24 ms·

Top medical experts say we should decriminalize all drugs (2016)

dispo001 9y ago
Drugs cause psychopathic behavior in those who didn't take them. It is all because of a self-enslavement formula where it is magically expected to have every angle of everyones life managed by others. I say we force them to smoke the weed and calm them the fuck down. It's just better for them.
- dispo001 9y ago
  I suppose I should clarify that without joking so much. Drug addiction can be very harmful but society retaliating against the victim is endlessly worse. Its like death by a thousand cuts, everyone seems to want to take a stab at the person as if that is going to cure them but it only makes them use more. They have to hang out with criminals to buy their fix and become one themselves to finance it. A drug addict can be successful and have a happy life but only if no one finds out. When people do it triggers a kind of social death spiral. You get the proverbial guy drinking a liter of coffee then smoking a cigar with a glass of whiskey at 11 am ranting about drugs as if the drug user is the embodiment of evil on earth.
grondilu 9y ago
Imagine a old dam. It's in poor condition, with cracks here and there, letting some water through. Its maintenance is extremely expensive and seemingly useless, since for ever crack that is fixed, a new one appears. Now some guy shows up and says "this dam costs us too much and we are failing to fix it. Let's just blow it up!"
- OscarCunningham 9y ago
  So the problem with blowing up the dam is that there's a large amount of water behind it that will flood out dangerously if they blow up the dam. I guess? So what's the analogy here? You think there's a large amount of potential drug users who will suddenly start abusing as soon as drugs are legalised?
  - grondilu 9y ago
    > You think there's a large amount of potential drug users who will suddenly start abusing as soon as drugs are legalised? The opiod crisis already is quite severe. And yet most opioids are illegal. I doubt making them legal will decrease usage. Also, if they were legal, big pharma companies would see them as business opportunities. Things could get ugly fast.
    - TallGuyShort 9y ago
      I'm not following any of the logic here. Big pharma companies are already making a killing on a significant portion of the opioid addiction epidemic. They're legally (but perhaps irresponsibly) prescribed by a doctor, and either become abused by the intended patient or subsequently depart from those legal channels. The opioid crisis isn't the only crisis. America hovers around being the 1st or 2nd worst incarceration rate in the world, and it's predominantly non-violent drug offenses. Friend of mine just lost a job offer they had provisionally because of a tiny marijuana possession charge from years ago, and that's happened to them over and over again. If your best argument in favor of continuing to ruin people lives over something so petty is "big pharma will make money off of opioids", I call bullshit. edit: I would also argue that in your analogy, there is almost no water built up behind that dam, and getting rid of the dam would hardly be noticeable downstream. We can't even keep drugs out of prisons very well. I live in a town that hasn't had a single case of violent crime in 13 years, and yet I know exactly where I could go and buy some heroin right this very minute if I wanted to. I know where in the Bay Area I could buy some meth if I wanted to. And these are locations that have been repeatedly raided by the cops, but the selling of drugs at those locations doesn't stop, because someone else who recently finished their sentence will just take over while the person who got busted servers theirs. I was in a concert venue last night with cops, and weed, everywhere. Freaking out about the weed, but no one caring about people having 6 or 7 beers and then getting in their cars to drive home drunk at 1am. The dam makes zero sense to me.
    - castis 9y ago
      decriminalization is not legalization.
AKifer 9y ago
The drug war not working does NOT mean that all the drugs should be decriminalized. If you fail to fight drug cartels, it's a political and organizational issue. We should never fall into the trap of mixing everything.
AKifer 9y ago
I'm thinking internally if all this buzz on drug decriminalization isn't just the visible part of darwinian process that will naturally eliminate the stupids and the mentally weak from humanity gene pool.
- fifnir 9y ago
  Yeah their idiotic comments in online forums should hopefully make them undesirable to the opposite sex...
palad1n 9y ago
Paywall?
- grzm 9y ago
  There's a workaround via Facebook: here's an example of its use: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15270969 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15270969
  - anythingnonidin 9y ago
    A clickable one for this one would then be: http://facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/24/top-medical-experts-say-we-should-decriminalize-all-drugs-and-maybe-go-even-further/ http://facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.washingtonpost.com/n...
- leguman_ac 9y ago
  Hint: the paywall works via Javascript...
caxistic 9y ago
Needs to go even further, and deregulate access to prescription drugs as well, to open up provider competition and increase consumer choice.
- anythingnonidin 9y ago
  What does this mean? Make all Rx drugs OTC?
  - andrewfromx 9y ago
    I think we leave the Rx system as is, in that we still let pharmacists do their job and protect their mainstream normal patients and give good standard of care, but any party drugs where there is already a clandestine market become OTC. i.e. if you want some weird medicine for some weird thing that no one else wants, you'll have to go through the steps to get a Rx for it. But it won't be hard to get. Because once adderall is OTC there will be 1000's of freed up doctors who don't have to write Rx for that.
