I mean, hasn't that kind of logic applied to places like Portugal and been pretty successful? If handled appropriately I don't see much of an issue with this, though with Portugal the idea behind it is rehabilitation and treating drug addiction like a mental illness to be treated. (Forgive me if I'm getting stuff wrong, it's a little late and I haven't read the article in awhile. Please correct me if I'm wrong.)
Portuguese here, and sorry to tell you but drugs aren't legal here. Selling them is completely illegal still.
*Even though I think they should be legal.
>Martin told VICE News Wednesday that his plan was to get arrested eventually. He said he wants to launch a constitutional challenge arguing that prohibition has created a toxic drug supply that’s killing Canadians.
Ok, so like I thought he planned to get arrested in order to make a statement.
"One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."
- Martin Luther King Jr
ITT: People completely missing the fucking point
There was a professor at Penn State that would smoke a joint back in the 80’s in the middle of campus once a year and get arrested. I hope he’s doing well while I sit here and type this comment smoking some fine medical cannabis.
Well I had it a bit wrong…I believe he had done it once or twice before this. No arrest but police got involved. It was [1998.](https://www.collegian.psu.edu/archives/high-times-professor-prostests-law-by-again-smoking-joint/article_3505ae54-c8f8-5132-be91-8a39bc0e47aa.html)
In CA before legal weed, there were (a lot of? At least some) people who sued the LAPD to get their weed back after it was taken from them when they had medical cards. I think people usually won.
Unfortunately, he passed away March 2022. But by all accounts he had a full life of civil disobedience and sticking it to the man
[Source](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/20/obituaries/julian-heicklen-dead.html)
This is exactly why lawyers tell you to NEVER talk to cops. Saying that could quite easily be taken as a statement of guilt. In which case you've already thrown out any legal argument you could have made to justify your actions.
That's kind of the point though, you're not trying to avoid legal penalties, you're saying that you are within the scope of something punishable by law (and thus should suffer the penalty of law), but the fact that it is punishable at all is what you're contesting.
Usually a lawyer would try to prove that you're not actually breaking any law, so you're right, of course, but a lawyer isn't trying to challenge the framework he's working in unlike that dude.
There is a legal avenue called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification but the courts in the US have barred lawyers from informing juries about it, and most Americans who get placed on a jury are ignorant of it.
If you ever don't want to get put on a jury, just say the magic words "I believe in Jury Nullification" and the prosecution will get you out of there faster than you can blink
I used to work as a prosecutor. People misunderstand what jury nullification means. Jury nullification has never been a "right" in any common law system. Instead, jury nullification is just a fancy phrase us lawyers use to refer to a situation where a jury does what they want without following the law/evidence.
The central point is juries can't be "punished" for making a wrong decision.
Lawyers can't instruct juries on the existence of "hey if you decide against the law we can't punish you hint hint" because this doesn't exist as a right. You can't ever instruct a jury to disregard the law. But like, if a jury does that anyways it's not like we can do anything about it. It's a wrinkle of the law - not something you are entitled to do, but not something you could ever be punished for.
Thank you for this. Every American needs to know this.
If the person absolutely did the crime, but the law is unjust, the jury can (and should) nullify the prosecution.
A judge will make you out to be an example if you say the words "Jury Nullification" in their court, or if they found out you discussed it during deliberations. Guaranteed 100%. Could be a fine, could be contempt of court, could be an entirely new jury, but some sort of punishment will happen.
They do not like it when people talk about doing end-runs around the law in their court. Judges will justify it with something along the lines of "Want the law to be different, have the legislature change it".
I only know this because I had a neighbour who was a judge, and I asked him about it one day while we were just chatting, after learning about it here on reddit. He said that he understands why people want to use it, tell others about it, and it is a completely legal and valid point of law. But it's not the right way to go about things, and with that said, if you utter those words in his courtroom where he made the rules, he would fine lawyers, fined a juror once, and then just find a new jury. Only ever threatened contempt once. And he ended it by saying that most of the other judges he knew would act the same way.
They ask every prospective juror some form of the question "do you have any beliefs that would compel you to rule in opposition to what the evidence indicates?” So if they ask you this question as they are trying to select and wade through different jurors, and you answer “I believe in jury nullification, then you’d still get in trouble with a fine? I get it if you start spouting it once you’ve already been picked, telling all the other jurors about it…
The primary reason nullification is frowned upon is because of its extreme potential for abuse. For example, nullification has been used in the past by racist juries to acquit individuals clearly guilty of lynching black people.
> "Want the law to be different, have the legislature change it".
Doesn't this apply just as much to their opposition to jury nullification? It's a completely legal, protected act.
If you tell the rest of the jury about it, you'll likely get kicked off the jury. You can exercise your right to nullify by simply refusing to convict.
The inspiring quote and this comment together making it so i can’t stop thinking about a fake tv show where MLK Jrs’ lawyer has to continually prevent him from launching into a grand, inspiring, solemn speeches that implicate him in various crimes.
Thanks a lot everyone.
“And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear?…It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met.”
-MLK
Gandhi was the same way. I also remember a story from history class, where a man who lived in the US during the time of the war between US and Mexico. I don't remember his name, but he refused to pay taxes because he didn't want his money to fund the war, and encourage his local sheriff to arrest him for it.
>who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment
You started a thread where every reply ignores the fact he wants to mount a Charter challenge. This could rule out imprisonment and force Federal government to change narcotics laws, presumably to protect safe sources.
He is taking on a risk of imprisonment with the intention of challenging the laws.
>He is taking on a risk of imprisonment with the intention of challenging the laws.
That's what MLK is talking about though. He's not just saying you should humbly break unjust laws just so you get to go on a road trip to jail. The implicit context of why one ought be breaking these laws is protest against them, in an attempt to change them.
Some of Canada's biggest constitutional challenges were launched by people intentionally getting arrested. This is what led to abortion being decriminalized under the Charter, for instance.
Henry morganthaler is a proper Canadian hero. Legality does not equate to moral correctness. The legalization of drugs does not create any additional problems that do not already exist. It simply manages them and mitigates what will exist regardless. You would be mitigating gang violence by eliminating their revenue through drug trade, providing a safe and stable potency of drugs that would immensely decrease overdose deaths, generate tax revenue by the sale of drugs, and like tobacco, could be used to counteract the cost of health care associated with the use of drugs. When we legalized marijuana, there was no increase in usage. It was the opposite. If you're in disagreement with me, just ask yourself this. Are you gonna go out and pick up a heroin addiction tomorrow, if it were suddenly legal? You're missing the entire point and fundamentally misunderstand what drives people to use drugs.
He does make a good point too, in that legalization comes with regulation. Bootleg alcohol was sometimes dangerous during the Prohibition Era, but people still drank it. Then when it was re-legalized, alcohol was regulated again, and much safer. If certain drugs are decriminalized, or even legalized, they can be regulated in order to ensure that people who partake of them are given safer products and guidelines to follow.
