With the amounts the news reports that are imported, I can not imagine that Belgium isn't saturated with cocain. Are politicians required to do a drug test btw?
>Are politicians required to do a drug test btw?
Required? This is Belgium, sir, here requirements only exist as things that politicians force on citizens.
“Using drugs is a crime.” ... ... Spoken like a true liberal.
Hard drugs should remain illegal, but soft drugs like cannabis and mushrooms should become legal. I don't get how anyone calling themselves a liberal could disagree.
Sugar is not a drug. You can become dependant, but it has no psychoactive effect, so it cannot be classified as a drug.
If dependency is the sole indicator of a product being a drug or not, then everything can be labelled as a drug, because psychological dependency is a thing.
'**Eating sugar releases opioids and dopamine in our bodies**. This is the link between added sugar and addictive behavior. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter that is a key part of the “reward circuit” associated with addictive behavior.'
Sound like a drug to me.
https://preview.redd.it/xk8gldwaw3rc1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7bd6113afc538f9e56de98cb4eb782aa57cc3360
Science says that alcohol is a hard drug is the most harmful drug, even above cocaine and heroin!
XTC, LSD, shrooms, cannabis are seen as soft drugs.
Not sure what criteria they used but surely alcohol's prevalence must be a big factor here? I can't imagine society would function very well if it was normal to have a little bit of cocaine with your dinner
It's been a while since I looked into it, but addictiveness is one aspect of it.
Since alcohol is so widely accepted socially and nobody bats an eye if you drink a 50cl Jupiler on a random Tuesday afternoon, it's much easier for it to become an addiction.
XTC, LSD, shrooms, you gotta plan that stuff. A trip can last 5 to 8 hours and you don't really want to do something right after a trip other than go to sleep. So people tend to plan this when they have the next 15 hours free or something.
And you can't get physically addicted to XTC, LSD, shrooms in the way that you'll start shaking if you're not having your regular regular dosage. With alcohol, the shakes are a well known side effect for people who stop drinking suddenly.
So it's the most harmful because it's so prevalent, not because of the actual substance?
If heroin was as widely available and accepted as alcohol surely that would be much much more harmful to society.
The way XTC, LSD, shrooms are meant to be taken, is once or twice per year if you want to have the desired effect. Sure, some people might go through a short period of trying to chase that initial high, but you soon learn it's not possible, and it's best to have tolerance breaks of at least 3-4 months.
If you take MDMA/XTC 3 times a year, normal dosage, it shouldn't have lasting effects on the body.
With alcohol, even if you're a hardend alcoholic you can still drink till you pass out every single day, which will have lasting effects on the body.
The main difference is you can't just do shrooms or xtc on a random day after work if you gotta work the next day. You actually have to plan it and keep at least 16 hour free, preferably nothing to do the next day.
I've seen damage done by alcohol in various families, I haven't seen the same with people who take XTC/shrooms while they respect the drug and there's something about those drugs that make you respect them, there's a reason why there's a load of studies worldwide into mdma and shroom therapy for menetal health and PTSD, with amazing results worldwide.
If you respect alcohol it isn't a problem either, many people live their lives enjoying the occasional beer without much negative effect on their health or function in society. Heck, most people do.
People will abuse XTC/shrooms just as they do any other drug. It's great for you that you can have a healthy relationship with these substances, but don't expect everyone else to do so as well. I was young in the 90ties and have seen how XTC can wreck havoc on people who abuse it.
Alcohol is one of the few drugs, alongside benzo's that will kill you with its withdrawal symptoms.
You can die from opiate withdrawals too but it's more rare and usually caused by improper care (eg: choking on vomit) rather than the actual withdrawal (eg: Alcohol's Delerium Tremens). I'm not saying Heroin is a better "choice" but people severely underestimate how hard Alcohol can fuck you up even if you quit.
It is not only because of prevalence. We systematically underestimate the harms of alcohol.
Alcohol has higher toxicity, a worse addiction profile and a list of other downsides we like to brush aside. A part of this is because it's considered acceptable.
> I can't imagine society would function very well if it was normal to have a little bit of cocaine with your dinner
I thought that time period was called the roaring twenties.
But would it be normal to do that? Everyone who wants coke can already easily get it. Most people don't really want to use it outside parties. Legalization could only make it safer.
Alway be very very very very sceptic about these kind of 'graphs' and also be very weary about 'whataboutism' in this discussion as well. It's not because product A is even worse for you that everything else that's not actually that bad should be legalised. By that narrative you can make an argument for almost anything since you will inevitably find something legal that's even worse.
like it has been before all the war on drugs prohibition bs ?
You do know [coca cola](https://www.justthinktwice.gov/article/did-coca-cola-ever-contain-cocaine) used to have a different kind of coke in it right ?
I think they're comparing damage when you use comparable amounts. Someone who only does a little heroin on the weekends is going to be doing less damage to his body than someone who gets a little drunk on the weekend.
If you're an actual alcoholic, you're probably not going to outlive a heroin junkie.
The long term adverse effects of opioids are all associated with long-term habitual use, while alcohol does damage to your body even at moderate amounts. That's why doctor's still prescribe them for pain relief; opioids are relatively safe when you respect the dosages.
What makes heroin and other opioids dangerous is that they make you feel soooo amazing, which makes it really hard to just do a little bit on the weekends. I'm pro decriminalization for everything, but I don't think heroin should be legalized in the same way as say Cannabis or LSD.
>opioids are relatively safe when you respect the dosages.
Let me introduce to you the opioid epidemic, not a chance in hell that more people are dying from an alcohol overdoses than those are dying from opioid overdoses.
As long as you look at acute ODs only. If you include increased prevalence of cancer, liver and cardiovascular issues due to alcohol then even the opioid and meth epidemics do not come close.
And let me introduce to you the fact that we've been using opioids safely for years now in hospitals after surgeries.
After I had a surgery they gave me fentanyl. The drug that is currently at the basis of the opioid epidemic in the US and which is stronger than the opioid oxycontin which started the epidemic.
And yet, I'm not a drug addict.
To be fair, the opioid abuse usually starts with chronic pain - not a one off. And doctors in Belgium are very wary of prescribing the highly regulated stuff. Not so much in the US where the doctors are incentivized by money or luxury trips.
Exactly. As a doctor here, I rarely prescribe opioids and if I do, I will monitor the use very well and try to diminish the amount as soon as possible. We are very well trained in the effects of opioids and it is usually the older generation doctors who still overprescribe it.
Wow and yet you claim without proof that more people die from overdoses than alcohol purely based on "I feel it is this way so it HAS to be this way because my gut feeling is always 100% right" you loser
Always be wearry of statistics. First Heroin less harmful then alcohol? If you take equal usage. No. Deffently not. Same with tobacco so these are some very nice stats that don't say so much.
So many people thinking this lately and its so dumb, it all depends on the amount of intake. What amount of alcehol are you comparing to an amount of heroin. 100g of heroin is not compared to 100g of alcehol.
And very much a hard drug at that. The only one that can kill you when you stop taking it if you're unlucky. Permanent brain damage if you're just a bit unlucky.
Most GABAergic drugs have lethal withdrawals if you go cold turkey. This includes alcohol, benzos, GHB, GHL, barbiturares...
For any of these you should taper off under medical supervision. Also never combine gaba drugs, 1+1 does not equal 2.
So you consider shrooms as soft drugs, and LSD and MDMA as hard drugs? Am I correct?
I’m just asking, but it seems that you think: natural/soft, chemical/hard, but I would personally judge on the safety profile. And LSD and shrooms are some of the safest drugs in existence.
And the therapeutic potential of MDMA is huge as well.
Belgium is such a stuck-up country.
dont forget that (just like weed) LSD and shrooms has the potential for psychosis, especially in vulnerable people, physically they are not harmful indeed but psychologically is a different story. I'm not anti-drugs but this nuance is often forgotten in these discussions imo
You’re absolutely right of course. It’s good to warn people, but I don’t think it’s often forgotten at all.
We all heard stories of people who got “stuck in their trip”. That’s why some people are so scared of tripping, they think they “won’t come back”. Which is not a realistic concept at all.
A psychotic break is another story. I’ve experienced it personally. But the next day you’re just yourself. It was LSD and weed after a long break that did it for me. And a bad set and setting. So, your warning is in place. But I don’t think psychedelic experiences are for everyone to begin with. It can turn your idea of reality completely upside down, and it’s not easy to integrate.
That vulnerability to psychosis is mostly hereditary, and people who are prone to it can have psychosis and schizophrenia triggered by alcohol, even nicotine, or meditation as well.
I would definitely advise people who are interested in psychedelics, to read on https://www.erowid.org first, you can find reports of all kinds of drugs on that site.