    - fujiters 9y ago
      I just wish we could do away with having to get the prescription in the first place and have the pharmacist be the gatekeeper. You keep a medical history on file so they can quickly figure out if the medication you want is likely to cause complications. Then I don't have to leave work and meet with my doctor every few weeks/months to get another prescription which I then have to take to the drug store and wait to get filled.
      - subroutine 9y ago
        Right now are you paying cash out-of-pocket or does your health insurance cover your Rx aside from ~ $10 copay?
      - vidarh 9y ago
        In the UK we now have at least three alternatives (other than "grey market" import; most prescription drugs outside of narcotics can be legally imported to the UK for personal use): For OTC drugs with restrictions, online pharmacies can sell subject to asking you sufficient questions (and potentially doing a followup call if you answers raises questions). This covers drugs like steroid creams and the like which may have risks, but are usually ok. For prescription drugs, online pharmacies can likewise sell to you if they have you fill in a questionnaire and a qualified GP agrees to write a prescription for you. This is increasingly done for low risk but prescription only drugs like Viagra. The mechanisms above are simple enough that even though buying from e.g. companies shipping from Indian manufacturers is trivial in the UK, I'll prefer UK online pharmacies when possible as the extra hassle is minimal and they're better regulated. Alternatively there's a service called Push Doctor (I've got no connection to them other than being a satisfied user) that lets you have an actual conversation with a doctor over a video chat (+ text chat and ability to upload images) after which they can issue you a prescription that gets sent electronically to the nearest pharmacy. I've tried it twice - once I got seen within an hour, the other time in less than 10 minutes, and the prescriptions were ready within half an hour in both cases, so I could just wait for a text message and go pick it up when it was ready. It's a fantastic service - the only downside is it's private only, and while the consultations aren't expensive (28 pounds or 20/month), for more expensive prescriptions it's not great as you'd be paying full price for the drugs (but you do have the option of e.g. use them for diagnosis and go see your GP to get an NHS prescription if they think you need anything expensive, so you at least avoid having to visit your GP for minor things); I'd love to see this service get a deal with the NHS... With the above setup there's very little reason to take risks as the barriers are low enough for most people to have very little reason to circumvent them. I do agree with you though that for most drugs delegating it to a pharmacist would probably provide a good enough barrier - at least in the UK, and I suspect most other places too, they're well educated. When it isn't we should ask why. E.g. are doctors looking for signs of any issues? If those issues are simple enough and there's low enough abuse potential, then either let pharmacists do it or standardize a questionnaire.
fsloth 9y ago
Finally. I hope this will signal a turning point on this insane approach to national health in all countries. Drugs are a health problem, not a criminal problem. Lone experts have been fired in western countries when they have expressed this common sense sentiments alone [0]. I hope this groups fares better. Nixon started the war on drugs anyway as a mean to attack left and black activists [1]. Any previous legislation for control has been instigated on behalf of race and class warfare.The fact that some drugs have been the staple narcotic in some groups has been used as a control mechanism upon those groups by criminalizing the substance. Substance distribution should be controlled by law. But that is status quo anyway - governments control the distribution of any number of dangerous substances at any point. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/30/drugs-adviser-david-nutt-sacked https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/30/drugs-advis... [1] https://qz.com/645990/nixon-advisor-we-created-the-war-on-drugs-to-criminalize-black-people-and-the-anti-war-left/ https://qz.com/645990/nixon-advisor-we-created-the-war-on-dr...
- pitcharoad 9y ago
  enabling medical issues is a criminal problem, prohibition or not.
- enord 9y ago
  I think we passed the turning point some years ago when the medical community decided that harm reduction is more important than patient compliance. As long as doctors insist, the rest of society will come around eventually. Of course, it took 40+ years of people literally dying in the streets before doctors began "washing their hands" (i.e. prescribing opiates to addicts, particularily non-compliant addicts who take additional drugs).
- mc32 9y ago
  I'll agree with consumption not being punishable but a medically treatable issue. Misditribution (illegal distribution) of controlled dugs (not over the counter) should be punishable --whether they be doctors who knowingly over prescribe or black market sellers (drug dealers).
  - 9y ago
Synaesthesia 9y ago
As Chomsky said, the way to deal with drug abuse is through education and treatment. That’s how we successfully reduced smoking, drinking coffee and other unhealthy habits in the USA. Not by throwing people in jail.
- brndnmtthws 9y ago
  Drinking coffee is unhealthy? You sure about that? > Studies have shown that coffee may have health benefits, including protecting against Parkinson's disease, type 2 diabetes and liver disease, including liver cancer. Coffee also appears to improve cognitive function and decrease the risk of depression. http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/expert-answers/coffee-and-health/faq-20058339 http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-he...
  - gremlinsinc 9y ago
    Don't tell any of that to a mormon... (I can say as an almost ex-mormon - out in mind/spirit if not officially).