What you are describing is called the 'iron law of prohibition,' and it is a very real thing. The prohibition of substances actually leads to them being stronger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_prohibition
Here is a good podcast by a drug advocate who lives in Vancouver: https://www.crackdownpod.com/episodes/34-the-iron-law
He's describing something else, actually. Basement-brewed alcohol is more likely to have toxic contaminants. Government-regulated heroin would be free from fentanyl.
The ATF was intentionally distributing methanol tainted liquor to discourage consumption. You can't mess up bad enough to make a dangerously high methanol content while making whiskey. Especially since ethanol is the treatment for methanol poisoning, meaning you need huge concentrations of methanol to be dangerous in grain alcohol.
Yeah, that's definitely the main point of this. Legalizing drugs aren't "good," as much as making them illegal is worse on every level, from more making the drugs themselves more dangerous and promoting organized crime, to making it harder for those who are suffering from addiction to find help.
Drugs are like Nukes. Not great that we discovered them, but since we have there's no getting rid of them and we have to learn to live the effects, reducing harm in whatever small ways we can.
Exactly. You can say “those can be dangerous,” but you can also say “here’s how you stay safe,” and not necessarily support continued use of the drugs, while still keeping the people who choose to use safe. Having an environment where these things are decriminalized can greatly reduce the stigma of asking for help, or learning safe usage practices, and reduce loss of life.
i personally know his lawyer, Paul Lewin. i’ve* worked in cannabis for 18 years and he’s represented several activists in our community. he’s always itching for a fight.
spelling error *
Yeah, I saw the headline and was like "someone has a point to prove". He's not entirely wrong either. The total ban on recreational drugs in both the US and Canada led to the same issues Prohibition caused in the states. Drugs became a valuable underground commodity with no oversight and no help for addicts. I'm a recovered alcoholic. When I got sober, there were a thousand resources there to help me if I needed it. And for people who can and do enjoy recreational drinking, the industry is clean and regulated.
There's got to be a better way to handle recreational drugs.
Reminds me of the guy that falsely claimed that he murdered his sister (years and years later and when they couldn't find the killer) in order to exhume her body and find proof. They found proof of who actually did it. That took balls
Garbageland! Garbageland! Ricky! All Ricky did was take a perfectly good name that I came up with, Kittyland, stuck his name Garbage on the front of it, and came up with Garbageland. And people are coming up to me. Oh, you've got Kittyland going do you Bubbles, you must have gotten the idea from Ricky's Garbageland, did you? It's the other way around!!
I'm really curious if legalizing hard drugs would have an overall positive impact on our society. I have no skin in this game, just from a neutral stand point. Would it reduce harm? Eliminate drug cartels? Or make it worse by having more people addicted?
Man, this sounds so much like dealing with depression too. I always pictured it as having a corner of your room that is constantly on fire, and you can't do anything to put it out. But you learn, or someone teaches you how, to manage it and hold it back from engulfing the whole house and taking everything with it. Some days that fire burns a little slower and you don't have to tend to it as much, other days it burns a little hotter and you have to put more time and energy into keeping it back. You can't ever take a day off though, because it will take any opportunity to burn the whole thing down and it can happen so fast. It can be fucking exhausting fighting against yourself, and it's so hard to explain to people what that's like because they can't see it happening. Just gotta keep at it.
Grief is very similar. My favorite analogy is that grief is a ball in a box. There's a button on one side that when the ball hits it, you feel pain and sadness. When it's new, the ball is very large, and hits the button often and hard. But over time the ball shrinks, it doesn't hurt as bad, but it will randomly hit that button some days.
When it sneaks up on you and hits that button, it feels like it will never get better. It does, over time, but it's always there. Sometimes it'll hit the button when you think you're better, and that's OK. Some days the ball is a little bigger and heavier, but it'll shrink again.
addiction is often comorbid with mental illness. in a way it is very similar to psychological illness. that's why we've largely gone from "being an addict is a personal moral failing" to "addiction can happen to anyone and we need to be sympathetic to those suffering from it" (at least in more progressive and academic settings anyway)
but yeah. both sound utterly exhausting. similar to chronic physical illness too. it all sucks in similar ways.
100%. Substance Use Disorder is highly comorbid with other mental disorders and illnesses. It is classified solidly as a mental disorder as well as a medical one.
Wow - currently trying to get through to the “other side” of a really bad year long depressive episode, and this perfectly explains my situation. There are some days where I completely forget about it, and usually that’s followed closely by at least a few hours of being incapacitated until I can right myself again.
I watched my mom battle with crack addiction. It was 10 years before she could physically throw away her pipe.
As a random internet person, I am proud of you and the fight you keep fighting. Don't give up. You are stronger than addiction and will continue to win day after day and even if you fail, I will still be proud of all the work you have done already and wholeheartedly believe you will win again one day.
You got this.
Literally currently going through withdraws from a recent relapse and this made me cry and was exactly what I needed. Thank you, keep fighting each day. You’ve got this.
$40 felony is so rough. I'm not sure how long you've got under your belt, I'm getting close to a decade, and it feels like a surreal past life. I have no thoughts of ever going back or losing what I've built since. I was lucky enough to be able to complete a program that allowed me to get a misdemeanor instead of felony sales (if you have over a stupid low amount here, you're consider sales) and got my life together. The stigma that's still attached is something that I'll never shake. I just recently got a new job for a county in IT. I previously worked IT at a school, even after my substance abuse, the school gave me a shot after a few years clean. This new job, I had to go through interviews with some investigators since it's supporting the sheriff.
When they offered it to me, I had been truthful, and the director basically said "we just had to get this out of the way, it doesn't appear to be an issue" but my direct supervisor made an effort to comment about "I just want to be clear, this year is a probation and you're not guaranteed anything" with a tone that just came across like I was below him, and he was doing me such a favor. I can't blame them. I can't. They don't know me, they just see this on paper, and it follows you. It really upset me though. I know it's my fault, but knowing it's going to follow me forever just hurts.
I am so sorry for you with the felony. I know I got it easier without that my brother did get one and had a real hard time as well. He got lucky enough to get a job at a rehab facility and has worked his way up, but opportunities are few and far.
I lost so many friends, so much respect and trust from my family, and years of my life in that despair. It does get better. Every day I stop and look at what I've accomplished and couldn't imagine throwing it all away, and the hardest part for addicts is seeing that light of what you can have if you just keep going. I hope you've found how much better it is on the other side and never lose that even with the stigma attached. We both know it can always be worse.
