I was reading a book on social life of the upper-middle class and new rich of the American 1920s and realized so many things we now do proudly were considered socially taboo back then. This was especially the case for clothing, makeup, women in certain public spaces, etc. What do you think will be different in the 2120s? Or maybe even the next 50 years?

  • blanketswithsmallpox@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    100
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Prostitution and drugs being illegal.

    I have a hard time seeing a proper utopia driven society penalizing these. Everyone should be able to fuck. Everyone should be able to put whatever they want in their bodies too. Dicks or drugs, doesn’t matter.

    • berkeleyblue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      61
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Total agree with prostitution, Drugs on the other hand are tricky. I like Portugals approach. Decriminalize it for individuals, prosecute the distributors and get those addicted help to get off of it. Seems to work quite good for them.

      • scbasteve7@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Some drugs are fine, others not so much. And some people can form bad habits and dependencies on good drugs. Its a tricky situation all around. But yes, thats the best approach imho

      • Mike D.@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve recently read it isn’t going so well for them. People aren’t being diverted to rehab as much anymore. The country is attracting addicts that want to get high with no repercussions.

      • Hunter2@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        Drugs are not legal in Portugal. It’s decriminalised up to small amounts (ie personal use), which is different.

        My understanding is that:

        If you get caught with a couple of joints (or any drugs), they are confiscated, you are identified and you might have to pay a fine, do community service or go to an addiction consultation.

        If you’re over that limit, but not overly, you get the above + go to court and will likely receive suspended sentence and will have a criminal record.

        If you get caught with a truckload (obviously for distribution), if it’s your first offence you’ll likely also get suspended sentence, such is the state of our justice. If it’s not your first offence, you’ll likely do jail time.

      • sudo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        What benefit does making ‘extremely harmful drugs such as meth’ illegal provide? In the US meth is illegal. In the US meth use is an epidemic. Prohibition doesn’t stop people from accessing or using drugs. It just puts a legal constraint that adds fear of repercussion and social stigma on users that is another barrier to overcome when attempting to seek help and treatment. Not to mention illegal drug trades mean potentially dangerous, unregulated products and the crime that drug trade is often associated with.

        • waterbogan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you make most drugs legal bar the most harmful ones, people will gravitate towards the less harmful ones because of legal availability. The mistake the US made is to make all drugs illegal, blanket prohibition has been a disaster

          • Pandantic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            And I think what @sudo wants is decriminalization - that a person who gets arrested for using meth is treated for their addiction rather than go to jail.

            • waterbogan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              For meth users, yes that is the right approach. For the dealers/ sellers etc, jail or something that incapacitates them is a better option

        • agentshags
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          In the US it’s actually a CII. Desoxyn is the brand name for Rx methamphetamine. I was prescribed it about 25 years ago for a short period for ADD.

          But I think you are right that street supply is still CI

      • Reborn2966@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        i would not, if you want to do hard drugs you can. in a controlled environment with a doctor nearby. of course you will have to pay for that.

        if you ban it, people that want it no matter what will crate an illegal market for it.