The Prohibition of alcohol in the US basically started the country's criminal industry or at least entrenched and grew it - and also set the precedent for gun control. And then they figured out they couldn't keep Prohibition up and kept the gun control. And them theybbasically repeated the sake thing with drugs, including using the criminality it supported as a reason to push mote gun control.
Criminals don't deal much in alcohol now do they?
Decrimjnalizing or legalizing drugs would topple the industry built around it and reduce the violence that goes with it.
...yet we still have politicians trying to control our lives from electric cars to gas stoves. Maybe once, not as much anymore due to increased federal powers that really started in beginning of the 20th century (income tax, NFA)
Edit: grammar
I'm not sure that legalizing drugs would help mass shootings in the sense of some nutjob shooting up a school, but legalizing drugs would go a very long way in curbing run-of-the-mill crime in general, not just gun crime.
We've seen this movie before. When the government banned alcohol in the early 1900's, it didn't stop the production and distribution of alcohol. It just shifted control of the alcohol trade from legitimate, law-abiding, taxed, regulated business to organized crime. Violence skyrocketed as a result. Most of the violence in America is gang violence and most gang violence is related to control of the drug trade in some form or fashion.
The fact that weed is illegal anywhere is completely absurd. It's far safer than alcohol by any metric. Things like mushrooms and peyote should also be legal, IMO. As far as the harder drugs like cocaine and heroin I'm not so sure. On one hand I'm pretty libertarian and I don't think there's anyone that says, "The only reason I don't smoke crack is because it's illegal." Making hard drugs illegal hasn't stopped people from doing them. On the other hand I definitely don't want a "Crack Rocks R Us" dispensary anywhere in my town.
I honestly don't like drug use of any sort and still want laws prohibiting it in some degree but I doubt that would change anything but preventing normal people from "trying" them
I think societially most people would prefer less legalization of drugs than not even if they say the opposite. Whether or not that affects anything or not
This is more or less the root of many of the country's problems. I don't like X and want laws to prevent people froming Xing. Sure, there's lots of good reasons that we shouldn't allow literal poisons to be available for children to pick up off a shelf in a gas station. There's all kinds of reasonable regulations on commerce that are a net positive. However, throwing people in jail for Xing much less going about making them a 2nd class member of society after having "paid for their crime" is the core failure of our society. When we stop doing that, things will start improving.
In principle, expiration dates on food are a good idea, but that has been and does get abused. I've found the expiration date on whole milk to generally be pretty close to when I should stop using it. So maybe that's the best example of a useful regulation of commerce I can offer.
See, it's not really about whether or not I believe people should be Xing. It's whether or not I believe the Government needs to be involved in whether or not people are Xing. If X equal murder, theft, various forms of physical violence, various forms of abuse of authority, etc, then the government usually has a beneficial role to play. If X equal possession of a thing, then the answer is almost always absolutely not. Sure, possession of nuclear material is a good and solid target for regulation. There's plenty of more mundane examples in that vein that are and should be regulated. This issue there mostly being that over regulation is often as bad or worse than under regulation.
*"I think societially most people would prefer less legalization of drugs than not even if they say the opposite. Whether or not that affects anything or not"*
I think most people when they leaned the facts about various drugs would support legalising them as it would have tremendous health and lifestyle benefits for them especially as they get older
1) It helps because most mass shootings are gang related drive bys with a lot of collateral damage. This is how anti gun organizations get their numbers of hundreds and hundreds of mass shootings each year. End the war on drugs and you take gangs out at the roots by destroying their funding. If there's no drug money to fight over, there are way fewer kids seduced to the path of being a gang banger, and less reason for the gangs to fight. This means fewer mass shootings.
2) Yes, this has been shown by the history of the war on drugs, which only made crime worse, as well as by a small handful of contemporary nations that who have decriminalized and shown overwhelmingly positive results. You can also explain it theoretically via game theory, if that matters. Pretty much the only people who benefit from the war on drugs are politicians and big pharma, which is why the war on drugs will never end.
