6 ms·

I used to think this, but I'm not so sure anymore. I think probably about 30-40% of the population would be able to make adequate life decisions and control th

by malux85 10y ago

I used to think this, but I'm not so sure anymore. I think probably about 30-40% of the population would be able to make adequate life decisions and control the use of drugs to the point where it would be recreational use only, and they would otherwise be able to live a productive and positive life. But what about the other 60%? The majority of the public make bad long term decisions in order to get a quick payoff, examples: Payday loan companies, Fast food / obesity, binge drinking, credit cards .. these are (not absolute) but examples of how people "just cant wait" for the long term payoff and take 'fix' and run. Having > 50% of the population addicted to drugs would be disastrous. And another point: What of the health costs of all of these consenting adults? Here in the UK, public health care is free though the NHS - should society as a whole bare the cost of the drug addicted and unproductive majority? I do actually think legalisation is the answer, but I'm not sure how to answer these tough questions first ... Maybe drugs should be legal but very expensive? What do you think?

shawabawa3 10y ago
My opinion: Drugs should be taxed at a level where their cost is roughly the same as they are on the black market - This is actually a huge tax. Cocaine would be similarly priced to coffee if it was controlled in the same way* The taxes earned should mostly go towards treatment and education. Also, legalization doesn't mean completely uncontrolled. Potentially some drugs could only be legal with medical supervision, or not in public places, or not in certain places, etc edit: * just checked and it's not actually true, it would still be around 100x more expensive
Fuddh 10y ago
> But what about the other 60%? The majority of the public make bad long term decisions in order to get a quick payoff, examples: Payday loan companies, Fast food / obesity, binge drinking, credit cards .. these are (not absolute) but examples of how people "just cant wait" for the long term payoff and take 'fix' and run. People do these things, but I'm not sure that's enough of a reason to ban said activities. I think most people agree that banning e.g. 'being fat' or 'eating too much' would be unreasonable. Instead we allow people to make these mistakes, and then deal with the consequences. > Having > 50% of the population addicted to drugs would be disastrous. I completely agree with this statement, although I'm not sure I think legalising drugs would actually lead to that. If we were to legalise drugs there would need to be a system in place where people are informed about the effects and side-effects of the drug they wish to purchase. They would not get access to unlimited amounts at a low cost. While some drugs would be potentially quite problematic under this system (e.g. the very addictive and damaging ones such as methamphetamine and heroin) some probably would not. For example MDMA does not carry a large risk of being abused, and neither do psychedelics (they are not addictive, at least not in the physical sense). Completely legalising drugs has many challenges associated with it, but also many benefits. I think decriminalisation, at least, could be a very good idea. It moves drug addiction from being a crime to be being a medical issue, where the correct response is treatment and not prison. Portugal is an example of a country where this was implemented with positive results.
CoryG89 10y ago
Perhaps you have to take a test designed to measure self control before being allowed access to addictive drugs? I think many of these dangers would be much smaller if we had a better educated public when it comes to the differences and specific dangers of particular drugs. I think legalization would increase awareness in this area, but I agree I am not convinced it would be enough for everyone. Funny though that all of your comparisons are legal. We don't outlaw fast food because some people eat it to obesity. We don't outlaw credit cards because some people use them to drive themselves into unworkable debt.
fastball 10y ago
In my opinion, an important component of the legalization of drugs is to ensure that any who is receiving public money has no drugs in their system. If you are on food stamps, there is absolutely no reason you should be spending money on any type of recreational drug. So mandatory drug tests before any social spending. We'd need to get the cost down and efficacy up for drug testing, though. If you are destitute and they find drugs in your system, you are sent to rehab.
- danielbln 10y ago
  Are you including alcohol and cigarettes and caffeine here?
  - soundwave106 10y ago
