True but I'd rather have people using Kratom instead of those since the former hasn't actually killed anyone unlike the latter two.
Actually, it's been linked to
15 deaths in America alone and a myriad of other deaths in South East Asia. It appears to be that when a person gains an addiction to the drug, like psychoactive drugs, it instills a need in the user to keep taking
more of it to get equal results, which ends in death. There are also likely some who simply misused it and overdosed on it from simply not understanding how much of it is a "safe" dosage.
Kratom should definitely be classified under the harder drugs. It's not the
hardest drug out there, but it's definitely at least a mid-tier dangerous drug that should be a controlled substance--like morphine.
Second, I came upon a head on vehicle accident where a semi truck hit a school bus carrying a softball team. Of course, I helped pull girls out of the bus, and gave CPR to avail on a couple occasions as I watched them die in my hands. (Long, long, long, story very very short.)
I'm so, so sorry this happened to you. I'm quoting this for no other reason than to say that you have, at least in this moment, a profound level of respect from me for trying to be a hero.
Also, I hate how people criminalize the DEA for banning things or making them illegal. That is usually for the general public. DEA regulates over the counter drugs and you can get those with a prescription. The same can be done with weed as a medicine, as well as other drugs.
But I'll never support the complete legalization of it for recreational use.
The DEA, like any political organization, is affected by the politics of the times. They are there for the general protection of the state and the people who live within it, but it's a reasonable precaution to have some measure of doubt and double check their work. That's the scientific thing to do, anyway.
People hate the DEA because of how hypocritical they are. They want us to use pills and opiates despite the fact that people get addicted to them all the time and OD on them every year. Why aren't they illegal by that logic? They don't want alternatives because they're losing money. Greed basically.
Uhh...
"Pills" is a rather broad term here. Most "pills" that people are talking about are regulated by the medical industry, you can't just randomly walk into a store and buy morphine, or codeine. The only drug I can think of which
should be regulated better and isn't is Tylenol--but that's mainly because it came to exist before the DEA was anywhere near competent at their jobs.
Some of the DEA's decisions are hypocritical (like why is hard liquor in excess of 40% legal for anyone over 18 to buy over the counter while marijuana isn't--the former is more lethal and more addictive than the latter), but in the broad scheme of things? No, they usually have some valid reason for wanting to be tepid about allowing some types of drugs.
Keep in mind that the DEA exists as a wing of the government too. If you want the drug laws to relax, the DEA is not the appropriate target--the people who order the DEA their mandates are your target. Same as any other government department, they're just doing their jobs.
Neither will I. No drug can be rightfully or morally used for "recreation".
No drug you say? Guess we should pull viagra off the shelves.
In all seriousness: I do get what you're saying, though I personally take a more moderate position it. I generally tend to compare most drugs to alcohol, as alcohol
is a drug in all ways but definition--and is a good measure by which to put other drugs.
Kratom and Cocaine and Heroin are absolutely far worse than alcohol and hold significant ramifications for their users.
Marijuana, on the other hand, is actually not as bad for you as most alcohol (certain kinds of wine not withstanding). Marijuana doesn't damage any internal organs, whereas alcohol can damage the brain, the liver, and infants within a pregnant woman.
If alcohol can be legalized, so can marijuana. Whatever damage the latter does, the former does in far greater ways with lower dosages.
Again, though, that's my two cents. Not really saying you're wrong, so much as providing a different view on the subject.