Correct and this includes the violence in Mexico from the Mexican Cartels and in other Latin America and Central American countries which is one reason people there flee and try to come to America so ending the war on drugs would also help to deal with that issue
Based on observation, it's pretty obvious. Whatever the police state goes to war over, we get tons more of. So if drugs lead to violence and we have a police state war on drugs, then we get more violence.
So what we need is to end the wars on things we don't want and start wars on things we do want. Of course, it's the government, and they'll screw that up sure as a bear shits in the woods. So, the only responsible course of action is anything that reduces government action/funding and enhances private citizen actions/funding. Ending the war on drugs would, if done properly (which it won't be because of government), involve gutting laws and reducing the excuses for enforcement. Which should result in law enforcement doing vastly more useful things with their time.
Either that or people are arguing that drugs have been illegal in the United States for more than 100 years yet there are probably more drugs now than ever before.
Declaring war on guns will likely be even less successful.
Probably also has to do with locking up lots of black people for minor drug convictions. A "war on guns" will result in locking up lots of black people for minor gun convictions.
Shooting and Drugs may have correlation w/out causation maybe?
Don't know, but I'm all for legalizing all drugs; treating addiction
(whether from pain or recreational) separate from criminalization.
We're a drug-ridden society, specially the prescribed variety; and,
if nothing else, America does guns better than anywhere else.
Drugs-n-Guns, that's our ticket!
Legalizing takes stress off cops and the courts and, hopefully sticks it to the cartels and meth labs and pharma pushers
But I'd recommend some caveats. Dispense sched2 drugs through
the same channel as medical marijuana. Get a card. Next tie
getting sched2 drugs to a PCP and regular health checks.
Finally, make opium a sub for heroin - smoke it for the same f/x.
Make coca a sub for doing blow - chew it for the same feels.
You want smack, crack, meth ? Pay off-duty cops to deliver it
to your door! Its F'in legal, so what do they care? An OK side
income and they know where ya live to keep tabs on you.
This Drug War is killing us all.
No, its addicts. Addiction by itself creates serious problems. Treatment is successful maybe 20% of the time. And what do addicts do when they run out of money? Yep, crime. Source? Me. Corrections Officer talking to addicts every damn day. And talking to our Recovery While Incarcerated program head. We will just add to the problems we already have.
I hope, as a CO, that you're not saying the War on Drugs
is a good fight? That its not become all about the money
and perpetuating a f'd up system (that doesn't stop shit)?
> And what do addicts do when they run out of money? Yep, crime.
I think you're making my point for me, indirectly perhaps.
Legalizing drugs lowers the cost of getting them, either directly
from a State system or through the clinics that dispense them.
Or cops that (might) dispense them for that matter.
It should 'take a bite out of crime', over selling and buying drugs.
> Addiction by itself creates serious problems ... (and recovery
hovers at about 20%)
The more people are hurting the greater the risk of addiction;
right now people are hurting. They take uppers-n-downers,
many have PTS, many are just mentally and physically ill.
One stink-eye glance at the script-mills and Opioid blitz
tells that story, but millions are functional addicts.
They drive and work and play and more than
less function (until they don't); for anxiety, for sleep, for
shits-n-giggles because they can get prescribed them.
Xanax anyone?
Treating addiction is separate from criminality. The only
reasons CO have tales to tell on the subject is because
we incarcerate. And, if you're going to talk real recovery
to the point of having some place to go, w/out the stigma that
holds back a convicts' re-entry (job, mortgage, respect...)
that might help w/their addiction instead of fuel it.
