6 ms·

Is there evidence to show that legalizing drugs (I don't mean e.g. tobacco here; I mean the far more dangerous ones) won't significantly increase their consumpt

Is there evidence to show that legalizing drugs (I don't mean e.g. tobacco here; I mean the far more dangerous ones) won't significantly increase their consumption? I ask because, unless there is, I'm afraid I do not understand why it would be rational to do so...

sergioisidoro 11y ago
Legalisation, no, but decriminalisation, yes: Take for example Portugal: Almost 1% of the population was addicted to heroin a couple of years ago, as the country moved away form a dictatorship and found freedom (also coming from a colonial war). With decriminalisation, and by treating addicts as patients, instead of criminals, the panorama improved greatly. http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/evaluating-drug-decriminalization-in-portugal-12-years-later-a-891060.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/evaluating-drug-d...
Yaggo 11y ago
Far more dangerous ones, such as alcohol? Tobacco is already the 6th dangerous drug in the world. http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/whats-most-dangerous-drug-world-according-science http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/whats-most-dangerous-...
- wfunction 11y ago
  By "dangerous" I meant in the typical, colloquial sense (e.g. more likely to kill you in a shorter amount of time or what have you)...
  - oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
    "colloquial sense" ... "or what have you" This right here is why we don't have a sensible drug policy; many, many people think like this when approaching the subject.
    - wfunction 11y ago
      I was merely trying to describe a category of drugs so that I can ask a question about it; you can name it whatever you want so that you can answer it, but your condescending tone and lack of an answer isn't exactly helpful in responding to the question. If you don't like my category you can always feel free to ask your own questions about other ones instead of changing mine.
      - oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
        Sorry if it came across as condescending; I'm just tired of the lazy "drugs are more dangerous than tobacco" argument because it's easy to repeat, but essentially meaningless. Answering your question is difficult because very few countries have legalised 'the most dangerous' drugs. Let's take Portugal as an example, though. It decriminalised heroin in 2001; for the sake of argument, let's agree that heroin is at least very slightly more dangerous to the individual than tobacco. Portugal now has a way, way lower incidence of death due to overdose than almost every country in Europe [1]. That's not relative to numbers taking heroin, that's relative to the population, so even if heroin use has rocketed (which it hasn't; lifetime use has increased from 0.7% to 1.1% [2]) lives have still been saved overall. [1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decriminalised-drugs-14-years-ago-and-now-hardly-anyone-dies-from-overdosing-10301780.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decr... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal#Observations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal#Observ...
  - shawabawa3 11y ago
    I think you've taken in too much drug war propaganda. Heroin, if unadulterated, is incredibly safe. There are virtually no long-term health effects, and most overdoses/deaths are caused by it being unknown quality or cut with dangerous substances.[1] The only reason it's dangerous is prohibition [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#Adverse_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#Adverse_effects
    - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
      So heroin isn't clinically addictive and one can't overdose on it?
      - adrusi 11y ago
        Heroin isn't significantly more addictive than cigarettes. You can also easily overdose from nicotine, its just that this is mitigated by the relatively slow delivery mechanism, which makes it so that you get terribly sick before you could consume lethal quantities. If we can come up with an effective delivery method then heroin would be no more dangerous than cigarettes (sort of, you still can't, for example, drive on heroin, but also it doesn't destroy your body long term). Perhaps heroin could be adultrated with a chemical that causes nausea when consumed in an amount proportional to a dangerous level of heroin. This would help heroin users build the same negative associations with high doses that cigarette smokers do, and could make them unable to consume more.
