8 ms·

I don’t think legalization will reduce addiction (though would defer to empirical studies here). It would make the economic cost of addiction lower for the indi

I don’t think legalization will reduce addiction (though would defer to empirical studies here). It would make the economic cost of addiction lower for the individual – one problem instead of two. More importantly, it would make doctors (and regulators) more honest participants. If a doctor wants to recommend opiates, it would largely remove their economic incentives for doing so. We don’t think of doctors having much economic incentive for prescribing acetaminophen or ibuprofen, by comparison.

SCAQTony 10y ago
I have to agree! The bad floats with the good and likewise. From the New York Times: "Actually, Prohibition Was a Success By Mark H. Moore; Mark H. Moore is professor of criminal justice at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government." "... Second, alcohol consumption declined dramatically during Prohibition. Cirrhosis death rates for men were 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 and 10.7 in 1929. Admissions to state mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis declined from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928. Arrests for public drunkennness and disorderly conduct declined 50 percent between 1916 and 1922. For the population as a whole, the best estimates are that consumption of alcohol declined by 30 percent to 50 percent. Third, violent crime did not increase dramatically during Prohibition. Homicide rates rose dramatically from 1900 to 1910 but remained roughly constant during Prohibition's 14 year rule. Organized crime may have become more visible and lurid during Prohibition, but it existed before and after. ..." http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibiti...
- throwaway7767 10y ago
  > Second, alcohol consumption declined dramatically during Prohibition. Cirrhosis death rates for men were 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 and 10.7 in 1929. Admissions to state mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis declined from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928. From http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2010/02/the_chemists_war.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_exa...: > In 1926, in New York City, 1,200 were sickened by poisonous alcohol; 400 died. The following year, deaths climbed to 700 The poisonous alcohol was a direct result of prohibition. So I think focusing on just cirrhosis deaths paints an unfair picture of the actual health effects.
capote 10y ago
> It would make the economic cost of addiction lower for the individual Isn't a low cost of addiction a bad thing? I'm also not just talking about legalization, but mainly the thing about deregulation/competition. I see your logic though, I hope it's not too wishful to assume that less doctors pushing drugs on patients will solve the issue. I suppose it definitely will cut it back some.
- MichaelGG 10y ago
  No, it's a good thing. It means people that are addicted (by choice or not) don't need to resort to crime or desperation to buy essential medicines. Less doctors "pushing" really means more doctors being very critical of patients. Which means more people in pain, scared to make too big a fuss, lest they be labeled an "addict" or "seeker". We don't accept (in theory) a legal system that condemns innocent people to suffer, why should we accept a health system that does the same?
  - DanBC 10y ago
    A number of people in this thread are saying the answer is either to prescribe opiates, or to leave people in pain. People who need opiates should be able to get them, but that's a small number of people. Giving opiates to the rest does very little to treat their pain, and leaves them with an opiate addiction. Most people with long term pain don't need better access to opiates. They need better access to pain clinics with the range of meds and physical therapies they have. (And yes, opiates if those are needed.)
  - capote 10y ago
    > No, it's a good thing. It means people that are addicted (by choice or not) don't need to resort to crime or desperation to buy essential medicines. This seems twisted to me. Okay, so they don't do crime, but they get their stuff easier and stay addicted/get worse/die. Isn't it best to eliminate the motivation for doctors to overprescribe, but still force people to see their doctors for a fix? This way maybe the doctors can intervene and help them out.
    - 10y ago

SCAQTony 10y ago

I have to agree! The bad floats with the good and likewise. From the New York Times: "Actually, Prohibition Was a Success By Mark H. Moore; Mark H. Moore is professor of criminal justice at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government." "... Second, alcohol consumption declined dramatically during Prohibition. Cirrhosis death rates for men were 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 and 10.7 in 1929. Admissions to state mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis declined from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928. Arrests for public drunkennness and disorderly conduct declined 50 percent between 1916 and 1922. For the population as a whole, the best estimates are that consumption of alcohol declined by 30 percent to 50 percent. Third, violent crime did not increase dramatically during Prohibition. Homicide rates rose dramatically from 1900 to 1910 but remained roughly constant during Prohibition's 14 year rule. Organized crime may have become more visible and lurid during Prohibition, but it existed before and after. ..." http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibiti...

throwaway7767 10y ago
> Second, alcohol consumption declined dramatically during Prohibition. Cirrhosis death rates for men were 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 and 10.7 in 1929. Admissions to state mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis declined from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928. From http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2010/02/the_chemists_war.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_exa...: > In 1926, in New York City, 1,200 were sickened by poisonous alcohol; 400 died. The following year, deaths climbed to 700 The poisonous alcohol was a direct result of prohibition. So I think focusing on just cirrhosis deaths paints an unfair picture of the actual health effects.

capote 10y ago

> It would make the economic cost of addiction lower for the individual Isn't a low cost of addiction a bad thing? I'm also not just talking about legalization, but mainly the thing about deregulation/competition. I see your logic though, I hope it's not too wishful to assume that less doctors pushing drugs on patients will solve the issue. I suppose it definitely will cut it back some.

MichaelGG 10y ago
No, it's a good thing. It means people that are addicted (by choice or not) don't need to resort to crime or desperation to buy essential medicines. Less doctors "pushing" really means more doctors being very critical of patients. Which means more people in pain, scared to make too big a fuss, lest they be labeled an "addict" or "seeker". We don't accept (in theory) a legal system that condemns innocent people to suffer, why should we accept a health system that does the same?
- DanBC 10y ago
  A number of people in this thread are saying the answer is either to prescribe opiates, or to leave people in pain. People who need opiates should be able to get them, but that's a small number of people. Giving opiates to the rest does very little to treat their pain, and leaves them with an opiate addiction. Most people with long term pain don't need better access to opiates. They need better access to pain clinics with the range of meds and physical therapies they have. (And yes, opiates if those are needed.)
- capote 10y ago
  > No, it's a good thing. It means people that are addicted (by choice or not) don't need to resort to crime or desperation to buy essential medicines. This seems twisted to me. Okay, so they don't do crime, but they get their stuff easier and stay addicted/get worse/die. Isn't it best to eliminate the motivation for doctors to overprescribe, but still force people to see their doctors for a fix? This way maybe the doctors can intervene and help them out.
  - 10y ago