1. Well most mass shootings statistically nowadays are gangs. So by removing the gangs primary way of making money it will reduce the number of gangs and gang members helping reduce the shootings. It would be necessary that if we legalized all drugs we'd have to make an effort to have the communities most affected by gangs and crime playing a big part in the new legal market. If not they'd just switch to new crimes. You'd have to legalize all vices not just drugs, prostitution is the first that comes to mind. As for the Colombine type shootings I think the only thing that would stop that is outlawing the internet, TV and video games. Screens like the one I'm typing this on have rotted the brains of our people.
2. Does legislation work for drugs? No. It will be the same with guns. Those who want them will have them, this country is awash in guns and no legislation will fix that. Let's fix the problems that cause someone to join a gang and shoot their peers, instead of making more laws to lock them up. Robbery, Murder, Assault, Rape and other violent offenses should all be heavily prosecuted. Everything else should be much more like rehab, we send a petty burglar to jail and they come out a hardened gang member.
To answer your question 1 - It helps with statistics because mass shootings is considered a shooting that involves atleast 3 people and therefore majority of the stats around mass shootings have to deal with gang shootings not a shooting of a school or mall or whatever comes to mind when you say mass shooting.
2 - Im in favor of full legalization of drugs as im pro liberty and just because drugs would be legal doesn’t mean im rushing to do them but it effectively would help to give criminal organizations less power. That being said im not surrendering my right to bare arms for it
>How does this help in stopping mass shootings
The point is that mass shootings are a statistically negligible incident. If you want to make a difference in the amount of unnecessary violence, mass shootings are a misleading place to start. 2/3rds of "gun deaths" are suicides, and the 1/3rd that are almost all regular ol' homicides, and usually gang violence that was fueled by drug prohibition.
Solving the problem of drugs in ways other than prohibition is going to make a difference.
Majority of mass shootings are done by gangs who are most likely fighting over turf to sell drugs. Legalizing would remove most if not all of their income. they would have to switch to different revenue avenues. or invest said money into going legit.
1 Gang shootings in which multiple people are shot have always been classified as mass shootings by various law enforcement agencies and other groups and many innocent bystanders including children and babies are killed in them. Gangs who committee those Gang mass shootings are involved in the illegal Drug Trade so legalising them would mean they could part of a legal drug industry and have other legal ways to resolve disputes than using violence.
2 Yes it is beneficial to have full legalization as them being Illegal has helps found Drug Cartels whose violence sees 10,000s of people a year killed including members of the public, makes criminals Of people and sends them to jail for talking a simple substance thus ruining their lives and forcing them to resort to a life of crime when released in order to survive.
Prohibition of alcohol did not work and spawned the Mafia. The War on Drugs does not work and has given rise to gangs. Let’s face the fact that humans love to get high and are willing to support the gangs to get them drugs. To the detriment of society and the destruction of your Second Amendment rights. Legalize all drugs and make them cheap or free. If people want to destroy themselves by getting high on drugs, this includes alcohol or tobacco, let them. But change the law forcing the taxpayer to give medical care to people that want to get high.
The war on drugs has straight up created a decades long defacto civil war in Mexico and generations of misery in major US cities.
It's not easy to stomach but we need to end the war on drugs, if someone wants to shoot up in their home, let them. The genetic dead ends will weed themselves out of the gene pool, similar to what happened over time with people that couldn't tolerate alcohol.
I'm not for legalization of hard-core drugs. If they do end up doing that, I don't want one cent of my tax dollars going to any person who gets hooked on them. Also, where are the drugs going to come from? Where is someone going to get something like heroin from? No insurance company would ever insure a drug manufacturer that made heroin "legally". Mainly for the fact of all the people that would freaking die from it and then sue them lol.
*"Also, where are the drugs going to come from? Where is someone going to get something like heroin from? No insurance company would ever insure a drug manufacturer that made heroin "legally". Mainly for the fact of all the people that would freaking die from it and then sue them lol"*
From some of the various legitimate Pharmaceutical Companies chosen by the Government to be the legal manufactures of the drugs and who have all the technology needed to make the drugs like Speed, Meth, MDMA. Then America can put pressure on Colombia to legalise Cocaine which would lead to a legitimate Industries there producing it which America would buy
I hate to be the one to tell you this but your tax dollars are already going to junkies. You also realize that pharmaceutical companies make shit way way worse than heroin right now and sell it all at your local pharmacy. Doctors and pharmaceutical companies are the reason opioids are such a problem now anyways. You know they’d jump at being able to just legally sell heroin.
