5 ms·

Any time I read anything about legalizing all drugs I am struck by how that opinion would change if they tried to function with a heroin addiction.

• Archio 10y ago
  Why have you never tried heroin? I am struck by how often the response to that question is not "because it is illegal".
  • ponyous 10y ago
    Is this your actual experience? I have talked with few friends about this and all of them pretty much said: "I don't want to destroy my life"
    • Archio 10y ago
      That's precisely my point. Most people avoid heroin because they don't want to destroy their lives, not because it's illegal.
  • brokenmachine 10y ago
    I have never tried heroin because at the time when I learned about it, I looked at some information and came to the conclusion that it would not be a good decision to make given the physical addictiveness of the drug. To be honest, I attributed almost zero weight to the fact that it was illegal. Remember, opiates are legal now, with a prescription. I wonder, hypothetically if there was a drug where the effects were as pleasurable as I assume heroin must be, but with no physical addiction or nasty side effects, would people still be against it? What if, in the future, your cellphone could emit a frequency that generates pleasure in your brain, but as soon as you turn it off, you are back to normal. Would that be made illegal? Could it be simply a moral objection to unearned pleasure that people are really against?
    • brokenmachine 10y ago
      Oh, I forgot to say that also it seemed much more dangerous to directly inject a drug of unknown providence into your vein than to smoke or swallow it. There's also a risk of infection that isn't there with drugs taken by a different method.
• sophacles 10y ago
  How is it any different than trying to function with an alcohol addiction? Are you suggesting that we should ban the booze too? A surprisingly large amount of arguments against drugs are circular: Addiction is bad -> make it illegal -> look at all the legal trouble addiction causes -> Addiction is bad. And most of them get even sillier if you replace the drug being demonized with the word alcohol.
  • Torgo 10y ago
    >How is it any different than trying to function with an alcohol addiction? pretty different! Both the addiction, how easy it is to get addicted. I've got a challenge for you, start using heroin, then decide to stop, like a casual drinker. Report back your experience!
    • TheCoelacanth 10y ago
      FYI, withdrawal from alcohol is among the worst of any drug. It is one of the few drugs where withdrawal can actually be lethal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delirium_tremens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delirium_tremens
      • PeCaN 10y ago
        OTOH, it takes a lot longer to become physically dependent on alcohol than opiates. But yes, don't mess with your GABA system unless you like seizures; and don't mess with your opiod system unless you like being miserable.
      • fucking_tragedy 10y ago
        It takes sustained periods of constant or binge drinking to first enter withdrawal territory with alcohol. I know people who binge on the weekends, are definitely psychologically addicted to alcohol, but experience no withdrawal symptoms. First time you do heroin, dose once everyday for 3-7 days and you've got yourself a very painful withdrawal ahead of you. Once you're no longer heroin naive, it could take only 2 doses in a week's time to send you back into withdrawals.
• liquidise 10y ago
  Your comment illustrates just how little a drug being illegal does to keep it from being abused. I've never seen someone arguing that people should do more heroin, instead that drugs being illegal is a failed experiment. While it feels like the easy way out, do not confuse drug legalization as supporting the abuse of hard drugs.
  • Torgo 10y ago
    You are underestimating the number of libertarians on this site that just see the destructive effects of an incredibly addictive dangerous drug as a problem you could solve using the free market.
    • pzone 10y ago
      I think you're mischaracterizing people here. I think everyone would agree drug addiction is a problem that requries some government intervention. But clearly the policy we have right now is not great. The argument is that legalization + prevention + treatment would be, overall, better than prohibition. Not perfect, but better.
      • jshevek 10y ago
        I absolutely agree that the parent didn't do justice to the range of opinions, and your post improves on the discussion. I'd like to nitpick the word "requires" (vs "is best served by") > everyone would agree drug addiction is a problem that requries some government intervention. Personally, I believe that it is absolutely theoretically possible to address our societies drug addiction problems without any government intervention, if only we as a culture were willing to do so.