    This is the problem with the drug testing argument, the slippery slope leads into caste oriented nanny state territory. Such an argument could conceivably go even further. EG: Ban any "unhealthy" food from being purchased using public assistance. Require anyone who is on public assistance provide proof of doing 30 minutes of daily exercise. Tie public assistance aid to your credit score. Place monitors in the house so if one is engaging in too much time-wasting activity (video game binges! hours of social media!) your funding is cut. This could get pretty nightmarish frankly in an Orwellian way, especially if we combine this with the "world is so automated a basic income is absolutely necessary" idea that's floated around here a lot. Generally, in the states that drug test for "welfare", the results seem to mostly point to a waste of money (typical articles on the phenomenon are here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2015/02/17/the-sham-of-drug-testing-walker-scott-and-political-pandering/#16d3d04a3470 http://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2015/02/17/the-sham-of...). As my above point on reagents, the standard "pee test" involves similar principals; the only way to truly confirm a positive pee test is to send it to a lab for GCMS analysis. This is not cheap.
    - fastball 10y ago
      I feel like it's actually pretty easy to avoid any slippery slope. If you are accepting money from the government, there should be nothing you are spending money on that isn't explicitly sanctioned by the government. I as a taxpayer am not paying for your food so that you can spend the paltry sum you earn on cigarettes. Also, I don't really the see problem with a "nanny state" in the context of people that are accepting money from the government. If you need the government to provide for you, you should be totally happy with whatever stipulations that help includes.
snvzz 10y ago
> I used to think this, but I'm not so sure anymore. Try facts. Google around. "Portugal after legalization".
- Johan-bjareholt 10y ago
  Portugal has not legalized, only decriminalized.
- mercer 10y ago
  Actually, I think if anything Portugal as an example supports their comment. Portugal decriminalized drugs, which is different from legalizing it. Selling is still punished, but possession and use is not, or at least not seriously. It's similar where I live, at least with some things. I can buy weed, even grow a certain amount, and smoke it in public without being punished. But I can't just start a coffeeshop, and the ones that exist are pretty seriously regulated. I'm not entirely sure if I prefer decriminalization to legalization; perhaps with most substances full legalization would not be an issue. But at least the former has been shown to be effective.
mercer 10y ago
One alternative is the approach where the buyer side is not punished or at most fined for its activities (as long as it doesn't harm others), but the seller side is strictly regulated or even illegal. It's sort of right in between letting people free to do as they please, and guiding them in a certain direction or curbing excess. It's how Holland deals with weed and ecstacy, for example, and for the most part it seems to work. That said, personally I think I'd prefer proper legalization with heavy regulation if necessary.
thenamewontfit 10y ago
You estimate that 60% would become addicted if exposed to drugs, but this percentage is actually much smaller. First, like others have said, drugs like MDMA and psychedelics are hardly addictive (or not at all). Second, even highly addictive drugs like cocaine and heroin have only a small percentage of users becoming dependent. See here: http://archive.samhsa.gov/data/2k8/newUseDepend/newUseDepend.htm http://archive.samhsa.gov/data/2k8/newUseDepend/newUseDepend... 13% of heroin users were dependent on the drug one year after using for the first time. Less than 10% of crack cocaine users were one year after first use. This is especially interesting because this selection of people, hard drug users, is already different from the general population in that they are thrill seekers/very open to new experiences/arguably bad decision makers. Yet, even among them the percentage of people becoming dependent is much smaller than what most of us would expect it to be.
TheGrumpyBrit 10y ago
I think keeping them controlled but allowing recreational prescriptions gets you at least part way there. You go to see your doctor, tell him you want to try a particular drug and your reasons for doing so - curiosity or having enjoyed it previously both being legitimate reasons. The doctor reviews your history, discusses any concerns/conflicts with existing medication, and having ensured that you're fully informed, issues you a prescription which entitles you to purchase the drug at your nearest pharmacy and doubles as your license to carry that specific controlled substance. That way, safe intervals can be observed (for example, it's generally recommended that you shouldn't take MDMA more than once every couple of months or so), appropriate recovery/preparatory supplements can be recommended, and dependency can be watched out for.
Beltiras 10y ago
Let's put your thoughts into perspective. There is no drug drought currently. Anyone that wants to get high can. Current market is not regulated. Anyone can become a seller with a little effort. Sellers are not regulated. We do not see an addiction rate of 60%, even with the ready availability of drugs from an unregulated market. Rat Park [1] was an experiment that revealed that everything we know about addiction is wrong. I recommend reading up on it. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8L-0nSYzg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8L-0nSYzg