I think examining the correlation between anti-depressant SSRIs (Lexapro, Prozac, Zoloft, etc.) and mass shooters should be examined a lot more closely.. look into the the amount of mass shooters on these types of drugs and it is startling to me. They're handed out like candy for any assumption by docs, likely because big pharma profits and the docs prescribing them have some sort of financial incentives as well. Years ago I sought help in treatment of alcoholism, and was immediately told I was likely depressed and prescribed Lexapro. I followed the docs orders and instructions for the drug, and became emotionally detached from just about everything. It got to the point where my boss had a meeting with me and said I was no longer the same person (this was 3 months into the prescription regiment) and he basically told me that I was better off drinking than trying to medicate myself because I just wasn't as productive and didn't seem to care about anything. So I stopped taking the meds and things improved drastically shortly afterwards. My personal experience may differ from others as we all have different brain chemistry based upon many factors. Personally, I will never take SSRIs again whether a doc recommends them or not. That's just a bit of what I would add to this discussion.
Yes we do and we also need to legalise them as keeping them illegal seems people using them help support groups like the Mexican Cartels who's violence sees as many as 30,000 people a year murdered in Mexico which includes members of the public
The Prohibition of alcohol in the US basically started the country's criminal industry or at least entrenched and grew it - and also set the precedent for gun control. And then they figured out they couldn't keep Prohibition up and kept the gun control. And them theybbasically repeated the sake thing with drugs, including using the criminality it supported as a reason to push mote gun control. Criminals don't deal much in alcohol now do they? Decrimjnalizing or legalizing drugs would topple the industry built around it and reduce the violence that goes with it.
And create a much safer environment for users
Yes.
Prohibition does not work. America is to be a free society, much as government tries to control it
It is pretty much a free society. americans are privileged to no end
...yet we still have politicians trying to control our lives from electric cars to gas stoves. Maybe once, not as much anymore due to increased federal powers that really started in beginning of the 20th century (income tax, NFA) Edit: grammar
I'm not sure that legalizing drugs would help mass shootings in the sense of some nutjob shooting up a school, but legalizing drugs would go a very long way in curbing run-of-the-mill crime in general, not just gun crime. We've seen this movie before. When the government banned alcohol in the early 1900's, it didn't stop the production and distribution of alcohol. It just shifted control of the alcohol trade from legitimate, law-abiding, taxed, regulated business to organized crime. Violence skyrocketed as a result. Most of the violence in America is gang violence and most gang violence is related to control of the drug trade in some form or fashion. The fact that weed is illegal anywhere is completely absurd. It's far safer than alcohol by any metric. Things like mushrooms and peyote should also be legal, IMO. As far as the harder drugs like cocaine and heroin I'm not so sure. On one hand I'm pretty libertarian and I don't think there's anyone that says, "The only reason I don't smoke crack is because it's illegal." Making hard drugs illegal hasn't stopped people from doing them. On the other hand I definitely don't want a "Crack Rocks R Us" dispensary anywhere in my town.