  - spaceseaman 9y ago
    The high caffeine intake is still quite bad for your heart. And it's bad for your teeth. Just googling shows that the scientific results have been quite mixed. By that I mean that scientists have found some positive correlations, and some negative ones. From my layman's perspective, I would think a doctor would say there isn't a consensus on whether coffee is holistically healthy. In other words, it's good for some things, bad for others.
    - moozilla 9y ago
      What scientific results are you googling exactly? Everything I can find shows a strong consensus that coffee has positive effects across the board. This seems like a good summary: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/upshot/more-consensus-on-coffees-benefits-than-you-might-think.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/upshot/more-consensus-on-... Highlight from that article: >There have been two meta-analyses published within the last year or so. The first reviewed 20 studies, including almost a million people, and the second included 17 studies containing more than a million people. Both found that drinking coffee was associated with a significantly reduced chance of death. I can’t think of any other product that has this much positive epidemiologic evidence going for it. I don't understand how you can claim coffee is bad for your heart in good faith if you have read _any_ of the research... for example, this meta-analysis of 36 studies: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24201300 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24201300 > A nonlinear association between coffee consumption and CVD risk was observed in this meta-analysis. Moderate coffee consumption was inversely significantly associated with CVD risk, with the lowest CVD risk at 3 to 5 cups per day, and heavy coffee consumption was not associated with elevated CVD risk. I think any doctor worth their salt would tell you that there is a strong scientific consensus that drinking coffee is not only completely safe, but it has preventative effects towards cancer, cardiovascular disease, Parkinson's, and Type-2 diabetes. Here's a bonus review of 112 meta-analyses: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-nutr-071816-064941 http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-nutr-07... > Of the 59 unique outcomes examined in the selected 112 meta-analyses of observational studies, coffee was associated with a probable decreased risk of breast, colorectal, colon, endometrial, and prostate cancers; cardiovascular disease and mortality; Parkinson's disease; and type-2 diabetes.
ars 9y ago
And not just recreational drugs. All drugs. We trust people to manage their own life, this includes medicine. Maybe insurance won't pay for it without a Dr, but if someone wants to self pay, that's their choice.
- Johnny555 9y ago
  There are lots of reasons to keep many drugs available as prescription-only. Misuse of antibiotics affects everyone, not just the person taking them. Plus, drug interactions are hard even for professionals to manage. I don't think it's a good idea to let people self-prescribe prescription drugs for themselves and others (like their children).
  - gremlinsinc 9y ago
    I agree, but if someone somehow gets a hold of drugs--and puts it in their body they shouldn't go to jail for that... putting substances in one's own body doesn't necessarily hurt others--unless they become violent as a result - but until they commit some violent crime hopped up on meth -- innocent till guilty of a violent crime. Morality and what not should not be forced on people. And most people with drug dependency issue deserve to be in hospitals NOT prisons. Let's have some compassion as a society instead of fueling the drug -> prison -> poverty because dad-in-jail/single-mom-as-a-result cycle that's so prevalent in the lower class.
    - ams6110 9y ago
      Problem is, if there's anyplace more expensive to keep a person than in prison, it's probably in a hospital. Doctors and nurses make a lot more money than guards (and a hospital treating drug addicts will need guards too).
      - smcl 9y ago
        Well I don't think that statement was meant to be taken literally - you don't just sentence someone to 4 years of hospital instead of 4 years of prison. It's more that you provide support for anyone with drug problems whether that is counselling, support for kicking the habit, replacement drugs on prescription (methadone or what have you) clean needles and needle exchanges. We should be doing this anyway for the sake of treating people humanely instead of cruelly. The fact that it'd probably be cheaper and would result in more productive, healthy citizens is just a pleasant side-effect.
pcurve 9y ago
I think this can cause interest shift in relevant job sectors.
- anythingnonidin 9y ago
  How so?
anythingnonidin 9y ago
Full report: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)00619-X/abstract http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67...
anythingnonidin 9y ago
Some reasons for decriminalization of use and possession, summarized: (i.e., removing criminal penalties or making it no jail time possible, but not government supplied) - War on drugs has failed. Criminalization has consequences on community - in many cases, most of the negative effects come from the criminalization, not the drug. - Consensual crimes that don’t harm others shouldn’t be crimes. - Drug prohibition doesn’t seem to decrease use — Portugal. (Also perhaps Czech, Italy, Spain?) - Drug war enforcement costs a ton, we could save tax money. - 1.2 million people arrested for drug possession in 2015. http://www.drugwarfacts.org/chapter/crime_arrests#arrests http://www.drugwarfacts.org/chapter/crime_arrests#arrests - Prisons are crowded. Would reduce this a little. - Easier for addicts to seek treatment. I think the strongest reasons are that drug use should be treated as a health issue and not a criminal issue, and that consensual crimes that don't harm others shouldn't be crimes. What is the single strongest reason for or against decriminalizing all drugs, in your opinion?
- yodsanklai 9y ago
  I think you're missing the most important reason. As an informed adult, I should be free to grow and smoke (or vaporize) weed in the privacy of my home because I don't hurt anyone. Freedom should be the default and interdiction should come with very good reasons (and not the other way around).