As a former addict myself, the idea of going to the heroin store to buy clean perfect heroin also scares the shit out of me. I can't see how that wouldn't create an entire generation of users. I grew up in florida and saw what happened to my community when there was a "pain doctor" on every corner, where you could show them an any xray and the "doctor" would write you a script for 120 blues, 200 greens and 60 bars. It was devastating.
Some drugs should be illegal. Psychodelics, weed, yeah sure. But in my experience very very very few people can casually use heroin.
I'm all about decriminalization and the idea that someone should go to jail for possession is absurd. Don't penalize folks for addiction, offer legitimate ways for rehabilitation, including free rehab. But we in North America have a long ways to go before they get there.
Yep. I watched people take a few Vicodin here and there for years, without much detriment. Then OxyContin came out, and everyone switched from Vicodin to that, but even then I rarely saw anyone die from an overdose (though it did happen to a couple people I know, but they were mixing it with other drugs like benzos) though the OxyContin did cause a lot of economic damage to a lot of people I know because the habit was absurdly expensive (which was only because they were buying it black market) So of course with the price of Oxy being out of control (and then the formula switch) everyone I knew doing opiates switched to the 30mg Percocets (that was for people who had money coming in) but most switched to street heroin because it was far cheaper. And it was then that people started dying one after another, and then with the introduction of Fentanyl it really finished off the last of the people I know in that world. It sounds crazy but Legalizing and Decriminalizing opiates is all about harm reduction and it's a pragmatic solution.
Thank you for sharing and I hope you are finding things to do to fill your life with joy as you move forward!
What are points? I saw that listed on his sign too and haven’t seen that before.
A "point" is usually 0.1g of heroin. As in "zero POINT one grams" or 100mgs. Just slang for around a dose of heroin depending on your tolerance and the strength.
>I whole heartedly support legalization, decriminalization, etc. I dont want to create new heroin users.
that is the problem, would legalizing drugs (as in allow selling it in any way) increase consumption and/or deaths?
its a great question, but ask it on reddit and you will get downvoted and not given any sources.
as far as I know, no place in the world has **legalized** all drugs, some places have decriminalized use and possession of smaller amounts, like Portugal which has been successful.
https://www.portugal.com/op-ed/portugal-drug-laws-under-decriminalization-are-drugs-legal-in-portugal/
As a former fentanyl addict, let me tell you that heroin is a nicer high and the only reason people use fent is that it's cheaper for the dealers so it's all that's available these days. If clean heroin were available I'd take that over fentanyl 10/10 times. Most addicts I've talked to feel the same. Fentanyl is an inferior recreational high that only got popular because it was forced on the addicts by the supply side. Most addicts would gladly use legal heroin in place of fentanyl.
Literally everywhere that has legalized drugs has seen positive effects from it.
It's one of those things that is like a [Chinese finger trap](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_finger_trap) \- excessive force just makes things worse. More drug enforcement, more criminalization, more punishment = more profit for criminals, more incentive to commit other crimes, etc. etc. etc.
This is why prohibition was infamous for not only failing to stop drinking - but actually was responsible for increasing alcohol consumption... it failed at it's one and only goal, instead accomplishing the exact opposite, and all it cost was creating billion dollar criminal enterprises, losing billions of tax income, wasting billions on prison and law enforcement, and ruining countless human lives by excessively punishing people for drinking.
It's one of those things that is counter intuitive, but if you look at the data, or at history, or just kinda think about it for a while, it does make sense.
You left out another important effect of alcohol Prohibition. Many people died or were injured by badly manufactured alcohol. From Wikipedia:
>"Poisoning became a serious issue as various un-safe methods were used to make the production of alcohol an easier and cheaper process. Though these methods led to an increase in sales, and larger profits for those selling them, they had severe health consequences on those who bought illegal alcohol."
Sound similar to anything happening today with illegal drugs?
Prohibition is also when alcohol for industrial and medical use had methanol added to it, to make it poisonous to drink. This policy was enacted in the knowledge that there were already alcoholics in the habit of drinking industrial alcohol, who would be poisoned by the introduction of methanol into their supply. This amounted to a sentence of death or serious disability (often blindness) imposed by regulatory action.
Yep. This country knowingly killed addicts. Most people don’t know about the whole history of denaturing alcohol. We still poison it, but now, it’s more about preventing tax evasion.
Yet one of many groups of people hellbent on criminalizing behavior that doesn’t agree with their idea of what Jesus wants… no matter the cost to human life of the “sinners.” Prohibition being rooted in Protestant churches.
Back during prohibition my grandfather was in college studying premed. Since he was taking chemistry classes, some local moonshiners hired him to analyze their product. Testing apparently revealed methanol (and who knows what else), so my grandfather told them it was poisonous and they shouldn’t sell it.
The moonshiners added “analyzed by a trained chemist” to their label and sold it anyway.
As far as I know that was the end of their business arrangement.
>This is why prohibition was infamous for not only failing to stop drinking - but actually was responsible for increasing alcohol consumption...
can we stop using made up facts in this debate?
>Put together, the numbers suggest alcohol consumption dropped sharply in 1920, **falling to about one-third of what people drank before Prohibition.**
https://www.bu.edu/articles/2020/pov-the-100th-anniversary-of-prohibition-reminds-us-that-bans-rarely-work/
edit: Also mention 1 place that has legalized all drugs, I don't know any
Portugals PM answered this directly stating hat unless you have the infrastructure to rehabilitate, no.. it will only make it worse. So for Canada, no.. it wouldn’t help whatsoever.
When I was younger I truely believed that legalising even addictive drugs wouldn't have any impact other than making it safer for people who are already going to use them, then I saw how quickly people who had no interest in smoking or even vaping got hooked on high nicotine disposable vapes once they were easily available and now I'm really not sure. Decriminalisation seems vital but I don't know about legalisation anymore it seems people trust too much in the idea that if it's legal and available it's safe to every just legalise addictive drugs.
Sadly, agree. How many college kids would end up doing meth as a dare or prank, or just to be special, if it were sold next to the Marlboro.
It's not that I think people want to do hard drugs, but I think many are too arrogant to know how addictive they are.
Yeah I feel the same way, also gambling has turned me off of it. It’s not something that interests me but it’s not my business if someone wants to do it. Now it is infesting everything and I can’t even watch a game without being bombarded with gambling ads and the talking morons shilling that garbage.
Alternatively, as a grown man, the day my state outlawed flavor nicotine products was the day I stopped using any nicotine products. It was super convenient to just not be able to buy them. So I am on the same side as you where I have strong doubts that giving people easy access to heroin is a good idea.
https://substanceabusepolicy.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13011-021-00394-7
The experience in Portugal appears to be “kind of but the cost may not have been worth it in comparison to general trends”.