        hvindin 11y ago
        While I enjoy the concept that heroin might be in some way similar to nocotine beyond both of the substances being tangible psychoactive, it does frighten me that this is actually an opinion people legitimately have. Given that when the supply chain of heroin is disrupted the most statistically significant cause of eratic behaviour in users is that it just hurts so much I suspect its a little different to nicotine. If you are interested in understanding drivers of addiction I would recommend looking at cases where people are forced into withdrawals. For example: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395915002455 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395915... Although I recall another article published ages ago (early 80s) which had an interesting economic analysis of the elasticity of heroin prices, to paraphrase, resulting from what is essentially inflicting pain on users until they will pay yur asking price. I would love someone to draw the connections to nictonine withdrawals
- Synaesthesia 11y ago
  And by FAR the deadliest drug in the world. Something like 90% of all drug deaths globally. It's an incredibly harmful drug. Hard drugs cause less than 1% of drug deaths that tobacco causes.
ZeroGravitas 11y ago
Well, it's not all or nothing. If you legalized cannabis for example, you may find that users switch to that from more harmful drugs such as alcohol, or opiates. In particular, by buying from controlled suppliers, rather than the black-market, makes them less likely to be offered worse stuff as alternatives. By then reducing the size of the black market, you drain it of customers and money, and make it easier to police. But banning stuff that large segments of the population already do, even while suffering legal risk, is a harder policy to enforce. There's also the fact that horse-riding, backyard pools, gun ownership, rock climbing, not eating well or excercising enough as likely to kill you as some drugs, so a consistent approach to that would be welcome too.
- wfunction 11y ago
  > There's also the fact that horse-riding, backyard pools, gun ownership, rock climbing, not eating well or excercising enough as likely to kill you as some drugs, so a consistent approach to that would be welcome too. Unlike the use of drugs, almost all of the things you mentioned fall under category of "exercise", which (correct me if I'm wrong) I believe is medically accepted to have immense benefits, whereas I'm not sure the case is the same with the drugs under consideration here...
  - oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
    > almost all Unless they all are, you don't really have a point. But, for the sake of argument, pretend the list was "gun ownership, not eating well, not exercising enough" - i.e. 3 out of the original 6 (which, apparently, is "almost all"). Feel free to add any of the many, many activities which aren't "exercise" but are more likely to decrease your life expectancy such as driving, sitting, crossing the road, ...
  - cr1895 11y ago
    >I believe is medically accepted to have immense benefits, whereas I'm not sure the case is the same with the drugs under consideration here... Another flaw of your "the dangerous ones" generalization. Does MDMA count as one of the dangerous ones? It has promising potential for the treatment of depression, PTSD, etc. Or other psychadelics such as mushrooms or LSD. What about ketamine? It's used recreationally, but it's also commonly administered in hospitals and may also be beneficial for those suffering from depresson. There are undoubtedly others. Ironically, good research into these "dangeorus" drugs has been hindered largely because of the widespread perception among the public and policymakers that they are dangerous, whether or not that is actually the case.
vzcx 11y ago
I assume you mean "rational, if your goal is to decrease drug use." If that is the case, one must also consider all of the costs involved in making the drugs illegal, from paying people to enforce their illegality (DEA, border agents, customs inspections), increased burdens on the legal system, and the funding more prisons, the increase in thefts committed by addicts due to the rise in prices, increased burden on medical services (impure drugs are more hazardous to health)... If your goal is "decrease drug use at all costs," then I question the rationality of the goal.
- oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
  And, clearly, that goal is so vague as to be meaningless. How are "drugs" being defined? How are you deciding which substances should have their usage reduced and which shouldn't?
  - vzcx 11y ago
    Of course. The list of scheduled substances is arbitrary, and must be constantly expanded as new neuroreceptor ligands are invented. When I consider subparagraph A of the Federal Analog Act, I sometimes wonder if what is actually desired by drug-control advocates is to make certain states of mind illegal. That there could be legislation defining legal and illegal patterns of brain activity is quite a trip in itself. I thought cyberpunk was dead.
coldtea 11y ago
The rationale is that consumption of drugs is a personal choice and fine. It's harm from drugs that's bad, and most of it comes from them being illegal, and thus: uncontrolled quality and quantity (overdoses, etc), overpriced (making people steal etc to buy them), black market (thus supporting a mafia that sells them, kills people etc). That, and landing people in jail (where they ruin their live, become actual hardened criminals etc) for simple pocession etc.
- GordonS 11y ago
  Well said - I agree that a lot of the danger of illicit drugs comes from them being cut/tampered with. If you legalise, you can regulate, tax and educate - then drugs can be made as safely as possible, and most drug-related violence and crime dissapears.
mseidl 11y ago
Why would they increase consumption? Do you think there are millions of people saying "Oh, I wish I could do meth, but I just don't want to get arrested!" Smoking kills more people than all other drugs combined. WAAAAAY more. Same with alcohol.
zamalek 11y ago
> won't significantly increase their consumption It could. That's not the point. The main point that Annan is making is that there should be a health system in place for addicts, instead of a penitentiary system (where addictions typically become worse). The past 50 year study/failed experiment known as "The War On Drugs" has shown us that there is nothing you can do to stop people from taking drugs. The war on drugs not only wastes tax money, is not only completely ineffective, but actually drives people toward dangerous usage. If drugs aren't regulated you never know what you are getting. Just recently tourists were being sold white heroin in Holland instead of cocaine (3 fatalities AFAIR). If used in the same way as cocaine is, white heroin can be lethal. This is simply not possible if you are getting your fix from a regulated supply chain. Basically, by regulating drugs there is hope that there will be fewer drug-related fatalities and in the long-run (possibly decades) we'll most likely see less drug-related crime. This quote from the piece sums up the remainder of the piece perfectly: > It is time to acknowledge that drugs are infinitely more dangerous if they are left solely in the hands of criminals who have no concerns about health and safety.
- tremon 11y ago
  This is simply not possible if you are getting your fix from a regulated supply chain. Well, it would still be possible (see e.g. last year's horse meat scandal in Britain), but the entire supply chain would be known and could be prosecuted.
  - zamalek 11y ago
    You're right, I really shouldn't have such evocative language.
dragonwriter 11y ago
Even with a significant increase in consumption, it might be worth legalizing because the social costs (that is, the costs born by those who do not voluntarily choose to accept them) of prohibition could still be higher than those of the increased consumption.
GordonS 11y ago
> I don't mean e.g. tobacco here; I mean the far more dangerous ones That's a very strange thing to say, given we know very well that tobacco is much more dangerous than many illegal drugs.
fapjacks 11y ago
Take a look at Portugal, which has now had general drug decriminalization since the early 2000s. There was an initial spike in general usage, but it dropped to lower levels than were seen before decriminalization. However the number of addicts remained the same throughout. It's a very interesting and eye-opening thing they have going there.