  - sethrin 9y ago
    You may be interested to know that the 1975 Alaska Supreme Court ruling which legalized cannabis in that state used more or less your exact reasoning. The court found that as long as cannabis use was not a public health issue, the State had no right to infringe the privacy of one's home. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravin_v._State https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravin_v._State
- closeparen 9y ago
  >Criminalization has consequences on community Mass addiction has consequences on community. > Consensual crimes that don’t harm others shouldn’t be crimes People who self-destruct rarely do so in a vacuum. The community, and specifically their families, are harmed. Just look at what addiction as a public health crisis is doing to the places ravaged by opioid abuse. > Drug war enforcement costs a ton A drugged out, non-productive population costs a ton. I'm for decriminalization because we've had enough time to determine that prison and lifelong unemployability (via criminal records) cause massive damage while not actually serving as deterrents. Still in favor of using force to reduce the prevalence of life-wrecking drugs, i.e. mandatory treatment, but it has to be less life-wrecking than the drug.
romeopov 9y ago
Yes! Drugs and Prostitution should be legal! A sugar daddy can pay a girls rent to have sex with her but if he just gives her the money for sex it's illegal. There's billions that can be taxed and go to things like healthcare and eventually a universal basic income.
jeffdavis 9y ago
"scientific consensus" I am very troubled by this phrase -- it's almost an oxymoron. Science is not democratic, and scientists aren't anointed arbiters of facts. Anyone can be a scientist simply by following the scientific method and collecting data in good faith; and a lone outsider with new data can challenge 100 years of "consensus". Obviously they are subject to challenges themselves, or if it's unlikely enough they might reasonably be ignored (e.g. a known charlatan saying they observed cold fusion). Did this terminology start with the "scientific consensus" on anthropogenic climate change (which I do not dispute, by the way)? I think I understand why it was used in that debate, but I don't think it was a good precedent. Now it's being used to directly apply to policy ("growing scientific consensus on the failures of the global war on drugs"). Before long, it will be used directly in political debates to try to force some scientific organizations to choose a side. And then all credibility is lost. Researching policies that require deep analysis of scientific (or other) data should be left to think tanks or something similar.
- kelnos 9y ago
  While science is in theory "perfect", unfortunately the people doing the science are still just flawed, imperfect humans. Even scientists who have no malicious intent can still have their work influenced by unconscious biases if they aren't careful. Given that, I think "consensus" is a useful term. It suggests that a strong supermajority of scientists have findings that agree with something, and with that chorus of agreement, it's harder to oppose those claims by accusing all of those scientists to have flawed results. I think you can probably find a lot of science out there that supports criminalization of drugs, and showing that there's a "growing scientific consensus" on the failures of criminalization is useful to show that previous research on the subject has either been debunked or proved false by later observations. Because that's literally what's happening.
  - graphitezepp 9y ago
    Yeah, scientific consensus is a valuable thing. It just means "oh like a lot of probably smart people who looked at this issue rigorously mostly agree" and that is pretty much as close to truth as we have.
leksak 9y ago
> decriminalization of all nonviolent drug use and possession What is meant by nonviolent drug use?
- subroutine 9y ago
  They just want to make it clear to bullies and torturers that violence shall remain illegal whether or not drug use is decriminalized. Honestly, it seems like a spin word.
- DanBC 9y ago
  You can't be a criminal gang that murders people to smuggle the drugs into the country. You can't be a criminal gang that forces modern slaves to grow cannabis in squat houses. You can't be a criminal gang that uses violence to control a street corner.
- ghettoimp 9y ago
  Using drugs without being violent?
- MaxfordAndSons 9y ago
  It means bath salts will remain illegal...wait a second...
watertom 9y ago
Legalize. Why should we funnel money to illegal drug cartels to fuel their crime and violence by decriminalizing drugs?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
marze 9y ago
Bottom line is deaths from overdose. Drugs criminalized, USA: 150 deaths/million people/year Drugs legalized, Portugal: 3 deaths/million people/year
- lagadu 9y ago
  To be clear, drugs aren't legalized in Portugal; they're decriminalized. That means that traffic and selling is still a crime but consumption and possession of small amounts (there's a table listing those) is not a crime.
- kobeya 9y ago
  I'm more concerned with violence than overdosing. And that definitely goes down with decriminalization.
- yznovyak 9y ago
  Death penalty for drug trafficking, Singapore: 0 deaths/million people/year
  - maze-le 9y ago
    Drug use might be more prevalent than the official statistics suggest. [0]: https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSSIN135004 https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSSIN135004
SilentCrossing 9y ago
The article is about "decriminalization of all nonviolent drug use and possession". This sounds noble, but as we found out in the Netherlands you will have to make a distinction between soft drugs and hard drugs. Hard drugs is always associated with crime and most of the time violent crime and gangs. So I would say. Been there done that. We are cracking down on this type of policy, since 'education' does not work and it seems that prisons do not make the criminal as some other comments claim... Well they can always wish for it, but reality does not care either way.