- ebrenes 10y ago
  I don't believe the "anyone that wants to get high can" mantra. This misses a very important part of the equation which is that they must also be willing to face the consequences and repercussions of said decision including up to loss of freedom, financial costs and deal with the sketchy providers. In addition, it does not take into account the social stigma still associated with some drugs and/or usage in general. I know people who have used all manner of drugs who will talk pejoratively of individuals who still continue to consume, and have not 'straightened out'. Even with drugs that are pretty available like alcohol, alcoholics have to curb their desire and usage based on many external constraints. And there is definitely no alcohol drought, but there's also no permissive free for all for consumption.
  - JamesBarney 10y ago
    You're mental model makes some strange and seemingly contradictory assumptions. It seems like your assuming that would be drug users are completely irrational when weighing the intrinsic consequences of drug-use like large ill-health effect, and great risk of addiction, but are very rational when weighing the legal costs of drugs use. Maybe you can help explain this? I would be surprised if the legal costs were even a third of the long term damage done by addiction, not to mention behavioral studies tell us its not the magnitude of the punishment but the likelihood. And judging from people I've met hard drugs are more likely to ruin lives through addiction* than the legal system. Also when people argue for legal drugs the vast majority are arguing for end-users to have the ability to purchase drugs through a regulated system, not the ability to air drone a pound of heroin to your house at a moments notice. The two most important regulations in my mind should be age restriction(to stop children) and a waiting period(like 3 months to stop impulse buys). *Knew 4-6 people over my life who had their lives ruined through hard drug use, and no-one who's life was ruined through the direct legal consequences of hard drug use.
logfromblammo 10y ago
I think recreational drug service companies would be a multi-billion dollar industry. The wine industry supports sommeliers and winery tours and tastings. Some of its customers are alcoholics. Some are not alcoholics, but still drink wine to excess. And yet the wine industry is not considered a menace in the US and Europe. Wine contains ethanol. Ethanol is a recreational drug for humans. It does have adverse health effects when consumed to excess, and does produce externality costs borne by people who do not drink it. It is about the same with tobacco. It seems to me that the problems you mention are not entirely solved, but they are not completely new, either. Society adapts, eventually. And drugs, if legal, will be both cheap and expensive. In the same way you can buy $2 bottles and $2000 bottles of wine that have the same ethanol %vol, you will likely be able to pay more or less for different brands of cannabis that have the same quantity of a specific chemical in them.
loeg 10y ago
You make a good point, but I think your 60% figure is far too high.
Broken_Hippo 10y ago
Here is the thing: Most folks, when they in their late teens or early 20's, know a few folks they can get drugs from. The majority of folks don't. Of those that do, only a few of those use often. And of those, only some get addicted. I do think your 60% is high. We control the dangers by having very honest public education, and training folks at the dispensaries really really well. Some drugs you can have daily limits on if you'd like, potency controls, and things like that. "What of the health costs of all these consenting adults?" You are already paying for a lot of that, as are folks in the US. Taxpayers pay for jails, after all, and those sorts of things effect the families' health as well. And if we are honest with folks and have rehab readily available, perhaps we can treat folks sooner and save some other money there. "should society as a whole bare the cost of the drug addicted and unproductive majority?" ... Most won't be addicted, and only a few of the folks won't be productive. I think most folks will wind up using pot like alcohol, and the heavier stuff will be for occasional use. It'll be much like: Only a few alcoholics are unproductive citizens. "maybe drugs should be legal but very expensive?" I've thought about this, and I disagree. At first, they should be a bit less than the black market just so that people are encouraged to buy from there. Then it can match black market prices. After all, you don't want to encourage the black market, otherwise you are selling in vain. I'd much rather people buy cocaine or heroin from the state run facility. You have chances to intervene for rehab offers to regular buyers (your id would be scanned on purchase), limit daily purchases to safer doses, limit strength, and offer free needles. These all have positive benefits to society at large. The price only needs to be high enough to deter casual use upfront with some drugs - which is why pot should be cheaper than cocaine, for example.