“Positive results include a reduction in mortality and infections associated with dependent behaviour and, among youth, a reduction in the prevalence of recent cannabis use, a postponement of the age of initiation and an increase in perceptions of related-risks [17]. Notwithstanding some fewer encouraging results, especially those related to the general population (aged 15 to 74 years), whose increase in prevalence and intensity of cannabis use [17] may reflect the normalization thesis [18]. Overall, one might observe a reasonably low level of drug use when compared with most European countries [19], which contrasts to what was witnessed at the end of the last century, a period marked by social and political alarm around drug phenomena. Consonant, social representations are now quite distinct from those that dominated the country earlier and which understood drug use as a serious social problem.”
“Despite Cato’s assertion that increases in lifetime prevalence levels among the general population are “virtually inevitable in every nation,” EMCDDA data indicate that other countries, including Spain, have been able to achieve decreases in lifetime prevalence rates for cannabis and ecstasy use between 2003 and 2008”
Legalizing hard drugs means we *need* free rehab and healthcare. We *need* **real** drug education for children and adults (not abstinence only policies). We need to invest in our communities, in the arts and entertainment so that doing drugs isn’t the only thing people in boring communities have to do. (All of this should have been implemented decades ago…but that’s a different story).
However we also need safe drug use, safe drugs, and safe avenues to seek help.
Decriminalize everything, but selling and distributing is another conversation that needs to be approached smartly.
This seems like a good place to spread the word that if you are in the Vancouver area there is a completely free drug testing service on the downtown East-side. They provide both fentanyl and comprehensive mass-spectrometer testing of just about anything. Results are usually available in 15-60 minutes. Look up 'getyourdrugstested' for information. If you use their service and can afford to do so, please tip/donate to help keep this volunteer and donation-run service available. They've saved countless lives.
I'm not a fan of his cocaine price points. Buying 1.0 g saves you $10 vs. what you'd pay at the 0.5 g rate. But 2.5 g only saves you $5 from what it would cost at the 1.0 g rate.
If you're buying at the higher end of the scale he needs to replace it, and if you want a steady supply of that amount, you want him to replace it. You might get that amount cheaper somewhere else, but is it clean, and for how long?
The entire project isn’t to make it cheaper. It’s to make it safer and at close to cost as possible it’s not supposed to be about the best savings possible as a business - it’s supposed to be about only providing pharmaceuticals at the highest grade possible, with fewer impurities and with appropriate testing. So that the service users know what they’re actually obtaining with a measurable understanding. Of which outside of his practice there is virtually zero standardisation.
Oh he [did](https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvjnyv/a-store-selling-heroin-meth-and-cocaine-just-opened-in-canada) lol "He’s also started an online shop with a delivery service that carries more drugs than he has in store, such as ketamine, LSD, and 5-MeO-DMT"
He's got a chance to win as well.
With the laws allowing it's use, making an exemption for the city it's clearly been shown that a properly controlled supply would be required.
How?
This is the same thing that happened when Medical marijuana was allowed for consumption. There was no reliable source of quality marijuana. The government supply wasn't up to spec. As a result lawsuits were filed AND WON.
So he has a decent precedence to go off of. Should be interesting.
They have to arrest him. He would have single handedly lower the death rates of addicts in Vancouver. Governments can't allow a single citizen to implement such an easy solution to a problem they strive to keep as complex as possible.
As a lifelong resident of Vancouver, and someone who lost his best friend to a fentanyl OD, I respect the fuck out of this guy.
Our governments have failed abysmally at dealing with this issue, and it will take people like him to make such profound statements to raise proper awareness.
[Vancouver still has a few illegal mushroom stores openly operating.](https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/local-news/magic-mushrooms-vancouver-store-2023-6561734) They have been for at least a year from what I remember. They sell a bunch of other illegal drugs too.
[удалено]
The store was parked next to a police van? Should that be the other way around?
It's a cocaine truck. Think like an Ice Cream Truck, but for cocaine.
That's dope!!!!
No, it's cocaine
hey careful don't meth with this guy
Yeah, he might smack you.
*hears jingle* Kids! The cocaine truck is here!
The van was parked next to a police store
That’s smart cause I always buy my police right after I buy my cocaine
It was a mobile store.
I mean, hasn't that kind of logic applied to places like Portugal and been pretty successful? If handled appropriately I don't see much of an issue with this, though with Portugal the idea behind it is rehabilitation and treating drug addiction like a mental illness to be treated. (Forgive me if I'm getting stuff wrong, it's a little late and I haven't read the article in awhile. Please correct me if I'm wrong.)
Portuguese here, and sorry to tell you but drugs aren't legal here. Selling them is completely illegal still. *Even though I think they should be legal.
Damn, not sure how far he’s actually gonna get on that but I fully agree with the sentiment and greatly admire the balls this stunt took
>Martin told VICE News Wednesday that his plan was to get arrested eventually. He said he wants to launch a constitutional challenge arguing that prohibition has created a toxic drug supply that’s killing Canadians. Ok, so like I thought he planned to get arrested in order to make a statement.
Already had a trafficking record for weed, lost a brother to an overdose last year... he's got little to lose and lots to prove. Godspeed.
"One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law." - Martin Luther King Jr ITT: People completely missing the fucking point
There was a professor at Penn State that would smoke a joint back in the 80’s in the middle of campus once a year and get arrested. I hope he’s doing well while I sit here and type this comment smoking some fine medical cannabis.
Do you remember who? -PSU alumn
Well I had it a bit wrong…I believe he had done it once or twice before this. No arrest but police got involved. It was [1998.](https://www.collegian.psu.edu/archives/high-times-professor-prostests-law-by-again-smoking-joint/article_3505ae54-c8f8-5132-be91-8a39bc0e47aa.html)
LOL, the police took the joint from him, and his response? “That was theft!” What a boss.
"GET YOUR HANDS OFF MY JOINT! WHAT'S THE CHARGE? SMOKING A JOINT? A SUCCULENT JAMAICAN JOINT?!"
"THIS IS DEMOCRACY MANIFEST!"
Ahhh yes, I see that you know your Judo well.
GET YOUR HANDS OFF MY GRINDER
Tata and farewell
It never ceases to amaze me how much this event has travelled in time and space from our shores.
Really not that shocking. After all, Gentleman, this is Democracy manifest!
It's the Olympics of viral internet videos, it's everywhere you look for a few months, once every four years
In CA before legal weed, there were (a lot of? At least some) people who sued the LAPD to get their weed back after it was taken from them when they had medical cards. I think people usually won.
Unfortunately, he passed away March 2022. But by all accounts he had a full life of civil disobedience and sticking it to the man [Source](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/20/obituaries/julian-heicklen-dead.html)
I also hope he’s doing well while I lay here looking at my phone sober as a salmon.
Man when I got busted for growing weed when I was in high school I wish I knew this quote when the cops asked if I had anything to say.
All they’d hear is “willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment”
This is exactly why lawyers tell you to NEVER talk to cops. Saying that could quite easily be taken as a statement of guilt. In which case you've already thrown out any legal argument you could have made to justify your actions.
