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.

 

[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.