[roflc0ptic]

I used to share a similar position until I realized: drugs are bad, actually, and there should be substantial friction in making them available to people.

Disincentivizing drug consumption is a good thing. The war on drugs obviously leads to some absurdities - e.g. drug cartels, unnecessary incarceration - and I much prefer the Portuguese model.

But making fentanyl in particular available in the grocery store would be bad; some substantial number of people would die who wouldn't have died otherwise. Some substantial number of people who would never have tried fentanyl would give it a try.

Some sensible balance needs to be struck between a free society and preventing people from e.g. leaving live landmines in their parking lots. Doing things which inevitably kill people/mess up their lives without active violence is still bad, and should be heavily discouraged.

[danielbln]

What led to your realization that "drugs are bad", and does that include all external consciousness altering substances? (caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, THC, and so on).

[nerdponx]

Can't speak for somebody else's post, but addiction ruins lives, not only yours but also possibly the people around you, and leads people to other criminal behavior.

It's perfectly legal to obtain and use alcohol for example, but alcoholism is an insidious evil disease.

[seanmcdirmid]

It’s not binary.

Drugs that kill or otherwise destroy your life are very bad. Other drugs that don’t do that are probably much less bad, and we should allow things somewhere that fall under a line between not bad and very bad. Where that line exists is a matter of current debate.

[bloppe]

Even the Portuguese model has had mixed success at best

[devin]

My understanding is that the Portuguese model was going along pretty well until fentanyl came along.