horse and lose the superiority complex

youre right, addiction is like slavery: both are involuntary. some people can argue that they chose to get there, which CAN be true in both cases, such as slaves who were just indentured servants cuz of debt or as punishment for a crime, and its not like anyone forces addicts to start taking drugs. i will happily admit to that. however, once u start, u cant really stop. it plays on ur brains natural reward system. it uses ur body against itself, somewhat like an autoimmune disorder, if that makes sense

using the slave example, once u sign that contract, ur fucked for the next [however long ur supposed to work for]. its still not really their fault, it was forced on them. they dont want it. same thing in the case of drug abusers, once u find a drug u like, u cant stop taking that shit. by then its not ur fault, its ur brains bc ur addicted. not very many people genuinely want to be addicts, theyre just stuck like that bc of a dumb decision and too scared to get help because of stigma, financial reasons, legal reasons, or just because they "enjoy" using too much (no one likes being an addict, they just like escapism. if we were all in a good environment and mental state no one would want to do drugs. theres an interesting study on that called rat park, which i will link here)

also like @zfhxI said, its not even peoples choices in the first place sometimes, like with prescription meds. thats entirely the fault of big pharma, and while im glad u recognize that, u cant blame the people for being addicted. they are not weak, their brains are just different. they could be predisposed to addiction or maybe have issues with impulse control, or just straight up the addiction changed them drastically, because thats possible too, especially with hard drugs like meth. i read an article once that said it literally changes the pathways in ur brain to be more willing to take risks/be more impulsive

think about this: would u blame a cancer patient? even if they may have knowingly exposed themselves to carcinogens, maybe at their job for example? no one in their right mind would say "yeah, its totally your fault you got cancer, idiot. u reap what u sow." why do we treat addicts like that? even if they "did it to themselves", they need help and are trying to seek treatment (although even the ones in active addiction deserve dignity because theyre people just like us, and theyll most likely come around someday. i dont know many addicts who plan on staying that way forever. also like i said before, decriminalization raises the chances of addicts getting help and fixing their situations!) sometimes evil doesnt have a perpetrator, it just happens. its not the peoples fault. i guess its kind of their fault, just a little if they chose to enter the drug life, but if they want out then they should be given support and empowerment, not be fucking beat down for being an "addict" or an "abuser" or just being a low functioning user because i know people who give strong preferential treatment to high functioning users like myself. its nice because im a bit more respected than some of my peers, but it says a lot about how people view each other: transactionally.

seriously, u can tell so much about a person by how they treat the "worthless," such as addicts, the homeless, the mentally ill, etc. just people who cant give much of anything back. i wish we lived in a world where everyone could show kindness to "useless" people, because they are our brothers and sisters in humanity, and you shouldnt constantly try to exploit ur family for personal gain. they deserve love even if they cant give anything but love back. i believe karma graciously repays the ones who manage to be kind to these people bc not a lot of people are. but i digress, no users deserve preferential treatment, high or low functioning. everyone has inherent value and ur not only cruel but retarded if u say otherwise

i guess, yeah, society places more value on some people but that doesnt really mean anything. it dictates how people will treat you/view you, not your ACTUAL WORTH. we are all equals, we are all members of the human race. u will be a lot happier when u finally accept that instead of being mad at addicts for things that are, for the most part, out of their control. if u dont like addicts fucking do something about it! rally for decriminalization and safe use sites so theyre shooting up in a clean building instead of on the sidewalk when ur trying to walk to mcdonalds or whatever u do in ur free time

even cavemen were able to recognize their fellow humans as equals. wtf r u thinking? be for real. maybe im just an indignant kid who doesnt know shit but come on. caring about others and being open minded is free and you will learn a lot from it. look outside yourself, fucking please. it wouldnt hurt to at least try.

 

[zfhxI]

A lot of it has to do with politics. The scheduling system was put in place in 1970, when the Vietnam war and the hippies were a big thing, so by putting drugs commonly associated with them (LSD and marijuana) in schedule 1, they had an easier time targeting them. It's sort of like how crack cocaine was targeted over powder cocaine, because the people using crack were generally poor and black, while the people using power cocaine were usually wealthy and white.

Drug scheduling is also closely tied with lobbying. If a pharma company can make a lot of money selling it, and it doesn't have a bad rap already, they'll try to keep it on a lower tier schedule (with a fair amount of success). That's why Oxy is schedule II while Heroin is schedule I.

 

[vis]

A lot of it has to do with politics. The scheduling system was put in place in 1970, when the Vietnam war and the hippies were a big thing, so by putting drugs commonly associated with them (LSD and marijuana) in schedule 1, they had an easier time targeting them. It's sort of like how crack cocaine was targeted over powder cocaine, because the people using crack were generally poor and black, while the people using power cocaine were usually wealthy and white.