That's kind of the point though, you're not trying to avoid legal penalties, you're saying that you are within the scope of something punishable by law (and thus should suffer the penalty of law), but the fact that it is punishable at all is what you're contesting. Usually a lawyer would try to prove that you're not actually breaking any law, so you're right, of course, but a lawyer isn't trying to challenge the framework he's working in unlike that dude.
which is what makes doing so such a powerful statement.
There is a legal avenue called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification but the courts in the US have barred lawyers from informing juries about it, and most Americans who get placed on a jury are ignorant of it. If you ever don't want to get put on a jury, just say the magic words "I believe in Jury Nullification" and the prosecution will get you out of there faster than you can blink
I used to work as a prosecutor. People misunderstand what jury nullification means. Jury nullification has never been a "right" in any common law system. Instead, jury nullification is just a fancy phrase us lawyers use to refer to a situation where a jury does what they want without following the law/evidence. The central point is juries can't be "punished" for making a wrong decision. Lawyers can't instruct juries on the existence of "hey if you decide against the law we can't punish you hint hint" because this doesn't exist as a right. You can't ever instruct a jury to disregard the law. But like, if a jury does that anyways it's not like we can do anything about it. It's a wrinkle of the law - not something you are entitled to do, but not something you could ever be punished for.
That's very interesting, I knew the term but didn't know much about it
Basically a loophole with no real way to close it without acting in bad faith.
Ain’t no jury like a hung jury
Thank you for this. Every American needs to know this. If the person absolutely did the crime, but the law is unjust, the jury can (and should) nullify the prosecution.
A judge will make you out to be an example if you say the words "Jury Nullification" in their court, or if they found out you discussed it during deliberations. Guaranteed 100%. Could be a fine, could be contempt of court, could be an entirely new jury, but some sort of punishment will happen. They do not like it when people talk about doing end-runs around the law in their court. Judges will justify it with something along the lines of "Want the law to be different, have the legislature change it". I only know this because I had a neighbour who was a judge, and I asked him about it one day while we were just chatting, after learning about it here on reddit. He said that he understands why people want to use it, tell others about it, and it is a completely legal and valid point of law. But it's not the right way to go about things, and with that said, if you utter those words in his courtroom where he made the rules, he would fine lawyers, fined a juror once, and then just find a new jury. Only ever threatened contempt once. And he ended it by saying that most of the other judges he knew would act the same way.
They ask every prospective juror some form of the question "do you have any beliefs that would compel you to rule in opposition to what the evidence indicates?” So if they ask you this question as they are trying to select and wade through different jurors, and you answer “I believe in jury nullification, then you’d still get in trouble with a fine? I get it if you start spouting it once you’ve already been picked, telling all the other jurors about it…
The primary reason nullification is frowned upon is because of its extreme potential for abuse. For example, nullification has been used in the past by racist juries to acquit individuals clearly guilty of lynching black people.
> "Want the law to be different, have the legislature change it". Doesn't this apply just as much to their opposition to jury nullification? It's a completely legal, protected act.
> fined a juror once On what basis?
I'd keep it to myself and then tell the rest of the jury behind closed doors. Fuck our draconian prision system and the abuses of police.
If you tell the rest of the jury about it, you'll likely get kicked off the jury. You can exercise your right to nullify by simply refusing to convict.
The inspiring quote and this comment together making it so i can’t stop thinking about a fake tv show where MLK Jrs’ lawyer has to continually prevent him from launching into a grand, inspiring, solemn speeches that implicate him in various crimes. Thanks a lot everyone.
There’s a sketch there
You get showers and meals every day. One way to retire in USA.
If you call those meals
And below minimum wage for the labour you're forced to do! Sounds like a bargain.
Unintentionally getting busted for pot is a bit different than intentionally breaking a law in protest .. but I get what you mean
This is something you say to the judge before sentencing, after the conviction....
DO NOT TALK TO COPS EVER. It can only make it worse. Remaining silent is a RIGHT, use it!
“And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear?…It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met.” -MLK
Gandhi was the same way. I also remember a story from history class, where a man who lived in the US during the time of the war between US and Mexico. I don't remember his name, but he refused to pay taxes because he didn't want his money to fund the war, and encourage his local sheriff to arrest him for it.
Henry David Thoreau.
civil disobedience can be surprisingly effective.
>who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment You started a thread where every reply ignores the fact he wants to mount a Charter challenge. This could rule out imprisonment and force Federal government to change narcotics laws, presumably to protect safe sources. He is taking on a risk of imprisonment with the intention of challenging the laws.
>He is taking on a risk of imprisonment with the intention of challenging the laws. That's what MLK is talking about though. He's not just saying you should humbly break unjust laws just so you get to go on a road trip to jail. The implicit context of why one ought be breaking these laws is protest against them, in an attempt to change them.
> in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice
... what do you think MLK and the civil movements were trying to change?
How much for a gram of Godspeed?
An exclamation point you black emperor.
I lost my baby brother to drugs laced with fentanyl last year too. I support everything this man is doing.
My heart goes out to you. Just lost my mom in January because of this
Some of Canada's biggest constitutional challenges were launched by people intentionally getting arrested. This is what led to abortion being decriminalized under the Charter, for instance.
Henry morganthaler is a proper Canadian hero. Legality does not equate to moral correctness. The legalization of drugs does not create any additional problems that do not already exist. It simply manages them and mitigates what will exist regardless. You would be mitigating gang violence by eliminating their revenue through drug trade, providing a safe and stable potency of drugs that would immensely decrease overdose deaths, generate tax revenue by the sale of drugs, and like tobacco, could be used to counteract the cost of health care associated with the use of drugs. When we legalized marijuana, there was no increase in usage. It was the opposite. If you're in disagreement with me, just ask yourself this. Are you gonna go out and pick up a heroin addiction tomorrow, if it were suddenly legal? You're missing the entire point and fundamentally misunderstand what drives people to use drugs.
He does make a good point too, in that legalization comes with regulation. Bootleg alcohol was sometimes dangerous during the Prohibition Era, but people still drank it. Then when it was re-legalized, alcohol was regulated again, and much safer. If certain drugs are decriminalized, or even legalized, they can be regulated in order to ensure that people who partake of them are given safer products and guidelines to follow.
What you are describing is called the 'iron law of prohibition,' and it is a very real thing. The prohibition of substances actually leads to them being stronger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_prohibition Here is a good podcast by a drug advocate who lives in Vancouver: https://www.crackdownpod.com/episodes/34-the-iron-law
He's describing something else, actually. Basement-brewed alcohol is more likely to have toxic contaminants. Government-regulated heroin would be free from fentanyl.