      • hasenj 10y ago
        Addiction is a personal psychological problem. How can the government intervene? The government cannot make you happy. Look at obesity rates. People get addicted because their life sucks. How can the government make their life not suck?
• colatkinson 10y ago
  Typically, advocates of universal legalization want to increase spending on rehabilitation, etc., so addicts would actually be able to seek and receive treatment instead of hiding their problems.
  • Torgo 10y ago
    I am in favor of decriminalization of consumption, not of legalization.
    • brokenmachine 10y ago
      Decriminalization of consumption is better than the current situation, but I am in favor of legalization and regulation. It seems kind of hypocritical to me to say it's acceptable (or at least not illegal) for people to consume drugs, but not protect them by giving them any ability to know what it is they're actually taking, because they would still have to buy drugs of unknown strength from shady characters, manufactured in dodgy underground labs from ingredients of unknown origin. Maybe decriminalization of consumption, as well as government testing labs that can identify unknown substances for people? That opens up it's own can of worms, of course. It's a difficult conundrum, but our current system is the worst possible option. Almost anything would be an improvement.
• aqme28 10y ago
  Does making something illegal reduce its rate of use? I'm not convinced that it does.
  • brokenmachine 10y ago
    Does making something illegal reduce its rate of use? I'm not convinced that it does. Really? All other things being equal, you'd have to agree that it does, wouldn't you? Going to jail is definitely a disincentive. Otherwise the people who choose to do illegal drugs would just do it out in the open, with no regard for the threat of incarceration. I don't think that many people would do something with the only reason being because it is illegal. Would you? There has to be some other incentive, for example the drug makes you feel good, or is an interesting or novel experience? Otherwise, why do it?
• MichaelGG 10y ago
  It's not that hard to function if you have legal access. Opiates are stupidly cheap. With clean equipment, no illegality, no difficulty buying -- it simply would not be that big of an issue for many people. Remember that many (millions) of people are on opiate therapy and manage to function. The heroin junky stereotype is usually for people prevented from obtaining medicine via legal channels. Indeed, even the hygiene part could use some open innovation. Right now IV users mostly have to repurpose insulin needles (interchangeable thin needles (like 30G)) are rare. Long-term IV use is geared towards hospital use. Removing the medical industry gatekeeping of who gets to use opiates would blow open the marketplace.
  • brokenmachine 10y ago
    Indeed, even the hygiene part could use some open innovation. Right now IV users mostly have to repurpose insulin needles (interchangeable thin needles (like 30G)) are rare. Long-term IV use is geared towards hospital use. Needles aren't illegal, are they? Can't people just buy them?
    • MichaelGG 10y ago
      They are hard to obtain in many places. Plus "no one" does IV-direct-to-vein-injections on a regular basis. It's either IM (so larger needles), subcutaneous (like insulin), or IV catheter (larger needles, expected to stay in a day or longer). So even in places that do carry needles, it's unlikely you'll find e.g. Luer-Lock 30G. In some places it's illegal, as it's "drug paraphernalia". In the UK there was even a story about a kid being denied buying teaspoons since he was underage (patients often cook drugs in a spoon before injecting). So IV patients right now have a very hard time. If they are lucky, they can convince a pharmacy they are diabetic and need insulin needles, in some cases. Legalizing would mean stores can sell and make money, and would start to reduce the stigma.
      • brokenmachine 10y ago
        Wow. If there's any better evidence that the drug wars have nothing to do with public health or safety, I haven't heard it. That's bananas.
• fucking_tragedy 10y ago
  Typically when I see a "decriminalize it all" opinion espoused it's followed up with contingency that drug & safety education, exchanges, therapy, detoxification and rehabilitation are also sufficiently funded to address current issues and any other that may arise from decriminalization.
• DanBC 10y ago
  People currently have heroin addiction. They also have considerable problems caused by dirty heroin - the contaminants in heroin make injecting pretty risky. Lack of access to clean needles, and lack of a clean safe space to inject make injecting pretty risky. Treating opiate addiction as a public health, not criminal justice, issue requires some of the tens of billions spent on the war on drugs to be diverted to health and social care.