- katastic 9y ago
  We're living in a strange culture of over optimism that thinks if we just magically change certain systems "literally everyone will be better." No. Heroin users aren't going to magically become productive members of society just because we legalize heroin.
  - grzm 9y ago
    The article is a bit more nuanced than expecting "literally everyone will be better" or "heroin users aren't going to magically become productive members of society". 'anythingnonidin has summarized a number of the points from the article here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15281949 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15281949
  - KozmoNau7 9y ago
    Maybe not, but the heroin addicts will no longer have to resort to robberies and other crime in order to fund their addictions, and it will become easier to offer them help and treatment.
    - chrisan 9y ago
      > the heroin addicts will no longer have to resort to robberies and other crime in order to fund their addictions How does decriminalization of the possession and use lead to increased money for addicts that they will no longer have to resort to illegal acts to fund addictions? Less jail/court fees = more money in pocket to buy drugs?
lord_jim 9y ago
Full steam ahead with decriminalization of possession/use, and with regulated markets for psychedelic and most stimulants However after seeing how business behaves when it can sell opiates, I'm in favor of even more regulation than we currently have on some drug markets (Also, if it were up to me, I'd ban ads for drugs, including alcohol and prescriptions)
- Synaesthesia 9y ago
  Stimulants can be pretty dangerous TBH. I don’t think class a drugs should just go on sale, but I don’t think people should be locked up for them. Baby steps.
  - vidarh 9y ago
    The problem is that for a lot of these drugs the greatest harm comes from the lack quality control and regulation of sale. Not just because it results in drugs getting cut with all kinds of shit, and people being sold the wrong thing (e.g. selling heavily cut fentanyl instead of heroin), but also because of a the race to find alternatives that slip through cracks. A great deal of modern drugs only exists to circumvent the law, either because they're not covered for a while, or because they can more easily be produced. E.g. a number of "synthetic cannabinoids" have been manufactured, and so far indications are that at least some of them have health effects that are far worse than anything possible to tie to actual cannabis. Without decriminalising and regulating manufacture and sale, there will still be an incentive for dealers to sell drugs like that which nobody particularly want, and that increases harm, instead of selling clean versions of the safest drugs. E.g. for opiates, many of them are "close enough" in terms of effect that there is a lot of potential harm reduction benefit just in getting the more dangerous variants off the market by legalizing and regulating the safest ones. Unlike blanket bans that has a hope of working.
    - Synaesthesia 9y ago
      Yes but even the pure, quality drugs like adderall, which is really amphetamine can be dangerous. For opiates, especially people injecting, it is very inportant to get clean drugs, and actually opiates are not particularly harmful to the body if used correctly. They also don’t really present a threat to society if given the drug. Holland has provided addicts with heroin with great success, as a form of treatment.
blauditore 9y ago
Honest question: How would decriminalization of drugs work in practice? Would it be legal to e.g. import and sell cristal meth in stores? What about cheap self-made alcohol that might contain dangerous stuff like methanol; where do you draw the line?
- MaxfordAndSons 9y ago
  Decriminalization ≠ legalization; the idea here is decriminalizing usage and personal possession, which in no way entails legalizing production, cultivation or commercialization. The point is to enable addicts to seek treatment without fear of legal trouble.
  - subroutine 9y ago
    I would argue, somewhat pedantically, that decriminalization = legalization. Drug use can either be legal or illegal. Drug possession can be either legal or illegal. Same for drug, manufacture, and drug distribution. In that order: use, possession, manufacture, distribution I think you will get a reduction in the number of people who would agree with having no restrictions. For instance, drug use is probably ok, but not while driving a vehicle, or playing a competitive sport. Drug possession is probably fine, but not more than X amount. Drug manufacture might be fine, if you are just growing/making for yourself. Drug distribution is probably not ok unless you have a license and follow state/federal guidelines. I think where the law breaks down is under: 'possession' If it's legal to possess say, 200 pills of oxy at any time, no Rx, no questions asked, I don't see how that isn't going to result in increased distribution.
- pseud0r 9y ago
  legalization = regulation Alcohol regulation obviously wouldn't change
blubb-fish 9y ago
Here in Germany politicians are still stating that Cannabis is a gateway drug, causes psychosis and makes stupid. They will even actively lie and twist statistics. My theory for why many politicians - especially from the right-wing - are so opposed is b/c they didn't like their weed smoking and long-haired fellow students. It's a Pavlov thing. Like many people dislike golf (justly so in my humble opinion) b/c they dislike the stereotypical golf enthusiasts.
- firmgently 9y ago
  That may be part of it but (at least here in the UK) the bigger factor is votes. The increasingly-shrinking (the most recent general election being an exception) voter demographic has a large overlap with the hysterical "lock 'em all up" authoritarian demographic. Legalisation of drugs is political suicide. When the UK gov's drugs advisor advised that drugs should be legal they sacked him.
