4 ms·

the lack of education on the part of consumers You realize if drugs were legal and regulated people wouldn't need to seek out desperate and risky online orders

the lack of education on the part of consumers You realize if drugs were legal and regulated people wouldn't need to seek out desperate and risky online orders to satisfy their addiction? When weed was legalized in Oregon, I immediately knew exactly what strain/THC%/CBD% I was buying. This was not available on the black market. Education and security come from acceptance and regulation.

hackuser 10y ago
> When weed was legalized That is far less dangerous than opiates; I don't think it's comparable.
- nedwin 10y ago
  If we had similar labelling for opiates, and distributed them in the same way we distribute booze or marijuana, surely they could be consumed more safely / appropriately. It seems the overdoses are not necessarily thrill seekers, but where the consumer doesn't know that they're taking a 5000x dose of morphine vs a 2.5x dose.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    Some things are too dangerous to distribute to consumers, no matter how they are labeled. Rather than repeat another discussion, see here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13847136 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13847136 IMHO Marijuana isn't a relevant example for the parent's argument because it's not that dangerous; it still is distributed illegally except for a few states in the U.S. and parts of Europe, and (almost) nobody dies from marijuana overdoses.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > it still is distributed illegally except for a few states in the U.S. There is no place in the US where traffic in marijuana is legal. The absence of state-level prohibition doesn't negate federal prohibition.
    - zkms 10y ago
      > Some things are too dangerous to distribute to consumers, no matter how they are labeled. opioids, especially the lower potency ones, do not meet this criteria at all. With tolerance, minimum effective dose increases, but so does the lethal dose. With pharmaceutical-grade opioids whose amounts are precisely metered, it's possible to live in that window. It's only opioids under prohibition (aka, uncertain/varying doses and ingredients) that are inherently dangerous.
  - lightedman 10y ago
    Labeling for opiates does not matter as opiates in and of themselves are highly unpredictable. Example: The same batch of heroin - first dose could be fine. You come back several hours later, take 1/3 the dose you did before and you're dead from an OD. That's how a couple of people in my rehab ministry died. Meth is more reliably predictable in comparison.
ChuckMcM 10y ago
I do realize this, and agree that a saner drug policy is to legalize them and regulate them rather than the prohibition we have today. My point is that between the time we can get to that point, and now, a lot of people are going to end up dead unnecessarily and that they are worth trying to save. Sometimes this sort of 'look how horrible it is' type of article can help with that.
- iopq 10y ago
  But "look how horrible" actually prevents decriminalization/legalization efforts.

hackuser 10y ago

> When weed was legalized That is far less dangerous than opiates; I don't think it's comparable.

nedwin 10y ago
If we had similar labelling for opiates, and distributed them in the same way we distribute booze or marijuana, surely they could be consumed more safely / appropriately. It seems the overdoses are not necessarily thrill seekers, but where the consumer doesn't know that they're taking a 5000x dose of morphine vs a 2.5x dose.
- hackuser 10y ago
  Some things are too dangerous to distribute to consumers, no matter how they are labeled. Rather than repeat another discussion, see here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13847136 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13847136 IMHO Marijuana isn't a relevant example for the parent's argument because it's not that dangerous; it still is distributed illegally except for a few states in the U.S. and parts of Europe, and (almost) nobody dies from marijuana overdoses.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > it still is distributed illegally except for a few states in the U.S. There is no place in the US where traffic in marijuana is legal. The absence of state-level prohibition doesn't negate federal prohibition.
  - zkms 10y ago
    > Some things are too dangerous to distribute to consumers, no matter how they are labeled. opioids, especially the lower potency ones, do not meet this criteria at all. With tolerance, minimum effective dose increases, but so does the lethal dose. With pharmaceutical-grade opioids whose amounts are precisely metered, it's possible to live in that window. It's only opioids under prohibition (aka, uncertain/varying doses and ingredients) that are inherently dangerous.
- lightedman 10y ago
  Labeling for opiates does not matter as opiates in and of themselves are highly unpredictable. Example: The same batch of heroin - first dose could be fine. You come back several hours later, take 1/3 the dose you did before and you're dead from an OD. That's how a couple of people in my rehab ministry died. Meth is more reliably predictable in comparison.

ChuckMcM 10y ago

I do realize this, and agree that a saner drug policy is to legalize them and regulate them rather than the prohibition we have today. My point is that between the time we can get to that point, and now, a lot of people are going to end up dead unnecessarily and that they are worth trying to save. Sometimes this sort of 'look how horrible it is' type of article can help with that.

iopq 10y ago
But "look how horrible" actually prevents decriminalization/legalization efforts.