Personally, I want FDA approval to mean it is as provably safe and effective as possible. They said they wanted more evidence before approval, and I think that’s okay. Good, even.
The way the US treats recreational drug use and self-medication is horrific, but it’s not really the domain of the FDA.
I would rather have not-yet-FDA-approved legal-for-personal-use mdma than what we have now or an unproven drug approved by the FDA.
Shouldn’t it need to be shown to be unsafe to remove people’s choice to use it though? Proving it safe would be great, but the claim to prevent usage should be that it’s harmful. It’s removing a choice. We shouldn’t have to prove everything is safe to be allowed to do it. We do plenty of things that are unsafe, but these drugs aren’t allowed for no good reason.
K, well, you also have the choice to eat literally any mushroom you find growing in the ground, doesn’t mean it’d be legal to sell them as shishkabs on the street. Wtf are you on about mate
It’s illegal to use these drugs, no matter how you get them. Should that be the case just because some old people don’t like people using them, not because they’re particularly harmful? Alcohol causes a ton of harm, but it’s legal to use. Why is it different?
Strawman. You aren’t legally allowed to make ecstacy at home even if you are capable, nor are you allowed to consume it if you have it. Also, ecstacy wasn’t illegal during the prohibition. That’s all irrelevant.
People should be allowed to do what they want as long as it doesn’t pose a serious risk to others. Racism is most of what caused the war on drugs, and it’s mostly futile, and often actively harmful. It prevents people from accessing things that may help them (or they may just enjoy), and creating black markets where none need exist. It also creates situations where people may buy stuff and it not be pure, which could be controlled for if legal.
Yes, you are a straw man. Alcohol worked because it’s different from ecstasy. Everyone could and did make it at home out of food. Can you make ecstasy at home out of regular food or does everyone do it regardless of law? No. The two are too different in circumstances and so can’t be placed in the same category.
Black markets exist because they’re profitable. The war on drugs was for money, racism was just the hook to get the investors on board.
Also, legality is dependent on the legalizers. Where corruption is rife and consequences nil, legality is worthless when it comes to quality control.
Lol. What does that mean? Your argument was a strawman argument. You constructed something new to argue against instead of my original argument.
Everyone could and did make it at home out of food. Can you make ecstasy at home out of regular food or does everyone do it regardless of law? No. The two are too different in circumstances and so can’t be placed in the same category.
I can grow my own mushrooms with psilocybin. It’s under the same controls as ecstacy. Do you stand by your logic and agree it should be legal to grow and consume? That isn’t the logic used to make it illegal though, which is what matters.
Black markets exist because they’re profitable.
Yes, and it’s profitable because there’s no legal alternative. There are very few black markets for alcohol, for example, because it’s not necessary and not profitable when a legal option is easily available with checks to ensure it’s safe and actually what it says it is. Legalize drugs and we can make them safer to use and mostly eliminate black markets, which create a lot of danger and criminal activity.
The war on drugs was for money, racism was just the hook to get the investors on board.
No, it was mostly for politics, and winning them through racism. It’s fairly well documented.
Also, legality is dependent on the legalizers. Where corruption is rife and consequences nil, legality is worthless when it comes to quality control.
If there is proof of quality, even without consequences from the government (which should probably also be in place), consumers wouldn’t purchase from places selling a bad product unless it’s significantly cheaper. The consequence would be fewer buyers and having to have lower prices. Legality also allows people to seek treatment without fear of being held accountable for using an illegal product. It let’s people openly discuss options and issues. It also creates an environment for legal competition, not just turf wars. Legalizing drugs has a huge number of benefits without going into things like the harm caused by policing.
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.
You asked what’s different about alcohol. I gave an answer. How is that a strawman? Also, the reason I called you a straw man is because you seem to be grasping at straws.
_
My logic is that alcohol is so easily made and of such variety that attempting to outlaw it was proven to be a pointless endeavor. Do psilocybin mushrooms share the same circumstances? If so, then attempting to ban them completely would likely end up in a similar situation as with alcohol.
_
Again, legalizing something doesn’t automatically make it safer. Without proper supervision, legality only provides free reign over production and distribution. Which can mean more product, faster sales, lower quality. Can it be safer? Yes. Will it? By looking at current examples of similar persuasion, it’s doubtful.
_
Documentation changes all the time, so I won’t stick to my point of view for long on any matters that prove otherwise.
Any argument they make is just what they think will have the most chance of getting others to agree with them. They didn’t give a fuck about the workers in either case just like BP didn’t really give a fuck about the retirees that depended on their survival.
Trump accusing billionaire supporter Miriam Adelson, the widow of the casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, of allowing the PAC she has funded with millions of dollars, Preserve America, to be run by “Republicans in Name Only,” also known as RINOs.
This sounds like another felony to add to the list. PACs are not allowed to coordinate with candidates or their campaigns, which is how they’re allowed to raise unlimited amounts of money. Trump directing how the PAC be run sure does sound like coordination to me.
PACs are not allowed to coordinate with candidates or their campaigns, which is how they’re allowed to raise unlimited amounts of money.
If anyone doesn’t get that stuff like this is always said with a nod and a wink… they don’t understand how truly broken our campaign finance system is in reality. The Citizens United case is blinding proof that this Supreme Court has been in the bag for conservatives and reactionaries for decades. Project 2025 is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the wealthy, empowered by Reagan era Neoliberalism, attempting a fascist takeover of the United States. It’s the Business Plot (or “Wall Street Putsch”) of 1933, but in super slow motion.
It’s a big pile of money that Trump/a Trump lackey doesn’t directly control, of course he wants to strong-arm someone in to putting his loyalists in charge. Lest we forget… the head of the RNC is his daughter-in-law.
There’s no previous cases of assault or harassment of cis people by trans people for using the bathroom. Their fears are not valid. It’s as valid as a student suing because they have a phobia of the color grey and can’t be forced to use a bathroom that has any grey in it.
The stupidest part to me is that cis women could also potentially assault other cis women in public restrooms but these bigots haven’t even considered that possibility.
Also, if you are a cis man and are just desperate to sexually assault a woman in a public restroom, I would think that a janitor’s uniform and a mop would be enough.
Or even the concept that trans men exist. They are demanding to share restrooms with men, on the grounds that otherwise they may have to share restrooms with people they think are men.
Absolutely. And when I see one of these white knights (and it’s almost always a man) talk about how women have to be protected from men in public bathrooms and locker rooms and therefore people should only be forced to use the room corresponding to their biological sex, I show a picture of a man like this and ask them if they think the women they are desperate to protect would feel comfortable changing around him, despite his two X chromosomes.
the government aims to ensure that financial advisers “give advice that’s prudent, that’s loyal, that doesn’t invite overcharges, and doesn’t involve lying to people,” said Timothy D. Hauser, the deputy assistant secretary for program operations of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, part of the Labor Department.
FACC — argued that the rules would be “potentially devastating for the insurance industry
As one of nature’s pedestrians, I’ll never trust a creature that looks at me with it’s teeth. Even I could tell you those bastards are plotting something all of the time
New York Times - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for New York Times:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
LA Times - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for LA Times:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
Internet Archive - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Internet Archive:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.