@drugism.bsky.social

Respecting People's Drug User Identities.
Empowering Marginalized Drug Users.

[@drugism.bsky.social @Drugism]

drugism (noun) : prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against marginalized drug users.

https://t.co/R7QTZ5KcI2

[@drugism.bsky.social @Drugism]

@DrugEquality That's great 👍

[@drugism.bsky.social @Drugism]

@fpc @DrugEquality @ClarkeMicah You're the one stuck on semantics. Sir Robin Murray opposes the policy name of decriminalisation but supports the practice of not arresting and imprisoning people who use cannabis, which is the opposite of what you support.

[@drugism.bsky.social @Drugism]

@fpc @DrugEquality @ClarkeMicah This is turning into an argument over semantics. Sir Robin Murray still supports depenalisation and de facto decriminalisation, citing the drop in UK possession arrests as evidence of its success.

[@drugism.bsky.social @Drugism]

@fpc @DrugEquality @ClarkeMicah No, he hasn't. You're conflating decriminalisation with legal regulation. Unlike you, Sir Robin Murray is knowledgeable and principled. He goes wherever the science takes him.

[@drugism.bsky.social @Drugism]

@fpc @DrugEquality @ClarkeMicah Sir Robin Murray, the expert you've cited for years to warn about cannabis risks, now acknowledges that criminalisation only compounds the negative consequences. When the evidence changes, the policy must change. Anything else is just dogmatic intolerance

https://t.co/vFh540WfmL

[@drugism.bsky.social @Drugism]

@fpc @DrugEquality @ClarkeMicah If you would only read the words rather than merely looking at the pictures, you might begin to grasp the argument.

[@drugism.bsky.social @Drugism]

@fpc @DrugEquality @ClarkeMicah Indeed.

[@drugism.bsky.social @Drugism]

@fpc @DrugEquality @ClarkeMicah And intolerance is intolerance.

I'm out.

[@drugism.bsky.social @Drugism]

@fpc @DrugEquality @ClarkeMicah Psychedelic sacraments are commonplace in religious practices around the world. The consumption of wine in your church is also an expression of religious identity. By calling the nanny state 'no problem' when it suits you, you've abandoned principles of liberty for cultural bias.

[@drugism.bsky.social @Drugism]

@fpc @DrugEquality @melrod42 @ClarkeMicah I'd assert that @DrugEquality is expressing a sense of self analogous to your Christian identity. You'd call it tyranny if the state banned your faith because some people find it 'irrational' or 'socially harmful'. Why is your soul a sanctuary, but his synapses a crime scene?

[@drugism.bsky.social @Drugism]

@fpc @DrugEquality @melrod42 @ClarkeMicah .@DrugEquality's point is grounded in ethnobotany and neuroscience.

[@drugism.bsky.social @Drugism]

@fpc @melrod42 @ClarkeMicah Equating consenting adult risk-taking behaviours with child abuse is a desperate pivot.

I think we're done here. Thanks for the chat.

[@drugism.bsky.social @Drugism]

@fpc @melrod42 @ClarkeMicah So the 'nanny state' is 'no problem' when it suits you?

The state justified lockdowns by claiming 'private' choices were 'harmful to others'. @ClarkeMicah spent 5yrs fighting that logic, yet you readily adopt it the moment it targets *other* cultural groups.

Absolute hypocrisy.

[@drugism.bsky.social @Drugism]

@fpc @melrod42 @ClarkeMicah Hmm. You're not a defender of liberty against the 'nanny state'. You're just another partisan who likes state overreach and authority when it targets *other* groups of people whom you hate.

[@drugism.bsky.social @Drugism]

@fpc @melrod42 @ClarkeMicah Most people thought the UK was free during lockdown, too. But you didn't. You saw the nanny state at work.

Freedom isn't binary. It's a spectrum. A country can have free elections but still be culturally paternalistic.

[@drugism.bsky.social @Drugism]

@fpc @melrod42 @ClarkeMicah Lockdown was a tragedy for liberty, but caging a person for years over their private internal chemistry is the ultimate 'overt' nanny state.

You don't have to approve of drug use to recognise that bodily autonomy is the final line against tyranny.

[@drugism.bsky.social @Drugism]

@fpc @melrod42 @ClarkeMicah So it's only a 'nanny state' when the rules affect you? That's quite the double standard. A state which polices your internal chemistry and cages you for 'violations' is objectively more 'overt' and invasive than one which mandates the wearing of masks in indoor public spaces.

[@drugism.bsky.social @Drugism]

@fpc @melrod42 @ClarkeMicah You're conflating private acts with public harms. If someone neglects their children or drives dangerously, we police those specific behaviours. But punishing private, consensual acts because of potential social costs is the definition of a nanny state.

[@drugism.bsky.social @Drugism]

@fpc @melrod42 @ClarkeMicah How do you justify the belief that the state has the moral authority to police the private, consenting, risk-taking behaviours of adults? At what point does personal responsibility start, and the nanny state end?

[@drugism.bsky.social @Drugism]

@fpc @melrod42 @ClarkeMicah Here come the mindless insults. Again. 🙄