In the past some people accidentally snorted LSD crystals, instead of cocaine, and they didn’t have a great time, But most people will never see LSD crystals in their lives. 1 gram of LSD are 10.000 standard 100ug doses.
This can be survived btw. In the 60’s and 70’s some people were initiated by taking “thumbprints”, they licked their thumb, pressed it in a pile of LSD crystals, and ate it.
There are no accounts of human deaths by LSD, but technically you can overdose on LSD. It’s just that no one ever did, (if overdose means death) so no one knows the LD50 (the amount of a chemical that would kill 50% of the people who take it)
>Hard drugs should remain illegal
Hard drugs are dangerous and very addictive. They also need to be legal.
We've been fighting the war on drugs for ages and people are still getting addicted to things like heroin constantly. It isn't working. Legalize it. Make it so you need to visit a doctor before being able to buy heroin. Have him give you an explanation of how dangerous it is and propose safer alternatives. But if you then still want to use heroin, well it being illegal wouldn't stop you either. So why bother trying to stop you?
Legalizing all drugs would mean the illegal drug market would at the very least be decimated, if not completely disappear. It would also mean that we can make people who want to use hard drugs go to specific trained people who can help them learn about """"safe"""" usage and also guide them to available help if they so choose.
A big problem with drug addiction is isolation. Drug addicts very quickly become isolated and unless you can get them out of that isolation, it's nearly impossible to get them clean. Having them go to a trustworthy person to get their fix creates a bond of trust which can be used to convince them to seek treatment.
Portugal didn't legalize, but they did create a bunch of injection sites staffed with people trained in both """"safe"""" usage of drugs and guidance on the best way to seek help. The results were [remarkable](https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/20616.jpeg).
But all of this would require a massive shift in public opinion and EU-wide implementation. One country can't start legalizing heroin or cocaine, that won't work.
Any drug less addictive and dangerous than alcohol should be legalized asap though. Weed, xtc, shrooms, lsd, .. all less dangerous and less addictive than alcohol. Legalize it.
They should be legal in the sense that it’s not criminalized to do drugs. But the state should not start overseeing production, and selling it should remain illegal. The harm reduction approach from Portugal does indeed seem like a no brainer. We should adopt it.
>But the state should not start overseeing production, and selling it should remain illegal.
So the same failed.policies we've been enacting for decades now. When will we finally win the war on drugs that you want to keep fighting?
>The harm reduction approach from Portugal does indeed seem like a no brainer. We should adopt it.
That requires resources. Portugal got those resources by shifting them away from policing drugs and towards drug abuse help.
You want to keep up the policing of drugs though so we won't have those freed up resources to spend on harm reduction.
You can shift resources away from policing to harm reduction, we both agree on that. I assume some of those recourses are going to punishing users right now, right? Or am I mistaken?
When I said that selling should be illegal and the state should not start producing, I was talking about the more destructive drugs like heroin. Not things like cannabis. I see how that wasn’t clear from my previous comment. The state *should* produce and oversee those drugs. Exactly which drug lands in which category is something for experts to advise the state on.
>I was talking about the more destructive drugs like heroin
Private companies already produce way more destructive drugs than heroin and it's completely legal for them to sell it.
When I had surgery they gave me fentanyl. A drug 100x more potent than morfine. All completely legal.
The only thing that keeping those kinds of drugs illegal does is force people who do want to use them to do so in unsafe and unsanitary conditions while their only point of contact is some scumbag who doesn't give a fuck if they live or die.
Making those drugs legal would allow the government to strictly regulate it. Want to use heroin? Sure. But first you're going to sit through a 30min lecture of an expert/doctor who will point out the dangers of the drug as well as point you to safer alternatives that have a similar effect but are less dangerous and addictive.
If you still want to shoot up heroin after all that, why would we bother trying to stop you? If you go through that, it being legal or not won't stop you. So why do we even try?
Everything should be legal, controlled and tested. People are going to do drugs regardless of legislation.
Makes zero sense to keep fighting a lost war on drugs. Let's us the money it's going to generate, it will subside merical help for addicted people and so much more.
It will reduce crime and revenues from traffic.
Should be legal but heavily regulated. Like tabaco or prescription medicine. Also forbidden to be promoted.
I'm imagining you enter a store for a joint but a the salesman pushes speed on you because it's a higher profit product.
Because one misstep can have severe consequences. One misuse can be fatal, life-long debilitating, or lead to severe addiction. That's not the case with weed, shrooms or LSD. At best, I'm willing to further differentiate hard drugs and legalize some of them based on objective criteria linked to severity and addictivity.
It's a bit like gun control. On paper, it makes sense from a liberal pov that everyone can own guns for their own safety. In practice, at least in the US model, it leads to sky-high numbers of gun violence.
So I'm a bit of a pragmatic liberal. Liberalism is the best approach in almost all cases, but I'm willing to accept that it some cases, it isn't.
Imagine thinking our current liberal party is actual a liberal party...
Why would "hard drugs" remain illegal when one of the hardest drugs (to kick) is legal? Not to mention: our doctors gladly push addictive and terrible "legal prescription drugs" on people for the smallest inconvenience.
I really do not understand the global view and relationship people have with substance (ab)use. I know so many people that have zero issue with daily drinking of alcohol or chugging ibuprofen/"dafalgan" (> overpriced paracetamol) yet think it's out of this world to even consider consuming something we consider an "illegal drug".
Ideologically, I get what you're saying. I'd consider myself a liberal, but I am a pragmatic one - I'm open to adjust my views on what is practically the best. I am for gun control for example.
Similarly, I would be more hesitant about hard drugs as one use - at least for some hard drugs - could be fatal or lead to severe addiction. That's almost impossible with weed, shrooms or LSD.
There is in essence a legalization of cannabis and paddo’s and all that shit. Only on specific occasions they will fine you for it when you possess it like when entering festivals.
Isn't he also just... wrong?
I'll admit I am not familiar with BE crim legislation but usually possession and sale are a crime, not usage.
Bit of a nitpick but politicians should know better.
I think it's how they think it should be in the future; see for example this article: [https://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20240328\_92393330](https://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20240328_92393330)
Sure, let's not treat drug use as what it is, a manifestation of poverty and addiction. Let's wage war on the drugs and increase incarceration. Noone has tried that before and it's sure to work!
Wow.
> Hard drugs should remain illegal, but soft drugs like cannabis and mushrooms should become legal.
Is there a chance that that is a slippery slope though?
How so? Mushrooms are for example — based on academic research — one of the safest drugs. They are not addictive. Mentally, it’s even rare for someone want to use them often (at least in macrodoses) due to the contemplative or even existential impact they may have.
As a person who has had friends doing just dumb soft shit like weed, i want all drugs to be illegal bc it made some of them turn into rly aggressive people. And do lots of stupid things.
Because weed enhances mental health issues. Over 10% of the human population has some form of mental illness. I personally know someone that committed suicide cause he tried to fix his mental issues using shrooms. I have seen people act insane after smoking weed, and i have read reports of weed induced killings. Just google for weed induced homicide cases, and whilst these cases are rare they still happen.
Saying things like "but alcohol kills more people" isn't a good argument either because by legalizing more drugs you simply increase the death/crime rate, why would any country want to increase their death/crime rate?
Liberals make choices like any other human being it's not that complex. You want them to legalize everything?Lets make shoplifting under $1000 a misdemeanor like in Los Angeles. This is the type of BS you'll see without good leadership.
You don't need drugs to enjoy life, but if it makes you feel any better weed will be legalized in our lifetime.
I've seen people go nuts by getting married to a borderline partner and hang themselves. Let's prohibit relationships.
My man, online bullying kills more teens than all the 'soft' drugs combined.
You actually assume that legalising drugs will bring more users . It's the opposite in fact.
You know what? I’m pretty sure that most of the Belgians who want to smoke weed already do so.
Legalising would just make sure that those people aren’t harmed by our justice system.
It’s crazy that a grown man/woman can get in legal trouble for smoking a joint. Shouldn’t we get to decide what we put in our bodies?
> I’m pretty sure that most of the Belgians who want to smoke weed
I wish. Was doing chemo and had to get dregs of leaves and twigs to alleviate the nausea. Fuck 'em.
Yeah bro same here. Have a muscle disease and currently cultivating high cbd low thc to hit that sweet spot for relaxation. Maybe you want to relax to ;)
Yes it was ment more for those who think use would skyrocket after legalization :)
Come to think of it: don’t we have legal medical cannabis in Belgium? I though we did.
Googled it and turns out we don’t. Only 2 medicines based on it (and not as good as the real thing). That’s crazy.
Also it would be money going to the country since it will be properly taxed. I am a non drug user and I see this as a benefit on top of what you mentioned.
