Reply to thread

I was the opposite, only ever knew a couple of people who did that sort of thing and I'm no longer in contact with either.

I wouldn't consider myself conservative as such though, just not into messing with chemicals.

My personal view on this pill testing idea though is much like my views decades ago on questions like gay marriage or voluntary euthanasia for people with terminal illnesses etc. All things considered, the argument for the "yes" case seems to vastly outweigh any negatives.

If people are gay then they are gay. No amount of moral crusading over a very long period of time managed to change that one. Let people be happy. That one shouldn't have taken anywhere near as long as it did.

If someone has terminal cancer and is in pain then they have terminal cancer and are in pain. Medical research might fix it someday but it hasn't yet. Why make someone suffer? It saddens me greatly that we haven't sorted this one yet for humans although we've been doing it for dogs and cats for decades.

If people are going to use drugs then in practice they're going to use drugs. The last few decades of trying to stamp it out have failed so whilst I do think all possible efforts should be made to cut off supply, reality is it's not going to be totally effective so that leaves minimising harm as the next logical step. May as well test the pills then - that's better than not testing them surely.

That said, I do think we need stronger action to protect others from the effects of someone's drug use. Random testing of construction workers and drivers is all well and good but it needs to be extended to people like corporate board members, CEO's, politicians, judges and so on who make decisions impacting others. Instant dismissal if caught under the influence of any mind altering drug whilst at work.