The ATF was intentionally distributing methanol tainted liquor to discourage consumption. You can't mess up bad enough to make a dangerously high methanol content while making whiskey. Especially since ethanol is the treatment for methanol poisoning, meaning you need huge concentrations of methanol to be dangerous in grain alcohol.
There were other sources of poisoning besides methanol, most notably lead.
Yeah, that's definitely the main point of this. Legalizing drugs aren't "good," as much as making them illegal is worse on every level, from more making the drugs themselves more dangerous and promoting organized crime, to making it harder for those who are suffering from addiction to find help. Drugs are like Nukes. Not great that we discovered them, but since we have there's no getting rid of them and we have to learn to live the effects, reducing harm in whatever small ways we can.
Exactly. You can say “those can be dangerous,” but you can also say “here’s how you stay safe,” and not necessarily support continued use of the drugs, while still keeping the people who choose to use safe. Having an environment where these things are decriminalized can greatly reduce the stigma of asking for help, or learning safe usage practices, and reduce loss of life.
>The store, which was parked next to a police van, I read that and while I had my suspicions of his intent, knew immediately I was correct.
Next to a police van, … a police station, and a provincial courthouse. He wasn’t taking any chances of not being arrested.
Me, an intellectual: I knew immediately I was correct.
The police largely ignore the stolen-goods outdoor marketplace nearby, but can't tolerate one little drug botique?
i personally know his lawyer, Paul Lewin. i’ve* worked in cannabis for 18 years and he’s represented several activists in our community. he’s always itching for a fight. spelling error *
Yeah, I saw the headline and was like "someone has a point to prove". He's not entirely wrong either. The total ban on recreational drugs in both the US and Canada led to the same issues Prohibition caused in the states. Drugs became a valuable underground commodity with no oversight and no help for addicts. I'm a recovered alcoholic. When I got sober, there were a thousand resources there to help me if I needed it. And for people who can and do enjoy recreational drinking, the industry is clean and regulated. There's got to be a better way to handle recreational drugs.
Reminds me of the guy that falsely claimed that he murdered his sister (years and years later and when they couldn't find the killer) in order to exhume her body and find proof. They found proof of who actually did it. That took balls
The damn cops won't leave Sunnyvale alone!!
Didn't see anybody give Cory and Trevor this much shit when they opened their store
Smokes let's go
I loved there single cigarettes and DVDs
You’re selling loosies and pirated movies?
Their store was not involved in any illegal activities, including single cigarette for 65 cents each.
Garbageland! Garbageland! Ricky! All Ricky did was take a perfectly good name that I came up with, Kittyland, stuck his name Garbage on the front of it, and came up with Garbageland. And people are coming up to me. Oh, you've got Kittyland going do you Bubbles, you must have gotten the idea from Ricky's Garbageland, did you? It's the other way around!!
I loved buying my single ciggies from the convients store
CT Convenients Store
I’m gonna pay you $100 to fuck off
Shithawks, Randy...
Frig off
Shit winds Rand. Shit winds....
#WHAT IN THE FUCK
Have another drink Ray!
This is somehow officer George Green’s fault
Well he buys the cheap chicken fingers. Always buy the good kind, boys, eight bucks.
Dumbest cop on the force
The dumbest
I WAS GETTIN CHANGED.
Boys boys boys relax. We’re going to do the big dirty and then retire. WE ARE NOT GOING BACK TO JAIL!
I'm really curious if legalizing hard drugs would have an overall positive impact on our society. I have no skin in this game, just from a neutral stand point. Would it reduce harm? Eliminate drug cartels? Or make it worse by having more people addicted?
[удалено]
Glad you got through it
You never get through it. You beat it back a little each day. It WILL sneak up on you. Its a process. I won't win till I'm dead.
Man, this sounds so much like dealing with depression too. I always pictured it as having a corner of your room that is constantly on fire, and you can't do anything to put it out. But you learn, or someone teaches you how, to manage it and hold it back from engulfing the whole house and taking everything with it. Some days that fire burns a little slower and you don't have to tend to it as much, other days it burns a little hotter and you have to put more time and energy into keeping it back. You can't ever take a day off though, because it will take any opportunity to burn the whole thing down and it can happen so fast. It can be fucking exhausting fighting against yourself, and it's so hard to explain to people what that's like because they can't see it happening. Just gotta keep at it.
My dad died suddenly in March and this perfectly sums up how I've been feeling. Fuck.
Grief is very similar. My favorite analogy is that grief is a ball in a box. There's a button on one side that when the ball hits it, you feel pain and sadness. When it's new, the ball is very large, and hits the button often and hard. But over time the ball shrinks, it doesn't hurt as bad, but it will randomly hit that button some days. When it sneaks up on you and hits that button, it feels like it will never get better. It does, over time, but it's always there. Sometimes it'll hit the button when you think you're better, and that's OK. Some days the ball is a little bigger and heavier, but it'll shrink again.
That is a great analogy. Thank you for sharing it.
What a fantastic analogy. I'm putting that in the brain bank for later.
addiction is often comorbid with mental illness. in a way it is very similar to psychological illness. that's why we've largely gone from "being an addict is a personal moral failing" to "addiction can happen to anyone and we need to be sympathetic to those suffering from it" (at least in more progressive and academic settings anyway) but yeah. both sound utterly exhausting. similar to chronic physical illness too. it all sucks in similar ways.
100%. Substance Use Disorder is highly comorbid with other mental disorders and illnesses. It is classified solidly as a mental disorder as well as a medical one.
Wow - currently trying to get through to the “other side” of a really bad year long depressive episode, and this perfectly explains my situation. There are some days where I completely forget about it, and usually that’s followed closely by at least a few hours of being incapacitated until I can right myself again.
That's an excellent metaphor, thank you for sharing
I'm glad you're still with us, I appreciate your candor.
Each day is a battle, and each day you’re sober you are winning a battle.
I watched my mom battle with crack addiction. It was 10 years before she could physically throw away her pipe. As a random internet person, I am proud of you and the fight you keep fighting. Don't give up. You are stronger than addiction and will continue to win day after day and even if you fail, I will still be proud of all the work you have done already and wholeheartedly believe you will win again one day. You got this.
Literally currently going through withdraws from a recent relapse and this made me cry and was exactly what I needed. Thank you, keep fighting each day. You’ve got this.