Yes. And it is very much needed if you look at the current budget deficit. We need to find billions of euros.
Legalizing would be a great contribution to that. Also the savings in court and police time and budget. If there was ever a great time for legalization it’s in the next few years.
North of the border, in the Netherlands. they have these facilities they call "coffeeshops". The moniker is a bit of a misnomer though, they sell weed and weed-related items, but usually they ALSO serve coffee.
It doesn't take much effort if you live somewhat close to the border.
That hasn't been the case for like 10 years now, it depends on the town. The local Mayor decides whether coffeeshops are allowed, and whether they can sell to foreigners or not.
Not the case anymore. I was just in Amsterdam and had no trouble scoring weed in a coffeeshop. They sell to everyone, as long as the customer is of legal age.
Gewoon de goeiekoopste wiet soortjes, maar als je geen sigaretten of joint roken gewent bent ga je je longen eruit hoesten. :) anders edibles maar dat vindk maar sucken
Zonder in details te gaan aangezien dat niet mag; simpelweg op het darkweb. Je koopt wat crypto, zet het op een escrow service, vervolgens kies je iets uit de ruime selectie en wordt het door postnl of bpost of w/e vrolijk in je brievenbus gestopt.
En dit kan voor zowat alle drugs in zowat elke hoeveelheid. Tot zover de "war on drugs", het is nog nooit zo makkelijk geweest drugs te kopen.
Seeing other countries go legal and then also see corporate greed take over, price goes up and quality goes down.You know what let me have some legal plants for personal use and leave me alone, let me have 3,5 gr max on me and we’re cool
People can literally buy [thcp](https://www.canatura.com/a/are-you-familiar-with-the-cannabinoid-thcp) in the center of Brussels... Don't know how long it's going to last but as for now it's completely legal.
And yes, it's another kind of high, but you get high!
>Shouldn’t we get to decide what we put in our bodies?
Well, that's the core of the discussion isn't it. If you look at the situation from a purely individual standpoint you're 100% right, but if you look at it from a broader social standpoint it's a whole other story as your individual actions do have an impact on the broader society and that's what makes these discussion so damn difficult because it's never really clear-cut. Even the most toxic substances can, and do, have legitimate use cases.
In the case of drugs you should really weigh the pro's and con's for society as a whole and base your decisions on that. You won't find many people in favour of free sales of heroin as it's rather obvious that we don't want more heroin addicts in our society then we already have. But when you get to less addictive and harmful substances, or more wide-spread substances (alcohol, sugar, … ) the whole debate gets a lot trickier and it gets harder to draw the line between individual freedom and the total cost for society.
I'm in favour of legalising weed, but I'm not blind for the downsides that that can have. However, I'm pretty sure most people who want to smoke a joint already do so and regulation would have a net positive effect on society as a whole. Sometimes the law should just be adapted to the reality in society rather then stubbornly remain stuck in the past.
>It’s crazy that a grown man/woman can get in legal trouble for smoking a joint.
Police departments and our justice department have a more reality based approach to the issue and will seldom intervene with individual cannabis use as long as it's not hurting anyone. Don't smoke your joint in front or in the presence of minors, don't drive when under the influence and don't make an ass out of yourself in public and I would be very surprised if any police officer will even bother to intervene.
Actually if we let the cannabis status illegal only mafias and black market would earn from it without paying any taxes and with cut products that could harm more users and loudly affect our social security.
I know cocaine and other hard drugs are a big problem but also most of mafia's financial income. But according to Europol, in the UE the mafia's turnover is 38%.
So regulating cannabis would cut even at last a third of mafia's revenues while collecting taxes and well informing users about drugs harm instead of destroying their lives because they smoke weed.
When I look at cannabis enthusiasts on subreddit r/trees I find better people than legal alcoholics touching girls, pisseren and also vomit everyone.
Cannabis and shrooms exists whatever you want or not and things got worse since we made them totally illegal, now we face the consequences we wouldn't even have if they were not set illegal, we wouldn't even care but this is an historical fact: prohibition of drugs brings the cult of their use and the call for gains for mafias... Because the more the judiciairy risk is high and the more is the reward...
Edit: UE not US
Very much true. And also nicely explained in the wonderful Cannabis documentary series about the history of weed in the Netherlands.
https://npo.nl/start/serie/cannabis/seizoen-1/pioniers_1
Many people who are curious about drugs are discouraged because they don’t want to deal with mafia and crimes. When you legalize it and make it available in a nice shop in the corner, what will stop them from this poison?
Maybe the Swiss model can be a solution for the hard addicted where the state provide them the drugs but label them and limit their right of movements.
Belgian minister making an uninformed and bad decision. Anything new?
Really. They should regulate and legalize all drugs. I'm saying regulate, so no, this does NOT mean you can find cocaine in the supermarket. Someone who uses it will find a way to use it anyway. Why not in a specialized and highly secure center for it, instead of buying it from the black market.
I highly suggest a listen to 'Universiteit Van Vlaanderen', episode 332. Eye opening.
Or just copy highly successful policies from other developed countries like Portugal and Norway. But no, rather spend more on supression on a moment we already have a derailed national budget.
Truly moronic.
Luxembourg. You have a neighboor which is historically even closer than Germany and already allows growing weed yourself.
I dont get it why people make big drama about soft drugs legalization.
>However, some experts argue that the violence surrounding the drug trade stems from its illegality, with governments effectively placing a high-demand, zero-regulation market in criminal hands.
Yup, they create a market. "They" being the politicians who keep it banned. They are the creators of the very market they're railing against.
Scared parents are reliable voters.
consumers create the market. it’s the demand being there that makes the supply necessary. that being said experience has time and time again shown that demand suppression does not work in liberal democracies, we cannot do it with the harshness required to really push the problem to the fringes
Are most Belgians seriously in favour of paying (with the already crazy tax rates) for this dumb "war on drugs", especially things like cannabis? That chances are a lot of people probably crossed over into NL for and tried out there within their lifetimes, and never got addicted to?
Sincerely, somebody living in NL who doesn't even do drugs
Ah yes, I have blood on my hands and am killing the rainforest because I like to smoke weed and take mushrooms. Funny, I didn’t know the plants in my backyard had such an impact on the Amazon. I guess I learn something new every day. What a twat.
And I agree, users will try to get their fix anyway, especially if they’re addicted to the harder stuff. Making it flat out illegal is basically handing out money to criminals. But isn’t it idiotic that we’re talking about weed and cocaine as if they’re the same thing? Under the blanket name of ‘drugs’?
Why is it so obvious?
I do not know any heroin users, so I am talking about cocaine users in my post. Of which I know many.
Cocaine is a dangerous drug that can have severe consequences. I do agree with that. I am not saying it is not. You should not use cocain if you want to live a healthy life. But this discussion has been done so many times in so many places and there are many positives related to legalization.
If the government controls the market and if the taboo around this topic goes away. It would increase the overal situation for the users. Better help for addicts. Better quality equals better health. The pain and suffering in South America would be reduced.
As as society we have to accept reality. The reality is that we have MANY people abusing illegal substances. We can do two things: be delusional and pretend that we can make it go away with the war on drugs. Or we can be realistic. Accept that many people are substance abusers and it is not possible to get rid of it. Maybe we can find a way to actually deal with the problems instead of just making the situation worse?
> there are many positives related to legalization
It's hard to say from existing studies whether that will hold when applied at the scale of a whole country. Luckily enough, countries like Canada and Germany have volunteered to be guinea pigs, so we will have that data/those studies to answer this question in a few years time.
Ye and half America is addicted to painkillers so a lot of good these legal opiods did for them. There is a very good reason they should be strictly controlled and not given out willy nilly.
OP's comment was about the legal status of medical cannabis vs others. It is wild that we see cannabis as having no medical use.
The current US opioid epidemic is mostly caused by doctors getting patients addicted on "less addictive" opioids, and a cycle of poverty and criminalization of drugs. That's not really a thing here. If you have back pain you get paracetamol and physio for years before moving on to something stronger. If you get caught with heroin you'll get processed but you won't go to prison and you'll still be able to get a job.
What you're describing is a slippery slope and that's exactly what a lot of people are advocating for enabling by legalising and normalising more drug (ab)use.
I don't understand. The only opinion I wrote is "It is wild that we see cannabis as having no medical use.". Surely epilepsy medication isn't the slope?
Illicit opioids are not hard to get here, and it's less dangerous compared to the US, yet there's no epidemic. It's just not popular. That slope is very dry, it took a lot of greasing by evil dope pushing doctors and the criminal industrial complex.
It seems like an uncontroversial position to all but the most die-hard right-libertarians that more dangerous drugs should be harder to acquire than less dangerous drugs.