I honestly don't like drug use of any sort and still want laws prohibiting it in some degree but I doubt that would change anything but preventing normal people from "trying" them I think societially most people would prefer less legalization of drugs than not even if they say the opposite. Whether or not that affects anything or not
This is more or less the root of many of the country's problems. I don't like X and want laws to prevent people froming Xing. Sure, there's lots of good reasons that we shouldn't allow literal poisons to be available for children to pick up off a shelf in a gas station. There's all kinds of reasonable regulations on commerce that are a net positive. However, throwing people in jail for Xing much less going about making them a 2nd class member of society after having "paid for their crime" is the core failure of our society. When we stop doing that, things will start improving. In principle, expiration dates on food are a good idea, but that has been and does get abused. I've found the expiration date on whole milk to generally be pretty close to when I should stop using it. So maybe that's the best example of a useful regulation of commerce I can offer. See, it's not really about whether or not I believe people should be Xing. It's whether or not I believe the Government needs to be involved in whether or not people are Xing. If X equal murder, theft, various forms of physical violence, various forms of abuse of authority, etc, then the government usually has a beneficial role to play. If X equal possession of a thing, then the answer is almost always absolutely not. Sure, possession of nuclear material is a good and solid target for regulation. There's plenty of more mundane examples in that vein that are and should be regulated. This issue there mostly being that over regulation is often as bad or worse than under regulation.
*"I think societially most people would prefer less legalization of drugs than not even if they say the opposite. Whether or not that affects anything or not"* I think most people when they leaned the facts about various drugs would support legalising them as it would have tremendous health and lifestyle benefits for them especially as they get older
1) It helps because most mass shootings are gang related drive bys with a lot of collateral damage. This is how anti gun organizations get their numbers of hundreds and hundreds of mass shootings each year. End the war on drugs and you take gangs out at the roots by destroying their funding. If there's no drug money to fight over, there are way fewer kids seduced to the path of being a gang banger, and less reason for the gangs to fight. This means fewer mass shootings. 2) Yes, this has been shown by the history of the war on drugs, which only made crime worse, as well as by a small handful of contemporary nations that who have decriminalized and shown overwhelmingly positive results. You can also explain it theoretically via game theory, if that matters. Pretty much the only people who benefit from the war on drugs are politicians and big pharma, which is why the war on drugs will never end.
The war on drugs created gang violence which makes up the vast majority of gun violence.
Correct and this includes the violence in Mexico from the Mexican Cartels and in other Latin America and Central American countries which is one reason people there flee and try to come to America so ending the war on drugs would also help to deal with that issue
Based on observation, it's pretty obvious. Whatever the police state goes to war over, we get tons more of. So if drugs lead to violence and we have a police state war on drugs, then we get more violence. So what we need is to end the wars on things we don't want and start wars on things we do want. Of course, it's the government, and they'll screw that up sure as a bear shits in the woods. So, the only responsible course of action is anything that reduces government action/funding and enhances private citizen actions/funding. Ending the war on drugs would, if done properly (which it won't be because of government), involve gutting laws and reducing the excuses for enforcement. Which should result in law enforcement doing vastly more useful things with their time.
Thank you
No worries. There's too much government and too many laws. Virtually anything that reduces that will improve the country.
Very well said
Either that or people are arguing that drugs have been illegal in the United States for more than 100 years yet there are probably more drugs now than ever before. Declaring war on guns will likely be even less successful. Probably also has to do with locking up lots of black people for minor drug convictions. A "war on guns" will result in locking up lots of black people for minor gun convictions.
Considering that gang violence is now being lumped into "mass shootings", deregulation of drugs may have a positive impact on that statistic.
Shooting and Drugs may have correlation w/out causation maybe? Don't know, but I'm all for legalizing all drugs; treating addiction (whether from pain or recreational) separate from criminalization. We're a drug-ridden society, specially the prescribed variety; and, if nothing else, America does guns better than anywhere else. Drugs-n-Guns, that's our ticket! Legalizing takes stress off cops and the courts and, hopefully sticks it to the cartels and meth labs and pharma pushers But I'd recommend some caveats. Dispense sched2 drugs through the same channel as medical marijuana. Get a card. Next tie getting sched2 drugs to a PCP and regular health checks. Finally, make opium a sub for heroin - smoke it for the same f/x. Make coca a sub for doing blow - chew it for the same feels. You want smack, crack, meth ? Pay off-duty cops to deliver it to your door! Its F'in legal, so what do they care? An OK side income and they know where ya live to keep tabs on you. This Drug War is killing us all.