4 years clean and still losing my mind every day
$40 felony is so rough. I'm not sure how long you've got under your belt, I'm getting close to a decade, and it feels like a surreal past life. I have no thoughts of ever going back or losing what I've built since. I was lucky enough to be able to complete a program that allowed me to get a misdemeanor instead of felony sales (if you have over a stupid low amount here, you're consider sales) and got my life together. The stigma that's still attached is something that I'll never shake. I just recently got a new job for a county in IT. I previously worked IT at a school, even after my substance abuse, the school gave me a shot after a few years clean. This new job, I had to go through interviews with some investigators since it's supporting the sheriff. When they offered it to me, I had been truthful, and the director basically said "we just had to get this out of the way, it doesn't appear to be an issue" but my direct supervisor made an effort to comment about "I just want to be clear, this year is a probation and you're not guaranteed anything" with a tone that just came across like I was below him, and he was doing me such a favor. I can't blame them. I can't. They don't know me, they just see this on paper, and it follows you. It really upset me though. I know it's my fault, but knowing it's going to follow me forever just hurts. I am so sorry for you with the felony. I know I got it easier without that my brother did get one and had a real hard time as well. He got lucky enough to get a job at a rehab facility and has worked his way up, but opportunities are few and far. I lost so many friends, so much respect and trust from my family, and years of my life in that despair. It does get better. Every day I stop and look at what I've accomplished and couldn't imagine throwing it all away, and the hardest part for addicts is seeing that light of what you can have if you just keep going. I hope you've found how much better it is on the other side and never lose that even with the stigma attached. We both know it can always be worse.
As a former addict myself, the idea of going to the heroin store to buy clean perfect heroin also scares the shit out of me. I can't see how that wouldn't create an entire generation of users. I grew up in florida and saw what happened to my community when there was a "pain doctor" on every corner, where you could show them an any xray and the "doctor" would write you a script for 120 blues, 200 greens and 60 bars. It was devastating. Some drugs should be illegal. Psychodelics, weed, yeah sure. But in my experience very very very few people can casually use heroin. I'm all about decriminalization and the idea that someone should go to jail for possession is absurd. Don't penalize folks for addiction, offer legitimate ways for rehabilitation, including free rehab. But we in North America have a long ways to go before they get there.
Yep. I watched people take a few Vicodin here and there for years, without much detriment. Then OxyContin came out, and everyone switched from Vicodin to that, but even then I rarely saw anyone die from an overdose (though it did happen to a couple people I know, but they were mixing it with other drugs like benzos) though the OxyContin did cause a lot of economic damage to a lot of people I know because the habit was absurdly expensive (which was only because they were buying it black market) So of course with the price of Oxy being out of control (and then the formula switch) everyone I knew doing opiates switched to the 30mg Percocets (that was for people who had money coming in) but most switched to street heroin because it was far cheaper. And it was then that people started dying one after another, and then with the introduction of Fentanyl it really finished off the last of the people I know in that world. It sounds crazy but Legalizing and Decriminalizing opiates is all about harm reduction and it's a pragmatic solution.
Thank you for sharing and I hope you are finding things to do to fill your life with joy as you move forward! What are points? I saw that listed on his sign too and haven’t seen that before.
A "point" is usually 0.1g of heroin. As in "zero POINT one grams" or 100mgs. Just slang for around a dose of heroin depending on your tolerance and the strength.
Thank you!
Thank YOU for asking this. I was scouring this thread trying to figure out wtf a point was
>I whole heartedly support legalization, decriminalization, etc. I dont want to create new heroin users. that is the problem, would legalizing drugs (as in allow selling it in any way) increase consumption and/or deaths? its a great question, but ask it on reddit and you will get downvoted and not given any sources. as far as I know, no place in the world has **legalized** all drugs, some places have decriminalized use and possession of smaller amounts, like Portugal which has been successful. https://www.portugal.com/op-ed/portugal-drug-laws-under-decriminalization-are-drugs-legal-in-portugal/
People are now hooked on fentanyl. Do we legalize fentanyl so they can get clean fentanyl that is not mixed with Xylazine?
As a former fentanyl addict, let me tell you that heroin is a nicer high and the only reason people use fent is that it's cheaper for the dealers so it's all that's available these days. If clean heroin were available I'd take that over fentanyl 10/10 times. Most addicts I've talked to feel the same. Fentanyl is an inferior recreational high that only got popular because it was forced on the addicts by the supply side. Most addicts would gladly use legal heroin in place of fentanyl.
Literally everywhere that has legalized drugs has seen positive effects from it. It's one of those things that is like a [Chinese finger trap](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_finger_trap) \- excessive force just makes things worse. More drug enforcement, more criminalization, more punishment = more profit for criminals, more incentive to commit other crimes, etc. etc. etc. This is why prohibition was infamous for not only failing to stop drinking - but actually was responsible for increasing alcohol consumption... it failed at it's one and only goal, instead accomplishing the exact opposite, and all it cost was creating billion dollar criminal enterprises, losing billions of tax income, wasting billions on prison and law enforcement, and ruining countless human lives by excessively punishing people for drinking. It's one of those things that is counter intuitive, but if you look at the data, or at history, or just kinda think about it for a while, it does make sense.
You left out another important effect of alcohol Prohibition. Many people died or were injured by badly manufactured alcohol. From Wikipedia: >"Poisoning became a serious issue as various un-safe methods were used to make the production of alcohol an easier and cheaper process. Though these methods led to an increase in sales, and larger profits for those selling them, they had severe health consequences on those who bought illegal alcohol." Sound similar to anything happening today with illegal drugs?
Prohibition is also when alcohol for industrial and medical use had methanol added to it, to make it poisonous to drink. This policy was enacted in the knowledge that there were already alcoholics in the habit of drinking industrial alcohol, who would be poisoned by the introduction of methanol into their supply. This amounted to a sentence of death or serious disability (often blindness) imposed by regulatory action.
Yep. This country knowingly killed addicts. Most people don’t know about the whole history of denaturing alcohol. We still poison it, but now, it’s more about preventing tax evasion.
The judicial system wouldn't blind a man for the crime of being a drunk. But the drug regulators did so with enthusiasm.
Yet one of many groups of people hellbent on criminalizing behavior that doesn’t agree with their idea of what Jesus wants… no matter the cost to human life of the “sinners.” Prohibition being rooted in Protestant churches.
Jesus turned water into recreational drugs. These guys weren't high on Jesus; they were high on hate.
Most people don’t know the difference. Their lives are ruled by what Jesus supposedly hates.
Back during prohibition my grandfather was in college studying premed. Since he was taking chemistry classes, some local moonshiners hired him to analyze their product. Testing apparently revealed methanol (and who knows what else), so my grandfather told them it was poisonous and they shouldn’t sell it. The moonshiners added “analyzed by a trained chemist” to their label and sold it anyway. As far as I know that was the end of their business arrangement.
[Relevant xkcd](https://xkcd.com/1096/)
[удалено]
>This is why prohibition was infamous for not only failing to stop drinking - but actually was responsible for increasing alcohol consumption... can we stop using made up facts in this debate? >Put together, the numbers suggest alcohol consumption dropped sharply in 1920, **falling to about one-third of what people drank before Prohibition.** https://www.bu.edu/articles/2020/pov-the-100th-anniversary-of-prohibition-reminds-us-that-bans-rarely-work/ edit: Also mention 1 place that has legalized all drugs, I don't know any
[удалено]
Portugals PM answered this directly stating hat unless you have the infrastructure to rehabilitate, no.. it will only make it worse. So for Canada, no.. it wouldn’t help whatsoever.