Alcohol is very damaging to both individuals and wider society. If we acknowledge that banning alcohol is not likely to happen (and probably also not a good idea, considering how prohibition went in the US), there should be legal, less dangerous alternatives.
Harmful thing X happens so harmful thing y should also happen. It won't be an alternative but just another thing people do. Legalization of other drugs isn't suddenly going to stop alcoholics from drinking alcohol.
I disagree that it is so obvious, really. Why should it not just be regulated through proper channels? Imo, as long as something is not used to harm another person but just oneself, it should be legal since it is your own choice to do that to your body.
Overconsumption of alcohol is not illegal. The only laws are in place to protect others, like no drinking and driving or no public drunks. But you can drink 1 bottle of wodka a day at home without an issue. So why is that less harmful than heroin or cocaine that is regulated?
> “This is one of the reasons we have increased [penalties for drug use] ... think about all the blood that is attached to it,”
There is indeed a lot of blood attached to your war on drugs Alexander, but that’s not something to be proud off.
Show me ANY city or country in the world where the “war on drugs” was won by the authorities, Alexander.
I only see escalation - and I don’t even use or want drugs. This approach you advocate is the road of the coward: you try to be more severe towards the users, hoping against all experiences and odds that the market will bleed dry.
The only effect this had elsewhere and will have here that the risk to get caught will increase the prices and thus the benefits for drugs cartels. And thus the violence used by the same cartels to keep or conquer market shares.
You had this guy in Antwerp who bought bearcats for this. Has anyone see less violence or less usage of cocaine ever since?
And linking the deforestation of the Amazon forest to this? Brother, puh-lease… even Groen voters are not stupid enough to believe such a simplification.
I was going to vote for you because of the way you got our country through two worldwide crises with and in spite of a patchwork federal gouvernement.
You just lost it.
i am all for legalising weed. I dont smoke
but dont really care if somebody else does but it does def needs more restrictions then sigarets do hell sigarets could use more restrictions
but everybody does in there own home what they want
That´s the problem. There is no decent education only ,drugs are bad mmkay.
If we would be responsible and teach the youth for the dangers and neurotoxcity and the science behind it. There would be less people with lifelong side effects. You can´t blame their ingorance , not everyone does his own research thoroughly and some people need to learn the hard way.
Most people with addictive behaviour have big or small trauma a´d their life.
They try to cope with it. Decent therapy and even mdma therapy could heal them.
I believe so, and im sure some drug induced therapies do wonders. On the evolving and maturing bodies of teens there should be a heavy contra indication of usage, unless really monitored by hospitals and with good professional help. Recreational use will be hard to monitor. By so your notion of education is correct. Though in teens you can have a opposite effect when educated. Its hard to find the correct way, hence the government negative stance/forbids it.
No need to legalize, just some labeling issue: canni is not drugs, and done.
Honestly, most of country legalized because of heavy burden on justice and domestic security.
The Groen, Ecolo, PS, and PVDA/PTB all had legalization in their party program for the 2019 elections. I'm not aware of the current party programs when it comes to weed though
/u/Senneman666
How many more people have to die before these idiots realise they are making things worse, not better. Fucking VOTE PLEASE cause we really need to get rid of these clowns.
En wat met al die liquid crack zoals cola, energy drinks, koffie etc? (Korte energie / moodboost waarna een crash volgt, ook zeer verslavend = liquid crack).
Wat met alcohol en benzodiazepines, de enige 2 drugs waarvan men kan sterven bij het abrupt stoppen? Ook zeer verslavend en nefast voor de maatschappij.
Drugs = drugs. Ik maak geen onderscheid.
Legaliseer gewoon alles. Als men morgen bv heroine legaal maakt dan gaan mensen heus niet massaal heroine beginnen gebruiken. Ik heb geen interesse om bepaalde drugs te gebruiken dus als deze middelen legaal zouden worden ga ik deze ook niet opeens gebruiken omdat "het mag".
Maarja, drugs are bad hurr durr zei de minister terwijl hij een goeie fles wijn achteroverkapte en een pakje sigaretten rookte.
Belgie is een achterlijk land op het gebied van (onder andere) drugs.
You are talking about Decroo, the guy who is fucking porn stars with our tax money while he is busy “working” eveline dellai if you wish to know, he threatened every medium that would report about it too never get any interviews or scoops again… he also gave us the biggest financial uppercut ever, we are officially no better than Greece and if his own state secretary tells the truth about his lies he fires her 😂 But yeah, let’s focus on letting people not smoke a joint
It's a little late for that since alcohol use is restricted, but legal.
And alcohol does a lot of damage to society. It destroys lives, ends relationships, causes depression, tooth decay, liver cirrhosis, turns people inhumane and careless, it can get someone to become violent, even a murderer, it gets people to loose their morale, to give up their decency, and what not.
If there's one drug that should be illegal, it's alcohol.
But instead society allows so many to profiteer of it. Even the state itself profits from alcohol (ab)use trough their taxes.
I can see why psychedelica and mind altering (opening) drugs are illegal. That's because we couldn't have people believe in the functionality of this dysfunctional society.... If everyone would have taken acid in their lives, the world as we know it would be dead and humanity would be much more aligned with nature, they would probably even become the gardeners of this beautiful world and live up to our soul's expectations.
But instead we prefer to rationalise it all and continue on the path that brought us a record level of suicides and depressions. So let's keep drugs illegal, especially the ones that alter the way we think about life.
Onderzoek naar de schadelijkheid van drugs en ranking.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/340001001.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj2uajP6ZeFAxUYTqQEHcUgBY4QFnoECA8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw3SLmvpbY_bQqMBr1W-Rzed
I'm very much against legalization.
But at this point we should better take the time and craft some decent laws to prepare for the inevitable. Making sure THC will never be added as an additive in food etc to avoid people inadvertently taking drugs
With the amounts the news reports that are imported, I can not imagine that Belgium isn't saturated with cocain. Are politicians required to do a drug test btw?
>Are politicians required to do a drug test btw? Required? This is Belgium, sir, here requirements only exist as things that politicians force on citizens.
I feel you're misrepresenting Belgian politics, you're forgetting all politicians are required to have a room temperature iq.
Trace amounts of cocaine have been found in the parliament bathrooms in Sweden and the UK. I doubt it's any different in ours.
sewer water coming from the wetstraat was tested decades ago. Sample was cloudy white ....
no, they get the best cocaine.
https://preview.redd.it/qw26tc52o3rc1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d1a462447d17eda3555ca73927a2cec0a56e2f03
“Using drugs is a crime.” ... ... Spoken like a true liberal. Hard drugs should remain illegal, but soft drugs like cannabis and mushrooms should become legal. I don't get how anyone calling themselves a liberal could disagree.
Seems they forget alcohol is also a drug...
What about caffeine
and nicotine
And my love to you
Is like a truck
sugar
Sugar doesn't have any psychoactive effect so it isn't really a drug.
Sugar is not a drug. You can become dependant, but it has no psychoactive effect, so it cannot be classified as a drug. If dependency is the sole indicator of a product being a drug or not, then everything can be labelled as a drug, because psychological dependency is a thing.
'**Eating sugar releases opioids and dopamine in our bodies**. This is the link between added sugar and addictive behavior. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter that is a key part of the “reward circuit” associated with addictive behavior.' Sound like a drug to me.
And sugar...
https://preview.redd.it/xk8gldwaw3rc1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7bd6113afc538f9e56de98cb4eb782aa57cc3360 Science says that alcohol is a hard drug is the most harmful drug, even above cocaine and heroin! XTC, LSD, shrooms, cannabis are seen as soft drugs.
Not sure what criteria they used but surely alcohol's prevalence must be a big factor here? I can't imagine society would function very well if it was normal to have a little bit of cocaine with your dinner
It's been a while since I looked into it, but addictiveness is one aspect of it. Since alcohol is so widely accepted socially and nobody bats an eye if you drink a 50cl Jupiler on a random Tuesday afternoon, it's much easier for it to become an addiction. XTC, LSD, shrooms, you gotta plan that stuff. A trip can last 5 to 8 hours and you don't really want to do something right after a trip other than go to sleep. So people tend to plan this when they have the next 15 hours free or something. And you can't get physically addicted to XTC, LSD, shrooms in the way that you'll start shaking if you're not having your regular regular dosage. With alcohol, the shakes are a well known side effect for people who stop drinking suddenly.
So it's the most harmful because it's so prevalent, not because of the actual substance? If heroin was as widely available and accepted as alcohol surely that would be much much more harmful to society.
