Anonymous #2 4w

Mwah 💋

4

Anonymous OP 4w

mmmmmwah 🧑‍❤️‍💋‍🧑

4

Anonymous #3 4w

I’m honestly not sure what the answer to that should be. I do think there should be a sentence associated, but again, there’s a demand and I can’t really blame them for supplying it; does that make sense?

11

Anonymous #3 4w

Selling fent should 100% get a person locked up tho

13

Anonymous OP 4w

I agree. But why is the line fent? Other drugs like H kill more people than fent overall. Obviously like sometimes drugs are unknowingly laced and that’s despicable should be like several layers of crime. But if someone knowingly buys fent bc there are ppl into that especially ppl with a high H tolerance, is it different? Just food for thought maybe idk. Shits complex

3

Anonymous OP 4w

The best legislation for what you’re describing would probably be a comprehensive rework of the drug classification system.

7

Anonymous #4 4w

I agree, and again I admit I’m not very knowledgeable about what the “best” way would be. There are many sources/activists who know more

7

Anonymous #3 4w

maybe this is a hot take (my mind could be changed on it tho) but i feel like dealers who don’t lace their products and are truly honest about the potential effects and potency of whatever they sell, though maybe morally iffy, shouldn’t be facing massive legal liability. with full consent from the (adult) buyer, knowing what they are purchasing, i don’t know if responsibility still falls upon the dealer. i think at least it’s a gray area for me, not inherently right and not inherently wrong.

5

Anonymous #2 4w

Good point. But think of this, if a doctor prescribes you Xanax it’s on the doctor right? They’re the one supplying you the rx. They’ve deemed it appropriate for you to have access to. But STILL pharmacists have to look for people who might be abusing substances they legally are able to buy. There’s still a degree of liability to even just the point of sale person. If you know a person has rapidly declined in health personality after you’ve supplied them with like meth or something, then what

3

Anonymous #5 4w

Better breakdown in the pie chart comment posted above; most are nonviolent

2

Anonymous #3 4w

that’s totally fair. i guess the way i see it is that a lot of times, people aren’t interested in being helped, and will seek out substances elsewhere if their longtime dealer has, say, noticed decline in health and refuses to sell to them anymore. as it is, illicit drugs aren’t able to be regulated and made “safe” (or as safe as possible) for consumption. we can’t regulate their strength, purity, or storage/safety procedures, bc they’re not supposed to exist at all.

3

Anonymous #3 4w

by legalizing them, or even taking steps to decriminalize, we can make laws about how to make them safer for the people who, at the end of the day, will be seeking out substances, whether they’re banned or not. as wonderful as it would be to magically disappear all of the harmful substances, it’s just not possible. people still make it, because people still seek it out, yk

3

Anonymous #2 4w

Then harm reduction would be most moral right? Regulating it like alcohol or medical cannabis would regulate strength purity and such and make it so that less people die from sketchy drugs. It would also reduce the amount of people that turn to drug dealing illegally to get by in lower income areas. Less people in prison overall.

3

Anonymous #3 4w

absolutely ! i see that as a great option. obviously i’m all for punishing people who actively lace their shit with harmful substances because proper consent can’t be obtained from the user. but creating an environment where people can use drugs safely is much more important to me than making our society a drug-free one. obviously harder drugs wouldn’t become as mainstream, i don’t see a market as big as say, weed, for H or fent.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

but “dealers”, whatever scale they are on, should be held to higher standards in terms of the safety and purity of their products, and what happens from there imo is not very much my business. people are going to use drugs how they want to, as much as it sometimes sucks, and there should be appropriate social supports. but i mean shit i wouldn’t blame the liquor store if i drank myself to 💀

1

Anonymous #2 4w

Real. Yeah I think I’d be on board with that. Maximizing safety and personal freedoms and it’d all be taxable so that’s a win for the big man and big pharma. You’d think more people would be on board with it except for like evangelical conservatives

3

Anonymous #3 4w

yeah unfortunately it’s one of those topics that people just shut down when they hear it. it’s counterintuitive, and if most people don’t think about it much, it’ll probably not make much sense lol

1

Anonymous #3 4w

In my opinion dealers should be arrested, illicit drugs should be confiscated, not punished with jail time

1

Anonymous #7 4w

Why confiscated? They’ll just go buy more. What’s the point of confiscation without other consequences?

1

Anonymous #3 4w

I don’t really see a better alternative. Your other options are arresting them or just letting them keep their substances. Oregon had decriminalized possession of everything but the outcome of that was kids having to walk through needle filled streets in order to get to school. In recent years they actually reversed that decision because they saw that it was only enabling the situation. Maybe you can take a step beyond and forward them to treatment as well as confiscating

1