  - heavenlyblue 9y ago
    It's interesting though how informally liberal UK is about drugs, at the same time.
    - dood 9y ago
      The drug system in the UK is quite funny - the politicians pretend drug use needs to be treated criminally, the police pretend to enforce drug laws, and the voting public are satisfied with the status quo because if they dislike drugs they can buy into the pretense, if they like drugs they can mostly use them without much bother, and if they are indifferent to drugs they have better things to worry about.
      - heavenlyblue 9y ago
        Yes. Exactly.
  - dood 9y ago
    I don't think it is even authoritarianism, we've become stuck in a strange cycle - people think drug use needs to be treated criminally because that is what they've been told for decades, and politicians keep repeating the falsehood because that's what people expect to hear. Neither voters nor politicians are even thinking about it, both just react as they've been conditioned to by the other. It'll take something dramatic to break out of this bizarre self-perpetuating cycle.
sjwright 9y ago
Even if you had a staunchly anti-drug stance, it's also fair to say that law enforcement resources are not unlimited. Dealing with drugs like cannabis and cocaine are a waste of taxpayer dollars relative to serious issues of opioids and methamphetamine.
Yaggo 9y ago
I like how 'drug' can refer to both medicin and non-medical substances in English. In Finnish, they are two separate words.
vectorEQ 9y ago
a lot of drugs used to be legitimate drugs,but are now illegal to be able to sell other shitty substances which are more expensive and often less effective. example: mdma treatment for ptsd. most ptsd treatments are ill effective these days, but before wo2 mdma treatment was very effective. it's now only able to be given in certain places, usually from people who can't licence themselves properly, adding risk to this treatment where before it was solid. http://www.mdmaptsd.org/news.html http://www.mdmaptsd.org/news.html most banned substances are just 'buisness deals' between pharma industry and government. For the US people, this is not just due to war on drugs. war on drugs is an effect , not a cause.
runesoerensen 9y ago
It's worth noting that this article is from March 2016 (e.g. before the UN failed to course correct at UNGASS 2016), and that this and many other efforts have failed already. There are some related discussions in this thread from last year after UNGASS: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12601956#12602296 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12601956#12602296
transverse 9y ago
Instead of drugs, I think we could ban fried chicken and watermelon exceeding a diameter of three inches. It would be more effective for the goals the government has in mind. Fried chicken is well, fried, and a large watermelon can be used to hit someone and cause head injury.
otakucode 9y ago
Drugs were not made illegal because they're bad for your health and they don't remain illegal because they're bad for your health. Poisons are generally not illegal. Drugs are illegal because they make people feel good or make them happy which offends the Protestant Work Ethic. The Protestant Work Ethic says that the only legitimate route to happiness is through physically difficult labor which causes you to suffer. The greater the suffering, the greater the virtue and the greater the happiness you 'deserve' as consequence. The PWE is not openly advocated or consciously held much any longer, but it was a large part of US history and its effects stick with us. Aside from just the people who have bought into the scaremongering about drugs, there is a significant contingent of people who see it as 'unfair' that anyone could use a drug and get even temporary happiness. Nothing offends Americans (I simply don't know how prevalent this is in other countries) more than the idea that someone else might be having an easier time than themselves. It's why many would prefer companies to go without substantive punishment for harming many people over having one person receive a large punitive judgement in court cases. The McDonald's coffee lawsuit is usually the canonical example. If McDonald's had only paid the lady actual damages, they would have simply continued their practices and harmed more people. But that is preferable to the situation where that one lady got a 'payday'. Apparently nothing is worse than the feeling that someone else has had it easier than one has had it ones self.
- nafey 9y ago
  Wow really explains why China bans drugs. This kind of reductive reasoning is a mere rationalization of a complex socio-political issue.
  - Keronk 9y ago
    Well China does have a history with this sort of thing. The Opium wars lead to what China calls the century of humiliation which is still a defining characteristic in their global outlook. More info here : https://youtu.be/xD1nDGeiSAs https://youtu.be/xD1nDGeiSAs
    - Veelox 9y ago
bigtex 9y ago
This was a very good interview with a neuropsychiatrist, Dr. Phyllis Bonafice, who has a different opinion, https://youtu.be/W_i2mC5fAmI https://youtu.be/W_i2mC5fAmI. I do think focusing on treatment more than punishment may be a better idea in most cases.
shihching 9y ago
Perverse, plentiful incentives to addict and sell -- or invest in the manufacturer who does so -- act quicker than panels of doctors, and dodge responsibility too easily. Living long lives as a beacons of philanthropic humanism on top of your legal drug empire (or profits gained through accompanying ownership) counteracts much stigma accrued from the deaths of your customers. > On Tuesday [July 17, 2017], OxyContin manufacturer Raymond Sackler died at the age of 97. The same day, 91 other Americans died due to lethal overdoses of the pill that made Sackler a billionaire. Sackler died in comfort, in a hospital bed, with the best possible medical care, “following a brief illness." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/raymond-sackler-oxycontin-dead_us_596f881ee4b0bb3867496f43 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/raymond-sackler-oxyconti...