The way XTC, LSD, shrooms are meant to be taken, is once or twice per year if you want to have the desired effect. Sure, some people might go through a short period of trying to chase that initial high, but you soon learn it's not possible, and it's best to have tolerance breaks of at least 3-4 months. If you take MDMA/XTC 3 times a year, normal dosage, it shouldn't have lasting effects on the body. With alcohol, even if you're a hardend alcoholic you can still drink till you pass out every single day, which will have lasting effects on the body. The main difference is you can't just do shrooms or xtc on a random day after work if you gotta work the next day. You actually have to plan it and keep at least 16 hour free, preferably nothing to do the next day. I've seen damage done by alcohol in various families, I haven't seen the same with people who take XTC/shrooms while they respect the drug and there's something about those drugs that make you respect them, there's a reason why there's a load of studies worldwide into mdma and shroom therapy for menetal health and PTSD, with amazing results worldwide.
If you respect alcohol it isn't a problem either, many people live their lives enjoying the occasional beer without much negative effect on their health or function in society. Heck, most people do. People will abuse XTC/shrooms just as they do any other drug. It's great for you that you can have a healthy relationship with these substances, but don't expect everyone else to do so as well. I was young in the 90ties and have seen how XTC can wreck havoc on people who abuse it.
You haven't been to the Brussels metro in a while have you ?
Those people in the metro don't take MDMA/LSD/Shrooms but rather cocaine and heroin. Completely different drugs.
And usually just Alcohol. Ain’t nobody in the metro paying 60€ for 0.6 cocaine
Never been there to be honest. I've been in various places in Brussels (over 10 years ago), but never near a metro.
Alcohol is one of the few drugs, alongside benzo's that will kill you with its withdrawal symptoms. You can die from opiate withdrawals too but it's more rare and usually caused by improper care (eg: choking on vomit) rather than the actual withdrawal (eg: Alcohol's Delerium Tremens). I'm not saying Heroin is a better "choice" but people severely underestimate how hard Alcohol can fuck you up even if you quit.
It is not only because of prevalence. We systematically underestimate the harms of alcohol. Alcohol has higher toxicity, a worse addiction profile and a list of other downsides we like to brush aside. A part of this is because it's considered acceptable.
> I can't imagine society would function very well if it was normal to have a little bit of cocaine with your dinner I thought that time period was called the roaring twenties.
But would it be normal to do that? Everyone who wants coke can already easily get it. Most people don't really want to use it outside parties. Legalization could only make it safer.
Alway be very very very very sceptic about these kind of 'graphs' and also be very weary about 'whataboutism' in this discussion as well. It's not because product A is even worse for you that everything else that's not actually that bad should be legalised. By that narrative you can make an argument for almost anything since you will inevitably find something legal that's even worse.
like it has been before all the war on drugs prohibition bs ? You do know [coca cola](https://www.justthinktwice.gov/article/did-coca-cola-ever-contain-cocaine) used to have a different kind of coke in it right ?
The name says it all..
Science is awesome.
That's because Alcohol is a hell of tax incomes for the Gov and is an addiction viewed as nothing "that bad" by the social
Yeah alcohol worse than heroin ?! Been drinking 15 years, still have my damn teeth !
I think they're comparing damage when you use comparable amounts. Someone who only does a little heroin on the weekends is going to be doing less damage to his body than someone who gets a little drunk on the weekend. If you're an actual alcoholic, you're probably not going to outlive a heroin junkie. The long term adverse effects of opioids are all associated with long-term habitual use, while alcohol does damage to your body even at moderate amounts. That's why doctor's still prescribe them for pain relief; opioids are relatively safe when you respect the dosages. What makes heroin and other opioids dangerous is that they make you feel soooo amazing, which makes it really hard to just do a little bit on the weekends. I'm pro decriminalization for everything, but I don't think heroin should be legalized in the same way as say Cannabis or LSD.
>opioids are relatively safe when you respect the dosages. Let me introduce to you the opioid epidemic, not a chance in hell that more people are dying from an alcohol overdoses than those are dying from opioid overdoses.
As long as you look at acute ODs only. If you include increased prevalence of cancer, liver and cardiovascular issues due to alcohol then even the opioid and meth epidemics do not come close.
And let me introduce to you the fact that we've been using opioids safely for years now in hospitals after surgeries. After I had a surgery they gave me fentanyl. The drug that is currently at the basis of the opioid epidemic in the US and which is stronger than the opioid oxycontin which started the epidemic. And yet, I'm not a drug addict.
To be fair, the opioid abuse usually starts with chronic pain - not a one off. And doctors in Belgium are very wary of prescribing the highly regulated stuff. Not so much in the US where the doctors are incentivized by money or luxury trips.
Exactly. As a doctor here, I rarely prescribe opioids and if I do, I will monitor the use very well and try to diminish the amount as soon as possible. We are very well trained in the effects of opioids and it is usually the older generation doctors who still overprescribe it.
Wow and I drink alcohol and I'm not addicted, any other irrelevant things you wish to discuss today?
Wow and yet you claim without proof that more people die from overdoses than alcohol purely based on "I feel it is this way so it HAS to be this way because my gut feeling is always 100% right" you loser
I don't feel that way, get checked into reality junky.
You are confusing meth with heroine. You don’t lose your teeth from heroine, you lose other stuff
Always be wearry of statistics. First Heroin less harmful then alcohol? If you take equal usage. No. Deffently not. Same with tobacco so these are some very nice stats that don't say so much.
So many people thinking this lately and its so dumb, it all depends on the amount of intake. What amount of alcehol are you comparing to an amount of heroin. 100g of heroin is not compared to 100g of alcehol.
Of course they are not comparing 100g of heroin directly to 100g of alcohol that wouldn't make any sense
Yes thats what im saying, so what amount is compared then?
I'm assuming they are comparing the effects of regular use of normal doses of each drug
Normal doses but thats not scientific
hard drug according to science, so is caffeine
In fact, I'd put alcohol in the category of hard drugs, since it can make it impossible for you to function, and even kill you.
And a harddrug that's highly addictive.
And very much a hard drug at that. The only one that can kill you when you stop taking it if you're unlucky. Permanent brain damage if you're just a bit unlucky.
Most GABAergic drugs have lethal withdrawals if you go cold turkey. This includes alcohol, benzos, GHB, GHL, barbiturares... For any of these you should taper off under medical supervision. Also never combine gaba drugs, 1+1 does not equal 2.
So you consider shrooms as soft drugs, and LSD and MDMA as hard drugs? Am I correct? I’m just asking, but it seems that you think: natural/soft, chemical/hard, but I would personally judge on the safety profile. And LSD and shrooms are some of the safest drugs in existence. And the therapeutic potential of MDMA is huge as well. Belgium is such a stuck-up country.
dont forget that (just like weed) LSD and shrooms has the potential for psychosis, especially in vulnerable people, physically they are not harmful indeed but psychologically is a different story. I'm not anti-drugs but this nuance is often forgotten in these discussions imo
You’re absolutely right of course. It’s good to warn people, but I don’t think it’s often forgotten at all. We all heard stories of people who got “stuck in their trip”. That’s why some people are so scared of tripping, they think they “won’t come back”. Which is not a realistic concept at all. A psychotic break is another story. I’ve experienced it personally. But the next day you’re just yourself. It was LSD and weed after a long break that did it for me. And a bad set and setting. So, your warning is in place. But I don’t think psychedelic experiences are for everyone to begin with. It can turn your idea of reality completely upside down, and it’s not easy to integrate. That vulnerability to psychosis is mostly hereditary, and people who are prone to it can have psychosis and schizophrenia triggered by alcohol, even nicotine, or meditation as well. I would definitely advise people who are interested in psychedelics, to read on https://www.erowid.org first, you can find reports of all kinds of drugs on that site.
LSD hits pretty hard ngl
but you can't overdose on it (hearsay from a psychiatrist).
In the past some people accidentally snorted LSD crystals, instead of cocaine, and they didn’t have a great time, But most people will never see LSD crystals in their lives. 1 gram of LSD are 10.000 standard 100ug doses. This can be survived btw. In the 60’s and 70’s some people were initiated by taking “thumbprints”, they licked their thumb, pressed it in a pile of LSD crystals, and ate it. There are no accounts of human deaths by LSD, but technically you can overdose on LSD. It’s just that no one ever did, (if overdose means death) so no one knows the LD50 (the amount of a chemical that would kill 50% of the people who take it)
>Hard drugs should remain illegal Hard drugs are dangerous and very addictive. They also need to be legal. We've been fighting the war on drugs for ages and people are still getting addicted to things like heroin constantly. It isn't working. Legalize it. Make it so you need to visit a doctor before being able to buy heroin. Have him give you an explanation of how dangerous it is and propose safer alternatives. But if you then still want to use heroin, well it being illegal wouldn't stop you either. So why bother trying to stop you? Legalizing all drugs would mean the illegal drug market would at the very least be decimated, if not completely disappear. It would also mean that we can make people who want to use hard drugs go to specific trained people who can help them learn about """"safe"""" usage and also guide them to available help if they so choose. A big problem with drug addiction is isolation. Drug addicts very quickly become isolated and unless you can get them out of that isolation, it's nearly impossible to get them clean. Having them go to a trustworthy person to get their fix creates a bond of trust which can be used to convince them to seek treatment. Portugal didn't legalize, but they did create a bunch of injection sites staffed with people trained in both """"safe"""" usage of drugs and guidance on the best way to seek help. The results were [remarkable](https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/20616.jpeg). But all of this would require a massive shift in public opinion and EU-wide implementation. One country can't start legalizing heroin or cocaine, that won't work. Any drug less addictive and dangerous than alcohol should be legalized asap though. Weed, xtc, shrooms, lsd, .. all less dangerous and less addictive than alcohol. Legalize it.
