5 ms·

Legalization doesn't fix addiction. It fixes the sub-culture, the underground, the dark layers in society where addicts lurk in order to be able to continue th

by mmjaa 9y ago

Legalization doesn't fix addiction. It fixes the sub-culture, the underground, the dark layers in society where addicts lurk in order to be able to continue their addiction. Legalization brings these people into society, by removing the stigma associated with drug use, and makes it less of a problem to be swept under the rug. It makes it easier to contact addicts and get them into effective treatment programs. Right now, there is a huge wall between addicts and treatment: that wall is an entirely fictitious legal construct.

AOsborn 9y ago
Well put.
pm90 9y ago
Just to add one more thing to this excellent comment: legalization also makes it much easier to undertake scientific studies/research of the effect of (currently) illicit drugs, which might actually help us understand them better. e.g. we know very well exactly how much alcohol is considered "safe" or causing least damage; but we still don't know about the long term effects of e.g. MJ.
- kogepathic 9y ago
  > legalization also makes it much easier to undertake scientific studies/research of the effect of (currently) illicit drugs Isn't this already possible in other countries? I would have thought this would already be possible in Portugal. [0] [0] http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,0...
- graphitezepp 9y ago
  Psychology of drug use is rare and hard to find. We need to do a better job studying these dangerous drugs to learn to help addicts better.
kogepathic 9y ago
> It makes it easier to contact addicts and get them into effective treatment programs. Who do you expect will fund these treatment programs? I seriously doubt most addicts are equipped to pay for it. You're talking about a country where a major political party actively works to remove funds from women's healthcare. [0] I fully agree that these substances should be legalised for the reasons you mentioned, but I think it's laughable to think present-day politicians give a shit about these people. If anything, they'd probably face substantial lobby from police unions concerned legalisation would lead to job cuts. [0] http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/business/article145926149.html http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/business/article145926149...
- eberkund 9y ago
  >Who do you expect will fund these treatment programs? I seriously doubt most addicts are equipped to pay for it. Taxes on the drugs themselves would probably more than cover it.
  - kogepathic 9y ago
    > Taxes on the drugs themselves would probably more than cover it. And you seriously think politicians will use this new revenue source for the treatment of addicts? I predict they'll push another tax cut that benefits their major donors.
    - logfromblammo 9y ago
      Perhaps we require that our legislators eat a cannabis cookie before opening any session of congress? I have no idea what they would spent the tax revenues on, other than a Strategic Doritos Stockpile, but it couldn't be any worse than the budget they are likely to pass this year.
- prbuckley 9y ago
  You know who cares about these addicts, their families, who are the voting constituents of these politicians. The heroin epidemic is the worst in many traditionally republican states. I think you may find there is more bipartisan support for fixing the heroin problem than there is consensus around hot button topics like abortion.
mgce 9y ago
I want to agree with you, and I think I mostly do. Unfortunately your comment also reminds me how enormous the barriers remain toward people recognizing alcoholism and having the will to treat it. There's an enormous amount of shame, stigma, and denial toward alcoholism, to the point that most who suffer from it still choose to hide that reality as much as they possibly can. Even worse, the legality of it promotes a culture of celebration (advertising, fancy and elaborate liquor branding, snazzy bars, nightlife culture, bottle service, etc. etc) that is in so many ways uniquely destructive in its own right. Like everyone should be able to find joy in drinking, and those who struggle have something horribly wrong in them that carries the risk of denying them the good life, friends, social opportunities, cultural connection, and so on (suddenly mundane invitations to bars, cocktail parties, weddings, shows, dinner at a friend's home, drinks with co-workers, etc. become awkward and potentially dangerous). There's a whole culture built around it: mainstream culture. And someone facing their problems with this particular drug face the prospect of losing access to the culture of their entire society. That's just daunting. I don't think making alcohol illegal would help. But it's no walk in the park even legal. And poses some of its own unique challenges.
- kazagistar 9y ago
  We've done work on tobacco. Sure there is still a culture around smoking and whatnot, but its generally accepted to be unhealthy and something that is a problem.
- pixl97 9y ago
  >I don't think making alcohol illegal would help. We already tried this experiment once. Making alcohol illegal did two things. It actually reduced consumption and alcoholism. It greatly increased the amount of black market crime, and it drastically changed how it was consumed. Harm in vice will always occur. We just have to decide if we want it in the form of overdose, or the form of black market versus police state violence.
  - Zak 9y ago
    Prohibition can also increase adverse events like overdose. Heroin addicts usually know how much of their usual dealer's heroin, cut to a particular purity to take to get high without dying. If they take the same dose of a more pure drug, they overdose. If they take what they think is heroin, but is actually fentanyl, they overdose. Likewise, during alcohol prohibition, liquor containing methanol was a common risk for poisoning when drinking black market alcohol. Even the cheapest grain alcohol at a college liquor store today will not contain a dangerous amount of methanol. Legal heroin would reduce this kind of risk in the same way; it would contain what it says it contains, in the concentration on the label and would not contain other harmful substances.

