3 ms·

Take a look at this short overview of research on addiction and the futility of the drug war. http://youtu.be/wJUXLqNHCaI http://youtu.be/wJUXLqNHCaI The Drug

Take a look at this short overview of research on addiction and the futility of the drug war. http://youtu.be/wJUXLqNHCaI http://youtu.be/wJUXLqNHCaI The Drug War approach is built on a few axioms: - people who take drugs would not do so if drugs are unavailable - making something illegal prevents it from happening - people who take drugs are somehow less moral or weaker or "bad" and deserve to be persecuted All of these have been disproven. Addiction is going through the roof, drugs are available (at a high cost and unpredictable quality), the jails are full and we are building more jails.

hasenj 10y ago
I think you're straw-manning here. The intent is certainly to make it more difficult, specially in the open. The premise is, if you want to do drugs, you're on your own. There's so much risk. You'll be dealing with bad people. You have do it in secret. etc.
- andrei_says_ 10y ago
  Would you point out the straw-man argument? Does making it more difficult to get drugs prevent people suffering addiction from getting them? This is precisely one of the presumptions I was addressing. Also, one of the reasons people fall into addiction is that they feel "on their own".
  - hasenj 10y ago
    The strawman being: > people who take drugs would not do so if drugs are unavailable They can still do them, just, away from me (and my children, family, neighbours, community, etc) to a big risk to themselves. They alone should bear that risk. They should be looked down upon to deter other people from trying. Making something super risky does, believe it or not, deter people. Not all the people, but deters quite a lot of them.
    - Tiksi 10y ago
      > Making something super risky does, believe it or not, deter people. Not all the people, but deters quite a lot of them. Sure, it deters one chunk of people, but at the same time encourages a large amount of, arguably more risk prone (think teenagers rebelling) , people due to the allure of forbidden fruit. The people you manage to discourage are likely the people that wouldn't have had issues with drugs in the first place, even if they were partaking.
      - hasenj 10y ago
        It's not just kids rebelling. It has all to do with communities breaking down and social relations deteriorating. Teenagers in say, Japan, wouldn't so much rebel by using drugs. There are tons of less dangerous ways for teenagers to rebel. If kids in your community are rebelling by using dangerous drugs, you have a much more deeper problem.
        Tiksi 10y ago
        Either I misunderstood you or you misunderstood me, my points were: 1) By making something illegal, it makes it more attractive to people looking to rebel because it makes it an "edgy" forbidden fruit. For example, teenagers are stereotypically rebellious and making a drug illegal may encourage drug use instead of discouraging it. 2) The people that wouldn't use drugs due to them being illegal likely wouldn't have issues with drug abuse even if they were legal, though they may occasionally use them.
        dwaltrip 10y ago
        You do realize not all illegal drugs are dangerous when used properly? Some can actually be quite beneficial, have no proven long term negative effects, and can improve quality of life. The best example of this is psilocybin. There is some great research lately on guided therapy sessions that make use of it.
        brokenmachine 10y ago
        I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you implying that teenagers in Japan don't do drugs, or just that they don't rebel by using drugs? Because teenagers in Japan most certainly do do drugs, both legal and illegal, dangerous or not. It's interesting that you use the phrase "dangerous drugs", I assume you meant to write "illegal drugs". I would argue that making any drug illegal immediately makes it 1000x more dangerous than it is inherently. You seem to be ignoring the fact that many legal drugs are very very dangerous, and the statistics certainly agree with that. Alcohol? Cigarettes? Society definitely tolerates a certain level of danger in their legal drugs. It seems almost totally arbitrary which drugs are legal and which are not, certainly not correlated with a level of "danger".
dwaltrip 10y ago
Another premise: all drugs on the controlled substance list are entirely harmful. Numerous well-regarded medical professionals & researchers have been shown this to be false. Here is an short article discussing David Nutt's (former chief drug adviser to the UK government) work in this area: http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_caus...

hasenj 10y ago

I think you're straw-manning here. The intent is certainly to make it more difficult, specially in the open. The premise is, if you want to do drugs, you're on your own. There's so much risk. You'll be dealing with bad people. You have do it in secret. etc.

andrei_says_ 10y ago
Would you point out the straw-man argument? Does making it more difficult to get drugs prevent people suffering addiction from getting them? This is precisely one of the presumptions I was addressing. Also, one of the reasons people fall into addiction is that they feel "on their own".
- hasenj 10y ago
  The strawman being: > people who take drugs would not do so if drugs are unavailable They can still do them, just, away from me (and my children, family, neighbours, community, etc) to a big risk to themselves. They alone should bear that risk. They should be looked down upon to deter other people from trying. Making something super risky does, believe it or not, deter people. Not all the people, but deters quite a lot of them.
  - Tiksi 10y ago
    > Making something super risky does, believe it or not, deter people. Not all the people, but deters quite a lot of them. Sure, it deters one chunk of people, but at the same time encourages a large amount of, arguably more risk prone (think teenagers rebelling) , people due to the allure of forbidden fruit. The people you manage to discourage are likely the people that wouldn't have had issues with drugs in the first place, even if they were partaking.
    - hasenj 10y ago
      It's not just kids rebelling. It has all to do with communities breaking down and social relations deteriorating. Teenagers in say, Japan, wouldn't so much rebel by using drugs. There are tons of less dangerous ways for teenagers to rebel. If kids in your community are rebelling by using dangerous drugs, you have a much more deeper problem.
      - Tiksi 10y ago
        Either I misunderstood you or you misunderstood me, my points were: 1) By making something illegal, it makes it more attractive to people looking to rebel because it makes it an "edgy" forbidden fruit. For example, teenagers are stereotypically rebellious and making a drug illegal may encourage drug use instead of discouraging it. 2) The people that wouldn't use drugs due to them being illegal likely wouldn't have issues with drug abuse even if they were legal, though they may occasionally use them.
      - dwaltrip 10y ago
        You do realize not all illegal drugs are dangerous when used properly? Some can actually be quite beneficial, have no proven long term negative effects, and can improve quality of life. The best example of this is psilocybin. There is some great research lately on guided therapy sessions that make use of it.
      - brokenmachine 10y ago
        I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you implying that teenagers in Japan don't do drugs, or just that they don't rebel by using drugs? Because teenagers in Japan most certainly do do drugs, both legal and illegal, dangerous or not. It's interesting that you use the phrase "dangerous drugs", I assume you meant to write "illegal drugs". I would argue that making any drug illegal immediately makes it 1000x more dangerous than it is inherently. You seem to be ignoring the fact that many legal drugs are very very dangerous, and the statistics certainly agree with that. Alcohol? Cigarettes? Society definitely tolerates a certain level of danger in their legal drugs. It seems almost totally arbitrary which drugs are legal and which are not, certainly not correlated with a level of "danger".

dwaltrip 10y ago

Another premise: all drugs on the controlled substance list are entirely harmful. Numerous well-regarded medical professionals & researchers have been shown this to be false. Here is an short article discussing David Nutt's (former chief drug adviser to the UK government) work in this area: http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_caus...