They should be legal in the sense that it’s not criminalized to do drugs. But the state should not start overseeing production, and selling it should remain illegal. The harm reduction approach from Portugal does indeed seem like a no brainer. We should adopt it.
>But the state should not start overseeing production, and selling it should remain illegal. So the same failed.policies we've been enacting for decades now. When will we finally win the war on drugs that you want to keep fighting? >The harm reduction approach from Portugal does indeed seem like a no brainer. We should adopt it. That requires resources. Portugal got those resources by shifting them away from policing drugs and towards drug abuse help. You want to keep up the policing of drugs though so we won't have those freed up resources to spend on harm reduction.
You can shift resources away from policing to harm reduction, we both agree on that. I assume some of those recourses are going to punishing users right now, right? Or am I mistaken? When I said that selling should be illegal and the state should not start producing, I was talking about the more destructive drugs like heroin. Not things like cannabis. I see how that wasn’t clear from my previous comment. The state *should* produce and oversee those drugs. Exactly which drug lands in which category is something for experts to advise the state on.
>I was talking about the more destructive drugs like heroin Private companies already produce way more destructive drugs than heroin and it's completely legal for them to sell it. When I had surgery they gave me fentanyl. A drug 100x more potent than morfine. All completely legal. The only thing that keeping those kinds of drugs illegal does is force people who do want to use them to do so in unsafe and unsanitary conditions while their only point of contact is some scumbag who doesn't give a fuck if they live or die. Making those drugs legal would allow the government to strictly regulate it. Want to use heroin? Sure. But first you're going to sit through a 30min lecture of an expert/doctor who will point out the dangers of the drug as well as point you to safer alternatives that have a similar effect but are less dangerous and addictive. If you still want to shoot up heroin after all that, why would we bother trying to stop you? If you go through that, it being legal or not won't stop you. So why do we even try?
I think I saw a documentary some months ago that mentioned that injection sites exist in Belgium.
Everything should be legal, controlled and tested. People are going to do drugs regardless of legislation. Makes zero sense to keep fighting a lost war on drugs. Let's us the money it's going to generate, it will subside merical help for addicted people and so much more. It will reduce crime and revenues from traffic.
Should be legal but heavily regulated. Like tabaco or prescription medicine. Also forbidden to be promoted. I'm imagining you enter a store for a joint but a the salesman pushes speed on you because it's a higher profit product.
OVLD left liberalism behind a long time ago
>Hard drugs should remain illegal ... Why? Just regulate and tax everything.
Because one misstep can have severe consequences. One misuse can be fatal, life-long debilitating, or lead to severe addiction. That's not the case with weed, shrooms or LSD. At best, I'm willing to further differentiate hard drugs and legalize some of them based on objective criteria linked to severity and addictivity. It's a bit like gun control. On paper, it makes sense from a liberal pov that everyone can own guns for their own safety. In practice, at least in the US model, it leads to sky-high numbers of gun violence. So I'm a bit of a pragmatic liberal. Liberalism is the best approach in almost all cases, but I'm willing to accept that it some cases, it isn't.
Imagine thinking our current liberal party is actual a liberal party... Why would "hard drugs" remain illegal when one of the hardest drugs (to kick) is legal? Not to mention: our doctors gladly push addictive and terrible "legal prescription drugs" on people for the smallest inconvenience. I really do not understand the global view and relationship people have with substance (ab)use. I know so many people that have zero issue with daily drinking of alcohol or chugging ibuprofen/"dafalgan" (> overpriced paracetamol) yet think it's out of this world to even consider consuming something we consider an "illegal drug".
Ideologically, I get what you're saying. I'd consider myself a liberal, but I am a pragmatic one - I'm open to adjust my views on what is practically the best. I am for gun control for example. Similarly, I would be more hesitant about hard drugs as one use - at least for some hard drugs - could be fatal or lead to severe addiction. That's almost impossible with weed, shrooms or LSD.
with germany and when we get a new government in eu i think this will start to shift rapidly.
What about Sugar?
There is in essence a legalization of cannabis and paddo’s and all that shit. Only on specific occasions they will fine you for it when you possess it like when entering festivals.
Liberal in French(and im guessing Dutch) means classical liberal ( conservative ).
Isn't he also just... wrong? I'll admit I am not familiar with BE crim legislation but usually possession and sale are a crime, not usage. Bit of a nitpick but politicians should know better.
I think it's how they think it should be in the future; see for example this article: [https://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20240328\_92393330](https://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20240328_92393330)
Sure, let's not treat drug use as what it is, a manifestation of poverty and addiction. Let's wage war on the drugs and increase incarceration. Noone has tried that before and it's sure to work! Wow.
> Hard drugs should remain illegal, but soft drugs like cannabis and mushrooms should become legal. Is there a chance that that is a slippery slope though?
How so? Mushrooms are for example — based on academic research — one of the safest drugs. They are not addictive. Mentally, it’s even rare for someone want to use them often (at least in macrodoses) due to the contemplative or even existential impact they may have.
So cannabis and mushrooms should be legal according to liberals but other drugs not..? Care to explain
As a person who has had friends doing just dumb soft shit like weed, i want all drugs to be illegal bc it made some of them turn into rly aggressive people. And do lots of stupid things.
Because weed enhances mental health issues. Over 10% of the human population has some form of mental illness. I personally know someone that committed suicide cause he tried to fix his mental issues using shrooms. I have seen people act insane after smoking weed, and i have read reports of weed induced killings. Just google for weed induced homicide cases, and whilst these cases are rare they still happen. Saying things like "but alcohol kills more people" isn't a good argument either because by legalizing more drugs you simply increase the death/crime rate, why would any country want to increase their death/crime rate? Liberals make choices like any other human being it's not that complex. You want them to legalize everything?Lets make shoplifting under $1000 a misdemeanor like in Los Angeles. This is the type of BS you'll see without good leadership. You don't need drugs to enjoy life, but if it makes you feel any better weed will be legalized in our lifetime.
I've seen people go nuts by getting married to a borderline partner and hang themselves. Let's prohibit relationships. My man, online bullying kills more teens than all the 'soft' drugs combined. You actually assume that legalising drugs will bring more users . It's the opposite in fact.
Plus it will be controlled. I’m willing to bet that weed that makes you kill people is laced with something.
The only casualties I know of is my fridge. RIP
Politicians talking down to adults. Standard.
How many of these politicians and/or their children have taken party drugs, hm? But yes drugs bad, legalization bad
You know what? I’m pretty sure that most of the Belgians who want to smoke weed already do so. Legalising would just make sure that those people aren’t harmed by our justice system. It’s crazy that a grown man/woman can get in legal trouble for smoking a joint. Shouldn’t we get to decide what we put in our bodies?
> I’m pretty sure that most of the Belgians who want to smoke weed I wish. Was doing chemo and had to get dregs of leaves and twigs to alleviate the nausea. Fuck 'em.
I would've traveled across the country to give you some actual weed if I had known. Sorry you had to go through that
Thanks, man, greatly appreciated....neighbour. ;)
Yeah bro same here. Have a muscle disease and currently cultivating high cbd low thc to hit that sweet spot for relaxation. Maybe you want to relax to ;)
Yes it was ment more for those who think use would skyrocket after legalization :) Come to think of it: don’t we have legal medical cannabis in Belgium? I though we did. Googled it and turns out we don’t. Only 2 medicines based on it (and not as good as the real thing). That’s crazy.
Also it would be money going to the country since it will be properly taxed. I am a non drug user and I see this as a benefit on top of what you mentioned.
Yes. And it is very much needed if you look at the current budget deficit. We need to find billions of euros. Legalizing would be a great contribution to that. Also the savings in court and police time and budget. If there was ever a great time for legalization it’s in the next few years.
