Post #1316702

Replies (1)

• @Uair@autistics.life 2026-02-28 19:08

  @DziadekMick Dope's not my game, but I did an oxy 40 a day for a couple months. I understand how stabilizing it is. Hey--do you know the history of drug prohibition? Up until about 1905, simply having an addiction was enough to get a prescription. Then the right-wing Xtians said, "hard no!" and changed the rules. At the time, there were still about a million and a half civil war vets hooked on morph, plus who knows how many others. There was no black market yet, so they all turned into problem drunks to substitute. Before that move, America was like France, where it is socially unacceptable to be detectably drunk. The civil war vets blew that norm out of the water. Ten years later they invented AA. I find AA despicable. It's just to get you to substitute a god addiction for whatever is giving you trouble. Christian god--that's what all the public self-abasement is about. That's a very christian thing. There were still a few atheists around at th beginning of the concept of recovery, so the xtians had to hide their proselytizing under the "higher power" nonsense, but the whole messaging there is reprehensible. You are broken and can't control yourself; you need to be controlled by the outside. And if you refuse to believe in ridiculous bullshit, you are excommunicated from any kind of social support. Me, I learned to walk alone. I tried to quit drinking once, after this last escapade, and I don't even crave it. I was just self-medicating to sleep, and I'm still weak enough to get at least some sleep every night. So anyway, we had real science back then. People tend to forget that. The scientists knew AA wouldn't work, but the Xtians had enough power to use the force of law to make it the standard and usually only option for cleaning up/ drying out. That's why AA has a self-reported 5% success rate and the Finnish science-based rehabs have a 75% success rate. Ten years later we banned alcohol for ten years in order to create organized crime. The FBI doesn't pimp its own ho's, and they needed a lot of hookers to entrap congresscritters and other notables. But I get off topic. Good lesson, tho--there are no unintended consequences in politics. Examine what happened after the fact and you can usually see the unspoken goal. Drug prohibition has always been about social engineering. That's why Cheney let pill mills happen. Even before oxy was a thing, perc tens started showing up on the streets. In the 90s, you never saw those because to get prescribed them you had to have a demonstrated tolerance, and the people who got them didn't sell them. Hell, that's why we wouldn't let the Taliban surrender. We won the war in Afghanistan in three months. They threw down their weapons and went and hid in caves, but we chased them and started killing their families an' shit, so they started growing poppies again to buy bullets. When we pulled out, crack overdoses spiked in Dublin as the narcotics addicts tried to substitute. Personally, I think all drugs should be legal. On both a philosophical plane and a practical one. Legalize them in three stages. First is just an age check. If you get addicted, you tell your doctor and your insurance company buys the drug while you are provided support to get off it. If you don't want to quit but aren't functional in life, just set up government-run drug houses. Have a couple doctors on hand, and a couple guards to keep the users from hurting each other and just wait until they figure it out or die. Me, I've always been able to handle my drugs. The hard ones, at least. I can't touch nicotine and have been known to go a little too deep into weed but, again, self-medicating. No biggie. Thanks for giving me an opening to get up on my soapbox and speechify.

  Open ##1316703