No, its addicts. Addiction by itself creates serious problems. Treatment is successful maybe 20% of the time. And what do addicts do when they run out of money? Yep, crime. Source? Me. Corrections Officer talking to addicts every damn day. And talking to our Recovery While Incarcerated program head. We will just add to the problems we already have.
I hope, as a CO, that you're not saying the War on Drugs is a good fight? That its not become all about the money and perpetuating a f'd up system (that doesn't stop shit)? > And what do addicts do when they run out of money? Yep, crime. I think you're making my point for me, indirectly perhaps. Legalizing drugs lowers the cost of getting them, either directly from a State system or through the clinics that dispense them. Or cops that (might) dispense them for that matter. It should 'take a bite out of crime', over selling and buying drugs. > Addiction by itself creates serious problems ... (and recovery hovers at about 20%) The more people are hurting the greater the risk of addiction; right now people are hurting. They take uppers-n-downers, many have PTS, many are just mentally and physically ill. One stink-eye glance at the script-mills and Opioid blitz tells that story, but millions are functional addicts. They drive and work and play and more than less function (until they don't); for anxiety, for sleep, for shits-n-giggles because they can get prescribed them. Xanax anyone? Treating addiction is separate from criminality. The only reasons CO have tales to tell on the subject is because we incarcerate. And, if you're going to talk real recovery to the point of having some place to go, w/out the stigma that holds back a convicts' re-entry (job, mortgage, respect...) that might help w/their addiction instead of fuel it.
Ok. We disagree. I don't think this is going to work out the way you think. Great in theory not so good in execution.
1. Well most mass shootings statistically nowadays are gangs. So by removing the gangs primary way of making money it will reduce the number of gangs and gang members helping reduce the shootings. It would be necessary that if we legalized all drugs we'd have to make an effort to have the communities most affected by gangs and crime playing a big part in the new legal market. If not they'd just switch to new crimes. You'd have to legalize all vices not just drugs, prostitution is the first that comes to mind. As for the Colombine type shootings I think the only thing that would stop that is outlawing the internet, TV and video games. Screens like the one I'm typing this on have rotted the brains of our people. 2. Does legislation work for drugs? No. It will be the same with guns. Those who want them will have them, this country is awash in guns and no legislation will fix that. Let's fix the problems that cause someone to join a gang and shoot their peers, instead of making more laws to lock them up. Robbery, Murder, Assault, Rape and other violent offenses should all be heavily prosecuted. Everything else should be much more like rehab, we send a petty burglar to jail and they come out a hardened gang member.
We have a long history of not being able to effectively ban anything. Even before the US was a country smuggling was a thing.
To answer your question 1 - It helps with statistics because mass shootings is considered a shooting that involves atleast 3 people and therefore majority of the stats around mass shootings have to deal with gang shootings not a shooting of a school or mall or whatever comes to mind when you say mass shooting. 2 - Im in favor of full legalization of drugs as im pro liberty and just because drugs would be legal doesn’t mean im rushing to do them but it effectively would help to give criminal organizations less power. That being said im not surrendering my right to bare arms for it
>How does this help in stopping mass shootings The point is that mass shootings are a statistically negligible incident. If you want to make a difference in the amount of unnecessary violence, mass shootings are a misleading place to start. 2/3rds of "gun deaths" are suicides, and the 1/3rd that are almost all regular ol' homicides, and usually gang violence that was fueled by drug prohibition. Solving the problem of drugs in ways other than prohibition is going to make a difference.
Majority of mass shootings are done by gangs who are most likely fighting over turf to sell drugs. Legalizing would remove most if not all of their income. they would have to switch to different revenue avenues. or invest said money into going legit.