- abakker 9y ago
  A bit ad hominem, right? Do we complain about Alfred Nobel having invented dynamite, which has been used to kill people?Pain medicine especially seems like a place where we can't rush to judgement. Even if he acted badly, the drug has done good for some people. Billionaires acting philanthropically is probably better than them not acting that way.
  - shihching 9y ago
    The Huffington Post article is written by an anti-corporate former heroin addict who, yes, clearly holds animus against those who profited off of opiates. > By convincing doctors that OxyContin was “safer,” offering financial support and special perks to family physicians who were willing to push the drug, and investing millions in a marketing campaign that claimed OxyContin was not only harmless but beneficial, Purdue Pharma cornered the pain pill market. By 2003, Purdue was selling $1.6 billion of the pill annually. The crux of his condemnation is the incentivization of doctors to prescribe -- which one could call bribery. Also, the misrepresentation of known addictive and deleterious long term health effects, which I believe could likely be demonstrated through internal company documents. Wealth allows the purchase of goodwill at a discount price -- the ultimate destination of Mr. Sackler hinges on both the wilfulness and premeditation of his capitalist technique and the breadth and compassion of his philanthropy. Collecting and displaying Oriental artwork appears to be at the center of his humanism -- the other side of which is biomedical research. I have not scrutinized the publications emerging from the Sackler School of Medicine in Tel Aviv, but for the sake of his soul and millions of prescription opiate addicts, I hope the papers reveal cures proportionate to his profits.
chewz 9y ago
Sure. How do you keep millions of unemployed people happy? Give them drugs and UBI.
csmark 9y ago
So 22 medical experts state the War on Drugs "directly and indirectly contribute to lethal violence, disease, discrimination, forced displacement, injustice and the undermining of people’s right to health." In Mexico 23,000 people were killed in drug related violence in 2016. Drug overdoses in the USA jumped to 59,000 in 2016. Arrest numbers in the USA in 2015 totaled 10.8 million. Drug related: 1.49 million; (Broken down: 1.25 million for drug possession; 340,000 for sale or manufacture.) 1.09 million drunk driving; 11,092 for murder or manslaughter. Ratios of note: 438:1 Possession:Sale or manufacture; 1.25:1.5 Drunk driving:Drug related. Government v Science: In 2009 a British psychiatrist and neuropsychopharmacologist was sacked from his position chief drug advisor position in government after publishing a list of most to least harmful drugs. "Alcohol and tobacco are more harmful than many illegal drugs, including LSD, ecstasy and cannabis..." He also stated horse riding was safer than ecstasy with 100 riding fatalities per year(on average). The political blowback was massive. On the floor in House of Commons MPs vehemently rebuffed the document and its author. It was a parade of "my ignorance trumps your expert scientific opinion." The congress and courts in the USA are no better. There's no official list but there is a pattern that has no scientific basis. The crack epidemic of the late 80's saw congress pass mandatory sentencing laws for crack. Crack is the crystalized version of cocaine. It was popular in the inner city minority population. Movie stars from the 80's would have a "cocaine nail." The nail on the pinky finger (it could be any finger) would be noticeably longer. Carrie Fisher in the Empire Strikes Back has one that really stands out. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/29/nutt-drugs-policy-reform-call https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/29/nutt-drugs-... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/30/drugs-adviser-david-nutt-sacked https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/30/drugs-advis... It was difficult to locate reputable sources of recent data on costs in the United States. Tobacco and alcohol combined total slightly over $600 Billion/year while illegal drugs are estimated at just under $200 billion. https://www.verywell.com/what-are-the-costs-of-drug-abuse-to-society-63037 https://www.verywell.com/what-are-the-costs-of-drug-abuse-to... Joshua J. (2017) The Consequences of the Use of Illicit Drugs and Their Associated Private and Social Costs. In: The Economics of Addictive Behaviours Volume III. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham http://ktla.com/2017/05/09/23000-killed-during-mexicos-drug-wars-in-2016-making-it-second-deadliest-conflict-in-the-world-after-syria/ http://ktla.com/2017/05/09/23000-killed-during-mexicos-drug-... http://www.occnewspaper.com/americans-are-still-getting-arrested-for-marijuana-possession-at-staggering-rates/ http://www.occnewspaper.com/americans-are-still-getting-arre... So you discussed your drug habit with your physician? Physician–patient privilege isn't a sure thing anymore. The police are requesting and getting warrants to access a person's medical files. I didn't know this was happening until I started writing this post. https://www.aclu.org/other/faq-government-access-medical-records https://www.aclu.org/other/faq-government-access-medical-rec... Anythingnonidin has a good list of reasons. A few others: - Alcohol is legal yet it's the only drug where stopping cold turkey can be fatal. Most people have heard of DTs or the shakes. So drinking too much too fast and not drinking afters of hitting the bottle every day can both be fatal. - It's impossible to overdose on cannabis. People do have bad reactions or trips and go to the hospital but it's nothing life threatening. - For profit prisons (almost always) cannot take prisoners who've committed a violent crime. Wonder why the dealer to possession ratio was 1:438? This is probably a factor. - We have 5% of the world's population but 25% of the world's prisoners - Tuberculosis, HIV, Hepatitis C - The sentence wasn't for live but these transmissible diseases are. - "If we legalize drugs think of the damage to the economy. ATF, prison guards, police, cities that are only financially solvent because of the income from the courts and prisons would face financial ruin. - Innocent until proven guilty unless there's a empty cell? How is this not a conflict of interest for the parole board? - So we hear nothing about how many drunks get behind the wheel of a 3000lb vehicle. Only after 3-5 DWI's will they possibly face prison time. Someone smoking weed is "a threat to national security?" They pose a threat to the safety of the community. That car swerving down the road only get a slap on the wrist. - I don't think it should be all drugs and I don't think the article made that argument. The point was to stop treating a health condition as a crime and end what Nixon started.