by malux85 10y ago

shawabawa3 10y ago

My opinion: Drugs should be taxed at a level where their cost is roughly the same as they are on the black market - This is actually a huge tax. Cocaine would be similarly priced to coffee if it was controlled in the same way* The taxes earned should mostly go towards treatment and education. Also, legalization doesn't mean completely uncontrolled. Potentially some drugs could only be legal with medical supervision, or not in public places, or not in certain places, etc edit: * just checked and it's not actually true, it would still be around 100x more expensive

Fuddh 10y ago

> But what about the other 60%? The majority of the public make bad long term decisions in order to get a quick payoff, examples: Payday loan companies, Fast food / obesity, binge drinking, credit cards .. these are (not absolute) but examples of how people "just cant wait" for the long term payoff and take 'fix' and run. People do these things, but I'm not sure that's enough of a reason to ban said activities. I think most people agree that banning e.g. 'being fat' or 'eating too much' would be unreasonable. Instead we allow people to make these mistakes, and then deal with the consequences. > Having > 50% of the population addicted to drugs would be disastrous. I completely agree with this statement, although I'm not sure I think legalising drugs would actually lead to that. If we were to legalise drugs there would need to be a system in place where people are informed about the effects and side-effects of the drug they wish to purchase. They would not get access to unlimited amounts at a low cost. While some drugs would be potentially quite problematic under this system (e.g. the very addictive and damaging ones such as methamphetamine and heroin) some probably would not. For example MDMA does not carry a large risk of being abused, and neither do psychedelics (they are not addictive, at least not in the physical sense). Completely legalising drugs has many challenges associated with it, but also many benefits. I think decriminalisation, at least, could be a very good idea. It moves drug addiction from being a crime to be being a medical issue, where the correct response is treatment and not prison. Portugal is an example of a country where this was implemented with positive results.

CoryG89 10y ago

Perhaps you have to take a test designed to measure self control before being allowed access to addictive drugs? I think many of these dangers would be much smaller if we had a better educated public when it comes to the differences and specific dangers of particular drugs. I think legalization would increase awareness in this area, but I agree I am not convinced it would be enough for everyone. Funny though that all of your comparisons are legal. We don't outlaw fast food because some people eat it to obesity. We don't outlaw credit cards because some people use them to drive themselves into unworkable debt.

fastball 10y ago

In my opinion, an important component of the legalization of drugs is to ensure that any who is receiving public money has no drugs in their system. If you are on food stamps, there is absolutely no reason you should be spending money on any type of recreational drug. So mandatory drug tests before any social spending. We'd need to get the cost down and efficacy up for drug testing, though. If you are destitute and they find drugs in your system, you are sent to rehab.

