Deep emotional pain is simultaneously (a) completely understandable and needs compassion, and (b) not the best tool base decisions on.

I think the real question is how can we shape the conversation to, well, be a conversation.

P.S. (At least to my experience with people from some Asian countries) the newer generation does not have that emotional connection, but they do repeat those same old (false) arguments, almost religiously.

The other thing is that unfamiliarity breeds resentment. It is, and was, a lot easier to get weed in the US than it is in a lot of Asian countries, and so most people don’t have a nice person they know who smokes weed. Whereas even if you don’t smoke in the US, it really isn’t that hard to find someone who smokes weed, and a fair amount, if not most, are just average people.

At some point in the future everyone will come to their senses and were going to have days of remembrance for people that we harmed in the drug war, I hope.

Kids here smoke as soon as they start high school, that's around 12-13 years. After a couple years they gather before school starts to smoke, then go to class, then smoke again.

Indeed. No matter how convinced I am that I'm right in a discussion with friends/family, if I used a phrase like "right/wrong side of history," I would immediately lose their attention if not their friendship. It's vital to remember why people still disagree with whatever you believe in, rather than just steamroll and ignore them.

There are already plenty threads here and on the net discussing abortion - you are just stating your own beliefs without any justification, or attempt to address the crux of the topic.

Regardless, in a discussion, I don't the onus is on me expound on the numerous facets of the position right from the get-go. Abortion is a topic with many facets. You can't cover it all at once. I mean, yeah, you have to establish a position to start, but not all that much.

I think rather than just saying 'without any justification' you could have more charitably asked a number of clarifying questions or could have taken an opposing stance to argue from. There was enough in my statement to squabble over.

In general, the onus isn't on you to "expound the numerous facets" - but I think it is on you to expand on your own claims to the point they can be understood; for example - what is a "human right", are you talking about legal rights, or your own opinion; What is a "pregnancy" - do you include all trimesters, allowing abortion up until birth? etc etc etc

Note, I don't really want to get into the discussion, I'm just pointing out no-one could understand you position without follow-up questions.

> There was enough in my statement to squabble over.

True, but the same can be said of any unsubstantial post - you want me to charitably ask for substance, but "unjustified" statements are a dime-a-dozen, and can easily flood a thread - It's just as easy from my perspective to down-vote and move on.

Providing a fuller context in the first place, to me, proves greater good faith wrt wanting a good discussion, and a better guarantee the continuing the conversation will be productive.

In France there was a law that punished successful suicides, which is the extreme of such ridicule (disclaimer: I am French)

No one really (really, outside of comical personalities) ultimately cares about "tight control [over others'] consciousness". People who care about societal order care about 'understood' phenomena and pervasive cultural mechanisms to sublimate its effects. Even assimilated drugs (again alcohol) still cause societal ills, even with literally thousands of years of usage experience.

A drug that makes you bliss out is perfectly fine for you, but a society of blissed out slackers could be looking for future trouble. That is really the legitimate basis for minimally thinking about the wide spread use of drug X (that affects behavior). That should not be controversial. Our modern additional factor is that there are for profit entities that also produce "medicinal" synthetic formulations that offer individuals some form of chemical psychological relief and pleasure, and thus present the possibility of distortion of facts around other, natural, drugs.

Whether the effect of a drug is primary or incidental is irrelevant. That the 'effect' occurs is the only thing that matters. I remember this previously famous electronic music artist who lived in the basement of the building where I lived as a student in W [109]th in Manhattan where he could score Heroin on the sidewalk. He was a Heroin adddict. He was intelligent and articulate. The Columbia English major girls kept him company. We had interesting conversations regarding addiction. His two main points were, that Heroin finally gave him relief from the un-ending pain/sensory-input of the body. He had an elaborate theory regarding that benefit. His second point was regarding the harm of Heroin. His take was that all negative effects of heroin were secondary and related to maintaining the usage, not the drug itself. I.e. if you were rich it was not a problem drug. You raided mother's purse only if you were poor so let's not blame Heroin. :)

Many governments are participating in different kinds of censorship as well as organized disinformation campaigns. You may agree with certain policies ("drugs are bad" or "citizens are simply better off not knowing certain aspects of reality"), but the "control over consciousness" is a fact.

Many people obey some mass idiocy promoted by some organized entity precisely because of their intelligence, appreciation of the situation, and their take on the equation of benefitial social behavior. It's not heroic but it is not unintelligent. And this social calculus may actually be happening inside the heads of the majority of the population. We simply do not know.

However I'm all for trying to focus in on solutions to stop drunk/buzzed/drugged out driving (and other activities that take lives of families and children). Even if that includes 100% vehicle breathalyzers (as in mandatory even without prior drunk driving records).

Growing up in a mixed semi-rural area, it was kind of weird and maybe a little dangerous not to have a pocket knife. Are there places where carrying a pocket knife without using it is automatically illegal?

Yes, of course. Lots of them.

In Spain carrying with you any pocket knife with blade > 11 cm (or any automatic pocket knife <11 cm) is illegal unless you have a special permit for that.