by mmjaa 9y ago

AOsborn 9y ago

Well put.

pm90 9y ago

Just to add one more thing to this excellent comment: legalization also makes it much easier to undertake scientific studies/research of the effect of (currently) illicit drugs, which might actually help us understand them better. e.g. we know very well exactly how much alcohol is considered "safe" or causing least damage; but we still don't know about the long term effects of e.g. MJ.

kogepathic 9y ago
> legalization also makes it much easier to undertake scientific studies/research of the effect of (currently) illicit drugs Isn't this already possible in other countries? I would have thought this would already be possible in Portugal. [0] [0] http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,0...
graphitezepp 9y ago
Psychology of drug use is rare and hard to find. We need to do a better job studying these dangerous drugs to learn to help addicts better.

kogepathic 9y ago

> It makes it easier to contact addicts and get them into effective treatment programs. Who do you expect will fund these treatment programs? I seriously doubt most addicts are equipped to pay for it. You're talking about a country where a major political party actively works to remove funds from women's healthcare. [0] I fully agree that these substances should be legalised for the reasons you mentioned, but I think it's laughable to think present-day politicians give a shit about these people. If anything, they'd probably face substantial lobby from police unions concerned legalisation would lead to job cuts. [0] http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/business/article145926149.html http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/business/article145926149...

eberkund 9y ago
>Who do you expect will fund these treatment programs? I seriously doubt most addicts are equipped to pay for it. Taxes on the drugs themselves would probably more than cover it.
- kogepathic 9y ago
  > Taxes on the drugs themselves would probably more than cover it. And you seriously think politicians will use this new revenue source for the treatment of addicts? I predict they'll push another tax cut that benefits their major donors.
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    Perhaps we require that our legislators eat a cannabis cookie before opening any session of congress? I have no idea what they would spent the tax revenues on, other than a Strategic Doritos Stockpile, but it couldn't be any worse than the budget they are likely to pass this year.
prbuckley 9y ago
You know who cares about these addicts, their families, who are the voting constituents of these politicians. The heroin epidemic is the worst in many traditionally republican states. I think you may find there is more bipartisan support for fixing the heroin problem than there is consensus around hot button topics like abortion.

mgce 9y ago

I want to agree with you, and I think I mostly do. Unfortunately your comment also reminds me how enormous the barriers remain toward people recognizing alcoholism and having the will to treat it. There's an enormous amount of shame, stigma, and denial toward alcoholism, to the point that most who suffer from it still choose to hide that reality as much as they possibly can. Even worse, the legality of it promotes a culture of celebration (advertising, fancy and elaborate liquor branding, snazzy bars, nightlife culture, bottle service, etc. etc) that is in so many ways uniquely destructive in its own right. Like everyone should be able to find joy in drinking, and those who struggle have something horribly wrong in them that carries the risk of denying them the good life, friends, social opportunities, cultural connection, and so on (suddenly mundane invitations to bars, cocktail parties, weddings, shows, dinner at a friend's home, drinks with co-workers, etc. become awkward and potentially dangerous). There's a whole culture built around it: mainstream culture. And someone facing their problems with this particular drug face the prospect of losing access to the culture of their entire society. That's just daunting. I don't think making alcohol illegal would help. But it's no walk in the park even legal. And poses some of its own unique challenges.

kazagistar 9y ago
We've done work on tobacco. Sure there is still a culture around smoking and whatnot, but its generally accepted to be unhealthy and something that is a problem.
pixl97 9y ago
>I don't think making alcohol illegal would help. We already tried this experiment once. Making alcohol illegal did two things. It actually reduced consumption and alcoholism. It greatly increased the amount of black market crime, and it drastically changed how it was consumed. Harm in vice will always occur. We just have to decide if we want it in the form of overdose, or the form of black market versus police state violence.
- Zak 9y ago
  Prohibition can also increase adverse events like overdose. Heroin addicts usually know how much of their usual dealer's heroin, cut to a particular purity to take to get high without dying. If they take the same dose of a more pure drug, they overdose. If they take what they think is heroin, but is actually fentanyl, they overdose. Likewise, during alcohol prohibition, liquor containing methanol was a common risk for poisoning when drinking black market alcohol. Even the cheapest grain alcohol at a college liquor store today will not contain a dangerous amount of methanol. Legal heroin would reduce this kind of risk in the same way; it would contain what it says it contains, in the concentration on the label and would not contain other harmful substances.