danielbln 10y ago
Are you including alcohol and cigarettes and caffeine here?
- soundwave106 10y ago
  This is the problem with the drug testing argument, the slippery slope leads into caste oriented nanny state territory. Such an argument could conceivably go even further. EG: Ban any "unhealthy" food from being purchased using public assistance. Require anyone who is on public assistance provide proof of doing 30 minutes of daily exercise. Tie public assistance aid to your credit score. Place monitors in the house so if one is engaging in too much time-wasting activity (video game binges! hours of social media!) your funding is cut. This could get pretty nightmarish frankly in an Orwellian way, especially if we combine this with the "world is so automated a basic income is absolutely necessary" idea that's floated around here a lot. Generally, in the states that drug test for "welfare", the results seem to mostly point to a waste of money (typical articles on the phenomenon are here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2015/02/17/the-sham-of-drug-testing-walker-scott-and-political-pandering/#16d3d04a3470 http://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2015/02/17/the-sham-of...). As my above point on reagents, the standard "pee test" involves similar principals; the only way to truly confirm a positive pee test is to send it to a lab for GCMS analysis. This is not cheap.
  - fastball 10y ago
    I feel like it's actually pretty easy to avoid any slippery slope. If you are accepting money from the government, there should be nothing you are spending money on that isn't explicitly sanctioned by the government. I as a taxpayer am not paying for your food so that you can spend the paltry sum you earn on cigarettes. Also, I don't really the see problem with a "nanny state" in the context of people that are accepting money from the government. If you need the government to provide for you, you should be totally happy with whatever stipulations that help includes.

snvzz 10y ago

> I used to think this, but I'm not so sure anymore. Try facts. Google around. "Portugal after legalization".

Johan-bjareholt 10y ago
Portugal has not legalized, only decriminalized.
mercer 10y ago
Actually, I think if anything Portugal as an example supports their comment. Portugal decriminalized drugs, which is different from legalizing it. Selling is still punished, but possession and use is not, or at least not seriously. It's similar where I live, at least with some things. I can buy weed, even grow a certain amount, and smoke it in public without being punished. But I can't just start a coffeeshop, and the ones that exist are pretty seriously regulated. I'm not entirely sure if I prefer decriminalization to legalization; perhaps with most substances full legalization would not be an issue. But at least the former has been shown to be effective.

mercer 10y ago

One alternative is the approach where the buyer side is not punished or at most fined for its activities (as long as it doesn't harm others), but the seller side is strictly regulated or even illegal. It's sort of right in between letting people free to do as they please, and guiding them in a certain direction or curbing excess. It's how Holland deals with weed and ecstacy, for example, and for the most part it seems to work. That said, personally I think I'd prefer proper legalization with heavy regulation if necessary.

thenamewontfit 10y ago

You estimate that 60% would become addicted if exposed to drugs, but this percentage is actually much smaller. First, like others have said, drugs like MDMA and psychedelics are hardly addictive (or not at all). Second, even highly addictive drugs like cocaine and heroin have only a small percentage of users becoming dependent. See here: http://archive.samhsa.gov/data/2k8/newUseDepend/newUseDepend.htm http://archive.samhsa.gov/data/2k8/newUseDepend/newUseDepend... 13% of heroin users were dependent on the drug one year after using for the first time. Less than 10% of crack cocaine users were one year after first use. This is especially interesting because this selection of people, hard drug users, is already different from the general population in that they are thrill seekers/very open to new experiences/arguably bad decision makers. Yet, even among them the percentage of people becoming dependent is much smaller than what most of us would expect it to be.

TheGrumpyBrit 10y ago

I think keeping them controlled but allowing recreational prescriptions gets you at least part way there. You go to see your doctor, tell him you want to try a particular drug and your reasons for doing so - curiosity or having enjoyed it previously both being legitimate reasons. The doctor reviews your history, discusses any concerns/conflicts with existing medication, and having ensured that you're fully informed, issues you a prescription which entitles you to purchase the drug at your nearest pharmacy and doubles as your license to carry that specific controlled substance. That way, safe intervals can be observed (for example, it's generally recommended that you shouldn't take MDMA more than once every couple of months or so), appropriate recovery/preparatory supplements can be recommended, and dependency can be watched out for.