sergioisidoro 11y ago

Legalisation, no, but decriminalisation, yes: Take for example Portugal: Almost 1% of the population was addicted to heroin a couple of years ago, as the country moved away form a dictatorship and found freedom (also coming from a colonial war). With decriminalisation, and by treating addicts as patients, instead of criminals, the panorama improved greatly. http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/evaluating-drug-decriminalization-in-portugal-12-years-later-a-891060.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/evaluating-drug-d...

Yaggo 11y ago

Far more dangerous ones, such as alcohol? Tobacco is already the 6th dangerous drug in the world. http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/whats-most-dangerous-drug-world-according-science http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/whats-most-dangerous-...

wfunction 11y ago
By "dangerous" I meant in the typical, colloquial sense (e.g. more likely to kill you in a shorter amount of time or what have you)...
- oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
  "colloquial sense" ... "or what have you" This right here is why we don't have a sensible drug policy; many, many people think like this when approaching the subject.
  - wfunction 11y ago
    I was merely trying to describe a category of drugs so that I can ask a question about it; you can name it whatever you want so that you can answer it, but your condescending tone and lack of an answer isn't exactly helpful in responding to the question. If you don't like my category you can always feel free to ask your own questions about other ones instead of changing mine.
    - oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
      Sorry if it came across as condescending; I'm just tired of the lazy "drugs are more dangerous than tobacco" argument because it's easy to repeat, but essentially meaningless. Answering your question is difficult because very few countries have legalised 'the most dangerous' drugs. Let's take Portugal as an example, though. It decriminalised heroin in 2001; for the sake of argument, let's agree that heroin is at least very slightly more dangerous to the individual than tobacco. Portugal now has a way, way lower incidence of death due to overdose than almost every country in Europe [1]. That's not relative to numbers taking heroin, that's relative to the population, so even if heroin use has rocketed (which it hasn't; lifetime use has increased from 0.7% to 1.1% [2]) lives have still been saved overall. [1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decriminalised-drugs-14-years-ago-and-now-hardly-anyone-dies-from-overdosing-10301780.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decr... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal#Observations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal#Observ...
- shawabawa3 11y ago
  I think you've taken in too much drug war propaganda. Heroin, if unadulterated, is incredibly safe. There are virtually no long-term health effects, and most overdoses/deaths are caused by it being unknown quality or cut with dangerous substances.[1] The only reason it's dangerous is prohibition [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#Adverse_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#Adverse_effects
  - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
    So heroin isn't clinically addictive and one can't overdose on it?
    - adrusi 11y ago
      Heroin isn't significantly more addictive than cigarettes. You can also easily overdose from nicotine, its just that this is mitigated by the relatively slow delivery mechanism, which makes it so that you get terribly sick before you could consume lethal quantities. If we can come up with an effective delivery method then heroin would be no more dangerous than cigarettes (sort of, you still can't, for example, drive on heroin, but also it doesn't destroy your body long term). Perhaps heroin could be adultrated with a chemical that causes nausea when consumed in an amount proportional to a dangerous level of heroin. This would help heroin users build the same negative associations with high doses that cigarette smokers do, and could make them unable to consume more.
      - hvindin 11y ago
        While I enjoy the concept that heroin might be in some way similar to nocotine beyond both of the substances being tangible psychoactive, it does frighten me that this is actually an opinion people legitimately have. Given that when the supply chain of heroin is disrupted the most statistically significant cause of eratic behaviour in users is that it just hurts so much I suspect its a little different to nicotine. If you are interested in understanding drivers of addiction I would recommend looking at cases where people are forced into withdrawals. For example: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395915002455 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395915... Although I recall another article published ages ago (early 80s) which had an interesting economic analysis of the elasticity of heroin prices, to paraphrase, resulting from what is essentially inflicting pain on users until they will pay yur asking price. I would love someone to draw the connections to nictonine withdrawals
Synaesthesia 11y ago
And by FAR the deadliest drug in the world. Something like 90% of all drug deaths globally. It's an incredibly harmful drug. Hard drugs cause less than 1% of drug deaths that tobacco causes.

ZeroGravitas 11y ago

Well, it's not all or nothing. If you legalized cannabis for example, you may find that users switch to that from more harmful drugs such as alcohol, or opiates. In particular, by buying from controlled suppliers, rather than the black-market, makes them less likely to be offered worse stuff as alternatives. By then reducing the size of the black market, you drain it of customers and money, and make it easier to police. But banning stuff that large segments of the population already do, even while suffering legal risk, is a harder policy to enforce. There's also the fact that horse-riding, backyard pools, gun ownership, rock climbing, not eating well or excercising enough as likely to kill you as some drugs, so a consistent approach to that would be welcome too.

wfunction 11y ago
> There's also the fact that horse-riding, backyard pools, gun ownership, rock climbing, not eating well or excercising enough as likely to kill you as some drugs, so a consistent approach to that would be welcome too. Unlike the use of drugs, almost all of the things you mentioned fall under category of "exercise", which (correct me if I'm wrong) I believe is medically accepted to have immense benefits, whereas I'm not sure the case is the same with the drugs under consideration here...
- oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
  > almost all Unless they all are, you don't really have a point. But, for the sake of argument, pretend the list was "gun ownership, not eating well, not exercising enough" - i.e. 3 out of the original 6 (which, apparently, is "almost all"). Feel free to add any of the many, many activities which aren't "exercise" but are more likely to decrease your life expectancy such as driving, sitting, crossing the road, ...
- cr1895 11y ago
  >I believe is medically accepted to have immense benefits, whereas I'm not sure the case is the same with the drugs under consideration here... Another flaw of your "the dangerous ones" generalization. Does MDMA count as one of the dangerous ones? It has promising potential for the treatment of depression, PTSD, etc. Or other psychadelics such as mushrooms or LSD. What about ketamine? It's used recreationally, but it's also commonly administered in hospitals and may also be beneficial for those suffering from depresson. There are undoubtedly others. Ironically, good research into these "dangeorus" drugs has been hindered largely because of the widespread perception among the public and policymakers that they are dangerous, whether or not that is actually the case.