Drug scheduling is also closely tied with lobbying. If a pharma company can make a lot of money selling it, and it doesn't have a bad rap already, they'll try to keep it on a lower tier schedule (with a fair amount of success). That's why Oxy is schedule II while Heroin is schedule I.

zfhxII agree with the separation of cocaine and crack you write, but no race-sentiment. What drug damage society most, are crackheads more of a problem (yes). If poeple do drugs at home privately it is not to hunt by police. But it should be legal market. Follow the Money

 

[zfhxI]

I agree with the separation of cocaine and crack you write, but no race-sentiment. What drug damage society most, are crackheads more of a problem (yes). If poeple do drugs at home privately it is not to hunt by police. But it should be legal market. Follow the Money

visI'm not mentioning race because it's just something I believe, it's something people in the Nixon admin (the administration under which the scheduling system was created) saying it. Race is a significant part of the story of drug legislation, and should not be ignored.

Nixon's domestic policy advisor literally said "... by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.".

The Reagan admin were the ones who started the whole Crack focus, and we don't have some clear cut quote from them, but
1) Crack cocaine was specifically targeted in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act
2) Crack was at the time primarily used by black people
3) Methamphetamine, despite being officially recognized by the White House as a significant problem for lower class white Americans, was not given the same treatment as Crack by Reagan.

 

[fidelis]

I agree with the separation of cocaine and crack you write, but no race-sentiment. What drug damage society most, are crackheads more of a problem (yes). If poeple do drugs at home privately it is not to hunt by police. But it should be legal market. Follow the Money

vistbh stereotypes exist for a reason. i do NOT support them but certain drugs arent just associated with certain demographics for no reason. btw its definitely true that crack is associated with poor poc (especially african americans) while coke is associated with wealthy white males, which explains the sentencing differences. the majority white people in power just wanted to keep their power and have a fallback plan, because lets face it, most rich white men in power are probably cokeheads. cocaine is a symbol of the american dream, to an extent. depends on who you ask ig. btw i heard that the coke demographic shifted to african american females, but honestly i think the article i read that from is bullshit. i dont know any black women who do coke but i know a lot of white people (both male and female tbh, mainly female for some reason) who do. if u interact with different drug users, u will notice some trends

like for example, meth is associated with lower class white people. ive seen it both in stereotypes (in jokes, movies, etc) and in person. im literally the only person of color i know who does ice. i have white friends who do it, but no other minorites (irl at least). maybe its cuz im half white but im definitely not white-passing so idk. im yapping sorry. either way, my point stands, some drugs are stereotyped for a reason, and racist laws are made using those stereotypes

i truly wish people were less hateful :c

crack and coke are literally the same drug but its mainly a socioeconomic divide between the 2 users. i think part of it is race but most of it is class since meth is just as stigmatized but mainly used by whites. poor whites, though. its important to acknowledge that. i think the ultimate division is between the upper and lower classes. once we fix tensions between the rich and the poor, the world will get so much better. maybe its not exactly tension, but rather rich people not caring about the struggles of their less fortunate counterparts. its like they dont even see them as people. that shit makes me so mad tbh

slightly offtopic but i hate the rich who look down on poor people with indifference and ignorance. they dont know what people under the poverty line have to go thru every day. maybe im just passionate about this bc i came from a low income/broken home but people have been such dicks to me about it for as long as i can remember, even in elementary. i got teased at school for most of my life cause of that (among other reasons, such as me acting kind of off due to mental conditions). really? just because im not a spoiled fucking brat? just because im not neurotypical lol? stop judging people based on "money-earning" traits. it does nothing, and most people with potential dont use it anyway. and besides, wouldnt it be better for the economy to try to rehabilitate the "useless" people and get them in the workforce or at least contributing in some way? like volunteering or something. everyone who worships rich people is a straight up masochist cause i promse they dont care about us lol. idk why you put so much emphasis on how shitty crackheads r. i can assure u the average tweaker is more real than the average ceo

people like u who act like the rich r going to save the world are holding onto a blind, misguided hope. its up to us, because were the only people who care. i guess because as poorer people we (or at least i, theres no way a poor person could be this adamant about upholding the rich) have to stick together. theres a reason a lot of my friends are also under the poverty line. we have strength in numbers, and we can do so much if we just put our minds to it. poor people r just as capable as rich people and im so fucking sick of the discrimination. theyre not stupid or lazy, the poverty cycle puts them at a disadvantage. look up a drowning machine. the poverty cycle is simply a financial version of that. being poor makes it harder to make money, so u stay broke. we need to fix the system, and the stigma around poorer people cuz im so sick of mfs acting like im a bad person or dirty or necessarily a drug user (i know many poor people who are moral champions and dont touch drugs or anything like that) just because of my economic status. u cant escape economic profiling, even from the government, as shown in @zfhxI s reply. truly disgusting. how could u support such an inhumane and ineffective system? if it at least worked i could understand your logic. what is the point in being unnecessarily harsh on the poor (and the homeless, and the mentally ill, and ppl with substance abuse disorder, since they often overlap)? u dont get much out of it and ur just making someones already hard life more miserable. how do u not question the implications of ur worldview? seriously, how do u sleep at night lol