You can have it at your home as a collection, but not in public spaces. Having one can be reasonable in some activities (ej police will not care normally if you scuba dive with a knife but will frown if you carry it in the front seat of your car when returning home)

Urban knife crime has resulted in certain areas having "stop and search" for knives, usually targeted on the suspicions or prejudices of the officers doing the search.

It was also weird and slightly dangerous growing up in North London and not being allowed to carry a knife. Less dangerous than prison though.

*should clarify the law states it's a certain length, so Stanley knifes are ok, pocket or flicks. Non.

Certainly, 81,000 dead in the US during 2020 is a lot of misinformation and ignorance. Presumably these are mostly young lives each with family members having to live with the tragedy.

Not all who oppose legalization are from the 'unthinking masses'. Here's an argument from someone who's spent his working life as a psychiatrist working with prisoners and their drug habits. https://www.city-journal.org/html/don%E2%80%99t-legalize-dru...

"If the war against drugs is lost, then so are the wars against theft, speeding, incest, fraud, rape, murder, arson, and illegal parking."

The quote you pulled from the article from 1997 is also pretty pathetic.

If the author can't distinguish between a crime where there is a very clear perpetrator and victim (rape/incest/murder) and one where at essence we are talking about self harm (drugs/suicide) the premise leaves a lot to be desired.

Obviously the big, glaring, unmissable difference between drug use and the other crimes you've mentioned is that doing drugs is a personal choice that primary impacts the individual whereas every other item on your list is only a crime because it has a victim.

Not all are, but which of the two do you think really steer the general perception of drugs more?

I get dismayed when people think of drugs in terms of social freedom and opposing government. This is quite frankly a highly liberal view. And not one at all in line with the true definition of drugs.

Drugs are an intoxicant. They destroy minds. They destroy health. And they can make addicts lose control. Not to mention destroy communities. There are laws on the books specifically for this reason. It affects society. It does not just stop at the individual. There is a reason why neighborhoods around bars fall in value. While those around coffee shops rise in value.

Drug users WHO ARE IN CONTROL OF THEMSELVES see rules against drugs as oppressive. But the rules were never made for them! Using drugs is like balancing the tight rope, not something everyone can do. And advocates need to understand this.

Lastly comparing illegal intoxicants as similar to legal intoxicants is a poor justification. You try to stretch people’s benign feelings to one form of drugs onto another.

That's simply not true, or there would be laws on the books banning alcohol, too.

It's just arbitrary culture bias against certain drugs, weaponized against minorities.

http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1985-2/anti-alcohol-campaign/

I really like thevRussian humor part. They nicknamed Gorbachev mineral’nyi sekretar’, mineral-water-drinking secretary and the campaign was known as the dry law.

> Drug users WHO ARE IN CONTROL OF THEMSELVES see rules against drugs as oppressive. But the rules were never made for them! [..]

Frankly, most of the rules never really were about solving actual drug problems in the first place. Rather about controlling certain socioeconomic groups of people that happened to be associated with whatever substance.

At least that's the case for the US, however, most of the world has been influenced by their views and still hold them even when US is starting to change. Many parts of the world that lived peacefully (or even synergistically) with certain drugs now have one of the harshest rules regarding them, and that changed during the past ~50-70 years really.

> Using drugs is like balancing the tight rope, not something everyone can do. And advocates need to understand this.

I would say very few people educated on the matter claim drugs are not an issue at all and advocate their use to everyone. In fact, one of the main problems is - knowing the risks associated to drug use, and the fact that it's just gonna happen in the "real world" - how to minimize the harm? (i.e., education and treatment over punishment and rejection)

> Lastly comparing illegal intoxicants as similar to legal intoxicants is a poor justification. You try to stretch people’s benign feelings to one form of drugs onto another.

I'd say the main reason for making comparisons is to draw attention to the inconsistencies of people's judgements. When the statistics show how much more harmful alcohol (or pain pills) is to the mind, health, and society than almost any other substance, both relatively and in terms of prevalence of abuse, I just don't see how one can with a straight face claim it's right to send a kid to a cell for "smoking a joint", but have no desire to have any changes regarding the "normal" drugs.

Inconsistencies is what points you towards flaws in your thinking. Some may ignore it because it's easier to assume you know everything about everything. Some will use the opportunity to investigate.

> Drugs are an intoxicant. They destroy minds. They destroy health. And they can make addicts lose control. Not to mention destroy communities. There are laws on the books specifically for this reason. It affects society. It does not just stop at the individual. There is a reason why neighborhoods around bars fall in value. While those around coffee shops rise in value.

Don't want to be snarky, but these are just talking points. There are a lot of comparisons with other situations that could be drawn here, but as you've pointed out that's not necessarily the best tactic. However, if so, we should also have a "conversational rule" against throwing around three-word claims that are supposed to prove something but are clearly meaningless _without going into more detail_.

P.S. Nothing in life is black or white, it's all about balance and overall well-being.