When I was younger I truely believed that legalising even addictive drugs wouldn't have any impact other than making it safer for people who are already going to use them, then I saw how quickly people who had no interest in smoking or even vaping got hooked on high nicotine disposable vapes once they were easily available and now I'm really not sure. Decriminalisation seems vital but I don't know about legalisation anymore it seems people trust too much in the idea that if it's legal and available it's safe to every just legalise addictive drugs.
Sadly, agree. How many college kids would end up doing meth as a dare or prank, or just to be special, if it were sold next to the Marlboro. It's not that I think people want to do hard drugs, but I think many are too arrogant to know how addictive they are.
Yeah I feel the same way, also gambling has turned me off of it. It’s not something that interests me but it’s not my business if someone wants to do it. Now it is infesting everything and I can’t even watch a game without being bombarded with gambling ads and the talking morons shilling that garbage.
Alternatively, as a grown man, the day my state outlawed flavor nicotine products was the day I stopped using any nicotine products. It was super convenient to just not be able to buy them. So I am on the same side as you where I have strong doubts that giving people easy access to heroin is a good idea.
https://substanceabusepolicy.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13011-021-00394-7 The experience in Portugal appears to be “kind of but the cost may not have been worth it in comparison to general trends”. “Positive results include a reduction in mortality and infections associated with dependent behaviour and, among youth, a reduction in the prevalence of recent cannabis use, a postponement of the age of initiation and an increase in perceptions of related-risks [17]. Notwithstanding some fewer encouraging results, especially those related to the general population (aged 15 to 74 years), whose increase in prevalence and intensity of cannabis use [17] may reflect the normalization thesis [18]. Overall, one might observe a reasonably low level of drug use when compared with most European countries [19], which contrasts to what was witnessed at the end of the last century, a period marked by social and political alarm around drug phenomena. Consonant, social representations are now quite distinct from those that dominated the country earlier and which understood drug use as a serious social problem.” “Despite Cato’s assertion that increases in lifetime prevalence levels among the general population are “virtually inevitable in every nation,” EMCDDA data indicate that other countries, including Spain, have been able to achieve decreases in lifetime prevalence rates for cannabis and ecstasy use between 2003 and 2008”
Legalizing hard drugs means we *need* free rehab and healthcare. We *need* **real** drug education for children and adults (not abstinence only policies). We need to invest in our communities, in the arts and entertainment so that doing drugs isn’t the only thing people in boring communities have to do. (All of this should have been implemented decades ago…but that’s a different story). However we also need safe drug use, safe drugs, and safe avenues to seek help. Decriminalize everything, but selling and distributing is another conversation that needs to be approached smartly.
It is harder and harder to be a entrepreneur these days.
"I thought this was a free Country"
But the Sacklers do it and they never get arrested.
That's because they bribe the right people. Oh sorry "lobby" the right people.
This seems like a good place to spread the word that if you are in the Vancouver area there is a completely free drug testing service on the downtown East-side. They provide both fentanyl and comprehensive mass-spectrometer testing of just about anything. Results are usually available in 15-60 minutes. Look up 'getyourdrugstested' for information. If you use their service and can afford to do so, please tip/donate to help keep this volunteer and donation-run service available. They've saved countless lives.
There's also multiple mushroom dispensaries and other stores that sell LSD, kratom and various other drugs openly
The irony is that LSD and mushrooms are not decriminalized here, but everything he was selling is decriminalized.
I'm not a fan of his cocaine price points. Buying 1.0 g saves you $10 vs. what you'd pay at the 0.5 g rate. But 2.5 g only saves you $5 from what it would cost at the 1.0 g rate.
Lemme know if you want a kilo. Give you the Reddit Rate.
-Totally not the police
Yeah, the police would nickel and dime you for 900g.
If you're buying at the higher end of the scale he needs to replace it, and if you want a steady supply of that amount, you want him to replace it. You might get that amount cheaper somewhere else, but is it clean, and for how long?
The entire project isn’t to make it cheaper. It’s to make it safer and at close to cost as possible it’s not supposed to be about the best savings possible as a business - it’s supposed to be about only providing pharmaceuticals at the highest grade possible, with fewer impurities and with appropriate testing. So that the service users know what they’re actually obtaining with a measurable understanding. Of which outside of his practice there is virtually zero standardisation.
The real crime here was not offering Special K.
Oh he [did](https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvjnyv/a-store-selling-heroin-meth-and-cocaine-just-opened-in-canada) lol "He’s also started an online shop with a delivery service that carries more drugs than he has in store, such as ketamine, LSD, and 5-MeO-DMT"
Nathan Fielder you fucking LEGEND!
That's what a business degree will get you. Hope he was able to send some money back home.
He got very good grades
But he’s still not as tall as the Burj Khalifa, the world’s tallest building.
“Oh, so you want to sell hard drugs right out of the store? I dunno…” *voiceover* “Jerry loved my idea.”
His asexual computer repair shop was his best store
That was fast
[удалено]
This Nathan for you episode is going to be wild
He's got a chance to win as well. With the laws allowing it's use, making an exemption for the city it's clearly been shown that a properly controlled supply would be required. How? This is the same thing that happened when Medical marijuana was allowed for consumption. There was no reliable source of quality marijuana. The government supply wasn't up to spec. As a result lawsuits were filed AND WON. So he has a decent precedence to go off of. Should be interesting.
Lmfao the updates on this over the day have been hilarious
Gotta respect his motivation behind it, headline doesn’t do it justice
Went into the article thinking he was an idiot, Came out wishing him luck!
They have to arrest him. He would have single handedly lower the death rates of addicts in Vancouver. Governments can't allow a single citizen to implement such an easy solution to a problem they strive to keep as complex as possible.
As a lifelong resident of Vancouver, and someone who lost his best friend to a fentanyl OD, I respect the fuck out of this guy. Our governments have failed abysmally at dealing with this issue, and it will take people like him to make such profound statements to raise proper awareness.
The government is always interfering with small businesses owners
Not all heros have teeth 🪥
Happened faster than the Portland Mushroom store did
[Vancouver still has a few illegal mushroom stores openly operating.](https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/local-news/magic-mushrooms-vancouver-store-2023-6561734) They have been for at least a year from what I remember. They sell a bunch of other illegal drugs too.
Didn't take long. So many good drugs seized 😞
I read he kept very little on hand to avoid robbery
He also opened his "mobile store" next to the police van. 😄
This is insane. What is address for this store?? What an outrage! I must visit and give them a piece of my mind
I literally just read the article about him opening the store 5 min ago💀