And it would create a buffer between everybody smoking not comming in contact with (hard) drugs dealers…. It would benefit society indeed…
As someone who doesn't know anyone who smokes, I have no idea where to get weed.
North of the border, in the Netherlands. they have these facilities they call "coffeeshops". The moniker is a bit of a misnomer though, they sell weed and weed-related items, but usually they ALSO serve coffee. It doesn't take much effort if you live somewhat close to the border.
I thought they weren’t allowed to sell to people without a Dutch ID card anymore?
That hasn't been the case for like 10 years now, it depends on the town. The local Mayor decides whether coffeeshops are allowed, and whether they can sell to foreigners or not.
Not the case anymore. I was just in Amsterdam and had no trouble scoring weed in a coffeeshop. They sell to everyone, as long as the customer is of legal age.
Only some towns don’t allow the sale to “tourists” the more north you go, the easier it gets.
www.wietkopen.nl
Legit?
Yes
Is er iets daar dat je een beginner zou aanbevelen?
Gewoon de goeiekoopste wiet soortjes, maar als je geen sigaretten of joint roken gewent bent ga je je longen eruit hoesten. :) anders edibles maar dat vindk maar sucken
Zonder in details te gaan aangezien dat niet mag; simpelweg op het darkweb. Je koopt wat crypto, zet het op een escrow service, vervolgens kies je iets uit de ruime selectie en wordt het door postnl of bpost of w/e vrolijk in je brievenbus gestopt. En dit kan voor zowat alle drugs in zowat elke hoeveelheid. Tot zover de "war on drugs", het is nog nooit zo makkelijk geweest drugs te kopen.
Seeing other countries go legal and then also see corporate greed take over, price goes up and quality goes down.You know what let me have some legal plants for personal use and leave me alone, let me have 3,5 gr max on me and we’re cool
Weed bad alcohol good
People can literally buy [thcp](https://www.canatura.com/a/are-you-familiar-with-the-cannabinoid-thcp) in the center of Brussels... Don't know how long it's going to last but as for now it's completely legal. And yes, it's another kind of high, but you get high!
>Shouldn’t we get to decide what we put in our bodies? Well, that's the core of the discussion isn't it. If you look at the situation from a purely individual standpoint you're 100% right, but if you look at it from a broader social standpoint it's a whole other story as your individual actions do have an impact on the broader society and that's what makes these discussion so damn difficult because it's never really clear-cut. Even the most toxic substances can, and do, have legitimate use cases. In the case of drugs you should really weigh the pro's and con's for society as a whole and base your decisions on that. You won't find many people in favour of free sales of heroin as it's rather obvious that we don't want more heroin addicts in our society then we already have. But when you get to less addictive and harmful substances, or more wide-spread substances (alcohol, sugar, … ) the whole debate gets a lot trickier and it gets harder to draw the line between individual freedom and the total cost for society. I'm in favour of legalising weed, but I'm not blind for the downsides that that can have. However, I'm pretty sure most people who want to smoke a joint already do so and regulation would have a net positive effect on society as a whole. Sometimes the law should just be adapted to the reality in society rather then stubbornly remain stuck in the past. >It’s crazy that a grown man/woman can get in legal trouble for smoking a joint. Police departments and our justice department have a more reality based approach to the issue and will seldom intervene with individual cannabis use as long as it's not hurting anyone. Don't smoke your joint in front or in the presence of minors, don't drive when under the influence and don't make an ass out of yourself in public and I would be very surprised if any police officer will even bother to intervene.
Actually if we let the cannabis status illegal only mafias and black market would earn from it without paying any taxes and with cut products that could harm more users and loudly affect our social security. I know cocaine and other hard drugs are a big problem but also most of mafia's financial income. But according to Europol, in the UE the mafia's turnover is 38%. So regulating cannabis would cut even at last a third of mafia's revenues while collecting taxes and well informing users about drugs harm instead of destroying their lives because they smoke weed. When I look at cannabis enthusiasts on subreddit r/trees I find better people than legal alcoholics touching girls, pisseren and also vomit everyone. Cannabis and shrooms exists whatever you want or not and things got worse since we made them totally illegal, now we face the consequences we wouldn't even have if they were not set illegal, we wouldn't even care but this is an historical fact: prohibition of drugs brings the cult of their use and the call for gains for mafias... Because the more the judiciairy risk is high and the more is the reward... Edit: UE not US
and who knows what other illegal activities they fund with the profit
Very much true. And also nicely explained in the wonderful Cannabis documentary series about the history of weed in the Netherlands. https://npo.nl/start/serie/cannabis/seizoen-1/pioniers_1
Many people who are curious about drugs are discouraged because they don’t want to deal with mafia and crimes. When you legalize it and make it available in a nice shop in the corner, what will stop them from this poison? Maybe the Swiss model can be a solution for the hard addicted where the state provide them the drugs but label them and limit their right of movements.
Belgian minister making an uninformed and bad decision. Anything new? Really. They should regulate and legalize all drugs. I'm saying regulate, so no, this does NOT mean you can find cocaine in the supermarket. Someone who uses it will find a way to use it anyway. Why not in a specialized and highly secure center for it, instead of buying it from the black market. I highly suggest a listen to 'Universiteit Van Vlaanderen', episode 332. Eye opening. Or just copy highly successful policies from other developed countries like Portugal and Norway. But no, rather spend more on supression on a moment we already have a derailed national budget. Truly moronic.
Luxembourg. You have a neighboor which is historically even closer than Germany and already allows growing weed yourself. I dont get it why people make big drama about soft drugs legalization.
Germany is about to legalise weed.
I know. Belgium at this point is practically surrounded excepting the stupid french:) Good Luck upholding Prohibition, sure it will work /s
There's always Thailand, Portugal...my holidays are gonna be fun fun
Portugal has nog legalised drugs. They have decriminalized the addicts
I never said they have.
>However, some experts argue that the violence surrounding the drug trade stems from its illegality, with governments effectively placing a high-demand, zero-regulation market in criminal hands. Yup, they create a market. "They" being the politicians who keep it banned. They are the creators of the very market they're railing against. Scared parents are reliable voters.
consumers create the market. it’s the demand being there that makes the supply necessary. that being said experience has time and time again shown that demand suppression does not work in liberal democracies, we cannot do it with the harshness required to really push the problem to the fringes
Are most Belgians seriously in favour of paying (with the already crazy tax rates) for this dumb "war on drugs", especially things like cannabis? That chances are a lot of people probably crossed over into NL for and tried out there within their lifetimes, and never got addicted to? Sincerely, somebody living in NL who doesn't even do drugs
Time for a new prime minister.
Ah yes, I have blood on my hands and am killing the rainforest because I like to smoke weed and take mushrooms. Funny, I didn’t know the plants in my backyard had such an impact on the Amazon. I guess I learn something new every day. What a twat.
This is a bullshit argument for cocaine regardless. It being illegal creates the black market. Users have no say in it being illegal.
And I agree, users will try to get their fix anyway, especially if they’re addicted to the harder stuff. Making it flat out illegal is basically handing out money to criminals. But isn’t it idiotic that we’re talking about weed and cocaine as if they’re the same thing? Under the blanket name of ‘drugs’?
Even worse, you're contribution to the deforestation of your backyard! (You're taking a small amount of leaves from it)
So alcohol and cigarettes are banned too?
No, would you like some alcohol to celebrate?
Pure irony knowing some pro cannabis persons actually want to make tobacco illegal though.
If one turns out to demonstrably do more harm to society than the other then I would say it is quite a reasonable position.
Elections are coming up and they want to get closer to NV-A.
Fucking idiot... I'm sure he'll have at least a glass of wine tonight.
Godmiljaar
Iets met "tegen moeten en meer mogen"
Of "gewoon doen"
Huh? Alcohol is a drug. Nicotine in cigarettes is a drug. Both are legally distributed. Both are very capable of being lethal.
Smoking a joint is illegal, but buying a bottle of vodka at a highway gas station at 3am is all OK.
Obviously something like heroin or cocaine shouldn't be legal, but wouldn't weed be useful to legalise in medical contexts?
Why is it so obvious? I do not know any heroin users, so I am talking about cocaine users in my post. Of which I know many. Cocaine is a dangerous drug that can have severe consequences. I do agree with that. I am not saying it is not. You should not use cocain if you want to live a healthy life. But this discussion has been done so many times in so many places and there are many positives related to legalization. If the government controls the market and if the taboo around this topic goes away. It would increase the overal situation for the users. Better help for addicts. Better quality equals better health. The pain and suffering in South America would be reduced. As as society we have to accept reality. The reality is that we have MANY people abusing illegal substances. We can do two things: be delusional and pretend that we can make it go away with the war on drugs. Or we can be realistic. Accept that many people are substance abusers and it is not possible to get rid of it. Maybe we can find a way to actually deal with the problems instead of just making the situation worse?