vzcx 11y ago

I assume you mean "rational, if your goal is to decrease drug use." If that is the case, one must also consider all of the costs involved in making the drugs illegal, from paying people to enforce their illegality (DEA, border agents, customs inspections), increased burdens on the legal system, and the funding more prisons, the increase in thefts committed by addicts due to the rise in prices, increased burden on medical services (impure drugs are more hazardous to health)... If your goal is "decrease drug use at all costs," then I question the rationality of the goal.

oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
And, clearly, that goal is so vague as to be meaningless. How are "drugs" being defined? How are you deciding which substances should have their usage reduced and which shouldn't?
- vzcx 11y ago
  Of course. The list of scheduled substances is arbitrary, and must be constantly expanded as new neuroreceptor ligands are invented. When I consider subparagraph A of the Federal Analog Act, I sometimes wonder if what is actually desired by drug-control advocates is to make certain states of mind illegal. That there could be legislation defining legal and illegal patterns of brain activity is quite a trip in itself. I thought cyberpunk was dead.

coldtea 11y ago

The rationale is that consumption of drugs is a personal choice and fine. It's harm from drugs that's bad, and most of it comes from them being illegal, and thus: uncontrolled quality and quantity (overdoses, etc), overpriced (making people steal etc to buy them), black market (thus supporting a mafia that sells them, kills people etc). That, and landing people in jail (where they ruin their live, become actual hardened criminals etc) for simple pocession etc.

GordonS 11y ago
Well said - I agree that a lot of the danger of illicit drugs comes from them being cut/tampered with. If you legalise, you can regulate, tax and educate - then drugs can be made as safely as possible, and most drug-related violence and crime dissapears.

mseidl 11y ago

Why would they increase consumption? Do you think there are millions of people saying "Oh, I wish I could do meth, but I just don't want to get arrested!" Smoking kills more people than all other drugs combined. WAAAAAY more. Same with alcohol.

zamalek 11y ago

> won't significantly increase their consumption It could. That's not the point. The main point that Annan is making is that there should be a health system in place for addicts, instead of a penitentiary system (where addictions typically become worse). The past 50 year study/failed experiment known as "The War On Drugs" has shown us that there is nothing you can do to stop people from taking drugs. The war on drugs not only wastes tax money, is not only completely ineffective, but actually drives people toward dangerous usage. If drugs aren't regulated you never know what you are getting. Just recently tourists were being sold white heroin in Holland instead of cocaine (3 fatalities AFAIR). If used in the same way as cocaine is, white heroin can be lethal. This is simply not possible if you are getting your fix from a regulated supply chain. Basically, by regulating drugs there is hope that there will be fewer drug-related fatalities and in the long-run (possibly decades) we'll most likely see less drug-related crime. This quote from the piece sums up the remainder of the piece perfectly: > It is time to acknowledge that drugs are infinitely more dangerous if they are left solely in the hands of criminals who have no concerns about health and safety.

tremon 11y ago
This is simply not possible if you are getting your fix from a regulated supply chain. Well, it would still be possible (see e.g. last year's horse meat scandal in Britain), but the entire supply chain would be known and could be prosecuted.
- zamalek 11y ago
  You're right, I really shouldn't have such evocative language.

dragonwriter 11y ago

Even with a significant increase in consumption, it might be worth legalizing because the social costs (that is, the costs born by those who do not voluntarily choose to accept them) of prohibition could still be higher than those of the increased consumption.

GordonS 11y ago

> I don't mean e.g. tobacco here; I mean the far more dangerous ones That's a very strange thing to say, given we know very well that tobacco is much more dangerous than many illegal drugs.

fapjacks 11y ago

Take a look at Portugal, which has now had general drug decriminalization since the early 2000s. There was an initial spike in general usage, but it dropped to lower levels than were seen before decriminalization. However the number of addicts remained the same throughout. It's a very interesting and eye-opening thing they have going there.