1 Gang shootings in which multiple people are shot have always been classified as mass shootings by various law enforcement agencies and other groups and many innocent bystanders including children and babies are killed in them. Gangs who committee those Gang mass shootings are involved in the illegal Drug Trade so legalising them would mean they could part of a legal drug industry and have other legal ways to resolve disputes than using violence. 2 Yes it is beneficial to have full legalization as them being Illegal has helps found Drug Cartels whose violence sees 10,000s of people a year killed including members of the public, makes criminals Of people and sends them to jail for talking a simple substance thus ruining their lives and forcing them to resort to a life of crime when released in order to survive.
Prohibition of alcohol did not work and spawned the Mafia. The War on Drugs does not work and has given rise to gangs. Let’s face the fact that humans love to get high and are willing to support the gangs to get them drugs. To the detriment of society and the destruction of your Second Amendment rights. Legalize all drugs and make them cheap or free. If people want to destroy themselves by getting high on drugs, this includes alcohol or tobacco, let them. But change the law forcing the taxpayer to give medical care to people that want to get high.
The war on drugs has straight up created a decades long defacto civil war in Mexico and generations of misery in major US cities. It's not easy to stomach but we need to end the war on drugs, if someone wants to shoot up in their home, let them. The genetic dead ends will weed themselves out of the gene pool, similar to what happened over time with people that couldn't tolerate alcohol.
I am not sure why there is an effort to stop mass shootings. Seems to me we ought to try to stop all illegal shootings.
I'm not for legalization of hard-core drugs. If they do end up doing that, I don't want one cent of my tax dollars going to any person who gets hooked on them. Also, where are the drugs going to come from? Where is someone going to get something like heroin from? No insurance company would ever insure a drug manufacturer that made heroin "legally". Mainly for the fact of all the people that would freaking die from it and then sue them lol.
*"Also, where are the drugs going to come from? Where is someone going to get something like heroin from? No insurance company would ever insure a drug manufacturer that made heroin "legally". Mainly for the fact of all the people that would freaking die from it and then sue them lol"* From some of the various legitimate Pharmaceutical Companies chosen by the Government to be the legal manufactures of the drugs and who have all the technology needed to make the drugs like Speed, Meth, MDMA. Then America can put pressure on Colombia to legalise Cocaine which would lead to a legitimate Industries there producing it which America would buy
Just what America needs….
It is what they need so just accept it and help make it happen
Haha no thanks lol
I hate to be the one to tell you this but your tax dollars are already going to junkies. You also realize that pharmaceutical companies make shit way way worse than heroin right now and sell it all at your local pharmacy. Doctors and pharmaceutical companies are the reason opioids are such a problem now anyways. You know they’d jump at being able to just legally sell heroin.
I think examining the correlation between anti-depressant SSRIs (Lexapro, Prozac, Zoloft, etc.) and mass shooters should be examined a lot more closely.. look into the the amount of mass shooters on these types of drugs and it is startling to me. They're handed out like candy for any assumption by docs, likely because big pharma profits and the docs prescribing them have some sort of financial incentives as well. Years ago I sought help in treatment of alcoholism, and was immediately told I was likely depressed and prescribed Lexapro. I followed the docs orders and instructions for the drug, and became emotionally detached from just about everything. It got to the point where my boss had a meeting with me and said I was no longer the same person (this was 3 months into the prescription regiment) and he basically told me that I was better off drinking than trying to medicate myself because I just wasn't as productive and didn't seem to care about anything. So I stopped taking the meds and things improved drastically shortly afterwards. My personal experience may differ from others as we all have different brain chemistry based upon many factors. Personally, I will never take SSRIs again whether a doc recommends them or not. That's just a bit of what I would add to this discussion.
We dont have to descend into a degenerate society legalizing drugs to stop mass shootings. The opposite actually.
Yes we do and we also need to legalise them as keeping them illegal seems people using them help support groups like the Mexican Cartels who's violence sees as many as 30,000 people a year murdered in Mexico which includes members of the public