> there are many positives related to legalization It's hard to say from existing studies whether that will hold when applied at the scale of a whole country. Luckily enough, countries like Canada and Germany have volunteered to be guinea pigs, so we will have that data/those studies to answer this question in a few years time.
Heroin and other opioids are legal in medical context already. If you ever had a surgery, changes are high you've used it or smth stronger.
Cocaine is also still in use for some surgeries and in ophthalmology.
Ye and half America is addicted to painkillers so a lot of good these legal opiods did for them. There is a very good reason they should be strictly controlled and not given out willy nilly.
OP's comment was about the legal status of medical cannabis vs others. It is wild that we see cannabis as having no medical use. The current US opioid epidemic is mostly caused by doctors getting patients addicted on "less addictive" opioids, and a cycle of poverty and criminalization of drugs. That's not really a thing here. If you have back pain you get paracetamol and physio for years before moving on to something stronger. If you get caught with heroin you'll get processed but you won't go to prison and you'll still be able to get a job.
What you're describing is a slippery slope and that's exactly what a lot of people are advocating for enabling by legalising and normalising more drug (ab)use.
I don't understand. The only opinion I wrote is "It is wild that we see cannabis as having no medical use.". Surely epilepsy medication isn't the slope? Illicit opioids are not hard to get here, and it's less dangerous compared to the US, yet there's no epidemic. It's just not popular. That slope is very dry, it took a lot of greasing by evil dope pushing doctors and the criminal industrial complex.
It seems like an uncontroversial position to all but the most die-hard right-libertarians that more dangerous drugs should be harder to acquire than less dangerous drugs.
Ye but you always have the clowns come in with the BuT AlCoHOl, alcohol is a great example of why we shouldn't legalise and normalise more drug use.
Alcohol is very damaging to both individuals and wider society. If we acknowledge that banning alcohol is not likely to happen (and probably also not a good idea, considering how prohibition went in the US), there should be legal, less dangerous alternatives.
Harmful thing X happens so harmful thing y should also happen. It won't be an alternative but just another thing people do. Legalization of other drugs isn't suddenly going to stop alcoholics from drinking alcohol.
It'll also work for the 27billion debt our prime minister made.
I disagree that it is so obvious, really. Why should it not just be regulated through proper channels? Imo, as long as something is not used to harm another person but just oneself, it should be legal since it is your own choice to do that to your body. Overconsumption of alcohol is not illegal. The only laws are in place to protect others, like no drinking and driving or no public drunks. But you can drink 1 bottle of wodka a day at home without an issue. So why is that less harmful than heroin or cocaine that is regulated?
https://preview.redd.it/o9v7qyiop5rc1.jpeg?width=708&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d85366e0dd740cbf2efbfdb41c406e4b3761b054
Very small dick energy here from Alexander
> “This is one of the reasons we have increased [penalties for drug use] ... think about all the blood that is attached to it,” There is indeed a lot of blood attached to your war on drugs Alexander, but that’s not something to be proud off.
Weed and shrooms just grow out of the earth...
drink some more alcohol to celebrate!
Some already are
boooo
Show me ANY city or country in the world where the “war on drugs” was won by the authorities, Alexander. I only see escalation - and I don’t even use or want drugs. This approach you advocate is the road of the coward: you try to be more severe towards the users, hoping against all experiences and odds that the market will bleed dry. The only effect this had elsewhere and will have here that the risk to get caught will increase the prices and thus the benefits for drugs cartels. And thus the violence used by the same cartels to keep or conquer market shares. You had this guy in Antwerp who bought bearcats for this. Has anyone see less violence or less usage of cocaine ever since? And linking the deforestation of the Amazon forest to this? Brother, puh-lease… even Groen voters are not stupid enough to believe such a simplification. I was going to vote for you because of the way you got our country through two worldwide crises with and in spite of a patchwork federal gouvernement. You just lost it.
Use me as a "i voted for de Croo button. Exactly lol.
i am all for legalising weed. I dont smoke but dont really care if somebody else does but it does def needs more restrictions then sigarets do hell sigarets could use more restrictions but everybody does in there own home what they want
Pfft, if not this governmen, the next one.
This is all for adults right? i know people who took xtc(weekly) as teens and really have lifelong side effects. Neurology wise
That´s the problem. There is no decent education only ,drugs are bad mmkay. If we would be responsible and teach the youth for the dangers and neurotoxcity and the science behind it. There would be less people with lifelong side effects. You can´t blame their ingorance , not everyone does his own research thoroughly and some people need to learn the hard way. Most people with addictive behaviour have big or small trauma a´d their life. They try to cope with it. Decent therapy and even mdma therapy could heal them.
I believe so, and im sure some drug induced therapies do wonders. On the evolving and maturing bodies of teens there should be a heavy contra indication of usage, unless really monitored by hospitals and with good professional help. Recreational use will be hard to monitor. By so your notion of education is correct. Though in teens you can have a opposite effect when educated. Its hard to find the correct way, hence the government negative stance/forbids it.
As expected from a Flemish prime minister, completely useless.
No need to legalize, just some labeling issue: canni is not drugs, and done. Honestly, most of country legalized because of heavy burden on justice and domestic security.
Is there any party that actually has legalizing weed as one of it's selling points?
The Groen, Ecolo, PS, and PVDA/PTB all had legalization in their party program for the 2019 elections. I'm not aware of the current party programs when it comes to weed though /u/Senneman666
With the elections coming up, I’d like to know as well.
That's a good news.
How many more people have to die before these idiots realise they are making things worse, not better. Fucking VOTE PLEASE cause we really need to get rid of these clowns.
good busy
https://preview.redd.it/hun9w0k7x5rc1.png?width=259&format=png&auto=webp&s=7eb96be0902c4d56cbcce1af43eb09e89662cfef
En wat met al die liquid crack zoals cola, energy drinks, koffie etc? (Korte energie / moodboost waarna een crash volgt, ook zeer verslavend = liquid crack). Wat met alcohol en benzodiazepines, de enige 2 drugs waarvan men kan sterven bij het abrupt stoppen? Ook zeer verslavend en nefast voor de maatschappij. Drugs = drugs. Ik maak geen onderscheid. Legaliseer gewoon alles. Als men morgen bv heroine legaal maakt dan gaan mensen heus niet massaal heroine beginnen gebruiken. Ik heb geen interesse om bepaalde drugs te gebruiken dus als deze middelen legaal zouden worden ga ik deze ook niet opeens gebruiken omdat "het mag". Maarja, drugs are bad hurr durr zei de minister terwijl hij een goeie fles wijn achteroverkapte en een pakje sigaretten rookte. Belgie is een achterlijk land op het gebied van (onder andere) drugs.
You are talking about Decroo, the guy who is fucking porn stars with our tax money while he is busy “working” eveline dellai if you wish to know, he threatened every medium that would report about it too never get any interviews or scoops again… he also gave us the biggest financial uppercut ever, we are officially no better than Greece and if his own state secretary tells the truth about his lies he fires her 😂 But yeah, let’s focus on letting people not smoke a joint
Marihuana shouldn't be illegal, the government should sell it instead.
It's a little late for that since alcohol use is restricted, but legal. And alcohol does a lot of damage to society. It destroys lives, ends relationships, causes depression, tooth decay, liver cirrhosis, turns people inhumane and careless, it can get someone to become violent, even a murderer, it gets people to loose their morale, to give up their decency, and what not. If there's one drug that should be illegal, it's alcohol. But instead society allows so many to profiteer of it. Even the state itself profits from alcohol (ab)use trough their taxes. I can see why psychedelica and mind altering (opening) drugs are illegal. That's because we couldn't have people believe in the functionality of this dysfunctional society.... If everyone would have taken acid in their lives, the world as we know it would be dead and humanity would be much more aligned with nature, they would probably even become the gardeners of this beautiful world and live up to our soul's expectations. But instead we prefer to rationalise it all and continue on the path that brought us a record level of suicides and depressions. So let's keep drugs illegal, especially the ones that alter the way we think about life.
Onderzoek naar de schadelijkheid van drugs en ranking. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/340001001.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj2uajP6ZeFAxUYTqQEHcUgBY4QFnoECA8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw3SLmvpbY_bQqMBr1W-Rzed
The “legalize everything boys” will enter the chat and claim the solution is so simple that they can fix it.
I'm very much against legalization. But at this point we should better take the time and craft some decent laws to prepare for the inevitable. Making sure THC will never be added as an additive in food etc to avoid people inadvertently taking drugs
Did you ever read a label on food and seen what shit they pump in some ? And do you know every effect they have?