II2II 9y ago
While I support the decriminalizing of drugs, I also have to question how effective it would be if all drugs were decriminalized and became highly regulated. Example 1: prescription drugs are highly regulated, yet their legal availability has not stopped criminal activities surrounding the illegal trade. Legalizing may solve some social issues relating to the war on drugs, but not all. Example 2: alcohol is legal, easily available, and has a (proportionally) low amount of illegal trade. On the other hand, a lot of people do illegal stuff when impared by it. Perhaps some drugs should not be legal, particularly since there is worse stuff ou there. On the other hand, you have example 3: tobacco. Reasonable precautions taken, its main issue is self harm due to the impact on health. While there are obvious reasons to regulate its use (e.g. people frequently smoke in environments where it can harm others), do we really want to regulate self-harm? Perhaps we should be regulating based upon the drug, keeping some illegal, rather than pursuing blanket legalization and regulation. Edit: an occurance of legal should have been illegal.
- tertius 9y ago
  > do we really want to regulate self-harm? In the worst cases we do: Euthanasia. Drinking under 21: We do. Marijuana use under 25: We should.
  - pitaj 9y ago
    I don't. I think drinking age should be 18, and kids should be allowed to drink with their parents. I think marijuana should be the same way. I think assisted suicide should be allowed (euthanasia is different). I think every drug, even prescription medicines, should be totally legal to possess, distribute, sell, and buy.
    - tertius 9y ago
      Why should we limit it by age? Also, you say that "I think x,y,z." But you do not say why. Do you have some expertise that informs your decision on safety or is your opinion purely philosophical (based on personal freedom or even Darwin Awards)?
good_sir_ant 9y ago
Decriminalization of drugs would have to come with a massive restructuring of our social programs. You could get into a lot of trouble by financially supporting people who become addicted beyond their control.
- amigoingtodie 9y ago
  As opposed to now? Many of today's opiate addicts' supply is subsidized by the US taxpayer.
mac01021 9y ago
I can't read the article because I have no Washington Post subscription. But isn't this more of a question for an economist than one for a medical doctor?
stretchwithme 9y ago
I think the best approach is to allow each neighborhood to decide what recreational drugs, if any, can be consumed in public. And only enforce such restrictions with fines, not jail time. Regulating at the neighborhood level makes it easier to live in or travel to the kind of neighborhood you want to be in. People that want to use drugs in public where they live can pick their neighborhood accordingly. The more permissive neighborhoods can tax drug use to pay for any negative consequences of drug use. Maybe they need more enforcement of traffic laws, for example. If we allow everything everywhere, eventually there will be pressure to control everything again. Better to allow people who want drug-free neighborhoods to have them, while ensuring that those who want to use drugs are still able to.
knodi123 9y ago
Why would medical experts be considered authoritative? It's a legal and political problem. For the record, I agree with the doctors, but I think decades of research into marijuana have already demonstrated that medical facts have jack shit to do with legislative agendas. My guess is, the only way we'll move past this ridiculous situation is if a majority of individual states decide to legalize hard drugs the same way a minority of them have already legalized weed, and eventually the federal government will cave in once they realize it's not going to cost anybody an election. That is, it will take lots of baby steps over a couple of decades. I hope I'm underestimating progress, though!
danschumann 9y ago
The way to "win" the drug war, is the way you win in capitalism. COMPETITION!!! No one would go to illegal drug gangs if they could go to 7-11(or similar).
- ringaroundthetx 9y ago
  Out of curiosity, what goods and services will people in that line of business switch to? Will they exploit inefficiencies in other drugs markets that the state hasn't caught on to yet? And just accept the diminishing returns before switching to the next drugs? Will they try other lines of business, like computer hacking syndicates? Or they all magically disappear, or be cut