Beltiras 10y ago

Let's put your thoughts into perspective. There is no drug drought currently. Anyone that wants to get high can. Current market is not regulated. Anyone can become a seller with a little effort. Sellers are not regulated. We do not see an addiction rate of 60%, even with the ready availability of drugs from an unregulated market. Rat Park [1] was an experiment that revealed that everything we know about addiction is wrong. I recommend reading up on it. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8L-0nSYzg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8L-0nSYzg

ebrenes 10y ago
I don't believe the "anyone that wants to get high can" mantra. This misses a very important part of the equation which is that they must also be willing to face the consequences and repercussions of said decision including up to loss of freedom, financial costs and deal with the sketchy providers. In addition, it does not take into account the social stigma still associated with some drugs and/or usage in general. I know people who have used all manner of drugs who will talk pejoratively of individuals who still continue to consume, and have not 'straightened out'. Even with drugs that are pretty available like alcohol, alcoholics have to curb their desire and usage based on many external constraints. And there is definitely no alcohol drought, but there's also no permissive free for all for consumption.
- JamesBarney 10y ago
  You're mental model makes some strange and seemingly contradictory assumptions. It seems like your assuming that would be drug users are completely irrational when weighing the intrinsic consequences of drug-use like large ill-health effect, and great risk of addiction, but are very rational when weighing the legal costs of drugs use. Maybe you can help explain this? I would be surprised if the legal costs were even a third of the long term damage done by addiction, not to mention behavioral studies tell us its not the magnitude of the punishment but the likelihood. And judging from people I've met hard drugs are more likely to ruin lives through addiction* than the legal system. Also when people argue for legal drugs the vast majority are arguing for end-users to have the ability to purchase drugs through a regulated system, not the ability to air drone a pound of heroin to your house at a moments notice. The two most important regulations in my mind should be age restriction(to stop children) and a waiting period(like 3 months to stop impulse buys). *Knew 4-6 people over my life who had their lives ruined through hard drug use, and no-one who's life was ruined through the direct legal consequences of hard drug use.

logfromblammo 10y ago

I think recreational drug service companies would be a multi-billion dollar industry. The wine industry supports sommeliers and winery tours and tastings. Some of its customers are alcoholics. Some are not alcoholics, but still drink wine to excess. And yet the wine industry is not considered a menace in the US and Europe. Wine contains ethanol. Ethanol is a recreational drug for humans. It does have adverse health effects when consumed to excess, and does produce externality costs borne by people who do not drink it. It is about the same with tobacco. It seems to me that the problems you mention are not entirely solved, but they are not completely new, either. Society adapts, eventually. And drugs, if legal, will be both cheap and expensive. In the same way you can buy $2 bottles and $2000 bottles of wine that have the same ethanol %vol, you will likely be able to pay more or less for different brands of cannabis that have the same quantity of a specific chemical in them.

loeg 10y ago

You make a good point, but I think your 60% figure is far too high.

Broken_Hippo 10y ago

Here is the thing: Most folks, when they in their late teens or early 20's, know a few folks they can get drugs from. The majority of folks don't. Of those that do, only a few of those use often. And of those, only some get addicted. I do think your 60% is high. We control the dangers by having very honest public education, and training folks at the dispensaries really really well. Some drugs you can have daily limits on if you'd like, potency controls, and things like that. "What of the health costs of all these consenting adults?" You are already paying for a lot of that, as are folks in the US. Taxpayers pay for jails, after all, and those sorts of things effect the families' health as well. And if we are honest with folks and have rehab readily available, perhaps we can treat folks sooner and save some other money there. "should society as a whole bare the cost of the drug addicted and unproductive majority?" ... Most won't be addicted, and only a few of the folks won't be productive. I think most folks will wind up using pot like alcohol, and the heavier stuff will be for occasional use. It'll be much like: Only a few alcoholics are unproductive citizens. "maybe drugs should be legal but very expensive?" I've thought about this, and I disagree. At first, they should be a bit less than the black market just so that people are encouraged to buy from there. Then it can match black market prices. After all, you don't want to encourage the black market, otherwise you are selling in vain. I'd much rather people buy cocaine or heroin from the state run facility. You have chances to intervene for rehab offers to regular buyers (your id would be scanned on purchase), limit daily purchases to safer doses, limit strength, and offer free needles. These all have positive benefits to society at large. The price only needs to be high enough to deter casual use upfront with some drugs - which is why pot should be cheaper than cocaine, for example.