Arresting people who are psychotic from meth and forcibly preventing them from accessing that and Fentanyl would pretty much completely solve the homeless problem where I live. Unfortunately, those drugs have now been decriminalized, and somehow the "systemic" problem of homelessness has shot through the roof.
The freedom to kill yourself in public is no kind of freedom at all. I also don't see the legalizers working to "solve homelessness", just to enable it, while expecting the government or someone else to "solve" it.
Whoa there... the right to kill yourself should be an inalienable right - regardless of your location.
Without the option to crash - you aren't a pilot.
If and when we find the secret to immortality - this right to end your own life how you see it will be eroded by corporate greed.
Tangential point, back to the main one.
There are 2 classes of drugs I would not legalize and you named one of them. the opioid and amphetamine are a chemical moth to the flame trap - And I support making that trap harder to find/get into...
Psychs on the other hand, RC's of course are dangerous due to their inherent novelty, Don't do the same things as Meth/fentanyl/crack, and generally are less dangerous/abusable. Basically anything that rewires the dopamine reward circuit should be highly suspect at best - and banned at worst.
Most psyches build a tolerance quickly in the brain - resulting in weeks/months between effective 'trips'. To abuse psyches is tough - and not desirable (after a trip most people want a rest for a long while from doing that again)
Yeah - freedom of brain chemistry should also be an unalienable right. If the government tells you what is allowed brain chemistry and what is not: that's government mind control...
If someone controls what you ingest, see and hear: they control (to some extent) what you think.
>> There are 2 classes of drugs I would not legalize
>> freedom of brain chemistry should also be an unalienable right
So, personally I completely agree with your first statement (now) about making the trap harder to get into. I also - as a matter of logic and principle - agree with your second statement.
The problem is that those two statements are completely contradictory. Doesn't the right to control your brain chemistry include the right to do meth? Even if it makes you psychotic? And even if your psychosis ends up violently harming others?
So I think it goes to whether we're willing to take some rights away to have a society that's sustainable and livable for a majority of people. And where to draw the line is something I think every thoughtful person needs to wrestle with. I certainly support the right to suicide, but not the right to do so in front of children, for example. If you take it from the principle of "everything is legal except that which harms others," at least there's a starting point for a logical position that doesn't contradict itself.
The freedom to kill yourself in public is no kind of freedom at all. I also don't see the legalizers working to "solve homelessness", just to enable it, while expecting the government or someone else to "solve" it.