3 ms·

Regardless of how you feel about legalization, policy, etc, this should prove, at the very least, that we aren't winning the "War on Drugs."

by debacle 10y ago

ListenLinda 10y ago
Yup. The war on drugs is a waste of everything.
deelowe 10y ago
Prohibition really has turned out to be a seriously damaging thing to society. Drugs are classified not based on their potential to cause harm or abuse, but instead by some nebulous concept of morality. We, as a society need to embrace a more scientific based approach.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- nickff 10y ago
  The value judgments are inseparable from the 'harm or abuse' measurements; there is no value-neutral way to assess harm and abuse. You can say you want to be scientific and come up with numbers, but the selection of the metrics and the 'critical values' will be political and ethical decisions. Having said all that, I am in favor of full legalization of every substance, even though I personally find the use of almost all substances 'distasteful'.
  - deelowe 10y ago
    You can scientifically quantify harm both to individuals and society. For example, potential for abuse, potential for individual harm, and potential for social harm are all factors that could be quantified and considered. Using those metrics alone, the juxtiposition of the classification of marijuana versus alcohol or nicotine is quite interesting. You could perhaps include many other drugs as well such as cocain, mdma, and perhaps even LSD (though this one does pose some concerns socially given that it can cause manic episodes). My point is that the current "war on drugs" has no scientific basis. And, as such, where we've ended up has been very destructive in terms of the cost to society (imprisonment, surge in use of more harmful but easier to source substances, etc...).
    - nickff 10y ago
      If you are going to do a cost/benefit analysis of drugs, what do you include in the costs? Do you include direct medical care, counselling, crime, and/or insurance? Do you count the financial or emotional costs borne by family members? Do you count lost income? Do you count lost taxes? How do you account for positive outcomes from drug use, such as potential improvements in productivity, or creativity? Do you count benefits to happiness, emotional well being, sense of belonging, or fellow-feeling? How do you count all these? Do you evaluate risks from a straight expected-value or do you use some risk-aversion factor? What is your time preference (i.e. 'interest rate'), and how do you derive it? I am not aware of any government policy based on science; the ones that reference scientifically derived evidence are mostly justifying intuitive/emotional judgments. It may be a Hume-ian perspective, but I am not aware of any compelling evidence to the contrary.
      - deelowe 10y ago
        You can use whatever you'd like. It's comparative analysis, so it doesn't matter too much. E.g. Marijuana versus Alcohol versus Oxycodone versus meth.
    - Chathamization 10y ago
      > LSD (though this one does pose some concerns socially given that it can cause manic episodes) There still seems to be a bit of "reefer madness" going on when it comes to psychedelics, even inside the legalization circles. Some people have reported a link between manic episodes and LSD - just like people have reported links between manic episodes and alcohol, manic episodes and marijuana, etc. That doesn't seem to unbelievable, considering the vast array of things that can trigger mania (even things most people consider innocuous, like visiting another country).

Regardless of how you feel about legalization, policy, etc, this should prove, at the very least, that we aren't winning the "War on Drugs."

by debacle 10y ago

Regardless of how you feel about legalization, policy, etc, this should prove, at the very least, that we aren't winning the "War on Drugs."

ListenLinda 10y ago

Yup. The war on drugs is a waste of everything.

deelowe 10y ago

Prohibition really has turned out to be a seriously damaging thing to society. Drugs are classified not based on their potential to cause harm or abuse, but instead by some nebulous concept of morality. We, as a society need to embrace a more scientific based approach.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
nickff 10y ago
The value judgments are inseparable from the 'harm or abuse' measurements; there is no value-neutral way to assess harm and abuse. You can say you want to be scientific and come up with numbers, but the selection of the metrics and the 'critical values' will be political and ethical decisions. Having said all that, I am in favor of full legalization of every substance, even though I personally find the use of almost all substances 'distasteful'.
- deelowe 10y ago
  You can scientifically quantify harm both to individuals and society. For example, potential for abuse, potential for individual harm, and potential for social harm are all factors that could be quantified and considered. Using those metrics alone, the juxtiposition of the classification of marijuana versus alcohol or nicotine is quite interesting. You could perhaps include many other drugs as well such as cocain, mdma, and perhaps even LSD (though this one does pose some concerns socially given that it can cause manic episodes). My point is that the current "war on drugs" has no scientific basis. And, as such, where we've ended up has been very destructive in terms of the cost to society (imprisonment, surge in use of more harmful but easier to source substances, etc...).
  - nickff 10y ago
    If you are going to do a cost/benefit analysis of drugs, what do you include in the costs? Do you include direct medical care, counselling, crime, and/or insurance? Do you count the financial or emotional costs borne by family members? Do you count lost income? Do you count lost taxes? How do you account for positive outcomes from drug use, such as potential improvements in productivity, or creativity? Do you count benefits to happiness, emotional well being, sense of belonging, or fellow-feeling? How do you count all these? Do you evaluate risks from a straight expected-value or do you use some risk-aversion factor? What is your time preference (i.e. 'interest rate'), and how do you derive it? I am not aware of any government policy based on science; the ones that reference scientifically derived evidence are mostly justifying intuitive/emotional judgments. It may be a Hume-ian perspective, but I am not aware of any compelling evidence to the contrary.
    - deelowe 10y ago
      You can use whatever you'd like. It's comparative analysis, so it doesn't matter too much. E.g. Marijuana versus Alcohol versus Oxycodone versus meth.
  - Chathamization 10y ago
    > LSD (though this one does pose some concerns socially given that it can cause manic episodes) There still seems to be a bit of "reefer madness" going on when it comes to psychedelics, even inside the legalization circles. Some people have reported a link between manic episodes and LSD - just like people have reported links between manic episodes and alcohol, manic episodes and marijuana, etc. That doesn't seem to unbelievable, considering the vast array of things that can trigger mania (even things most people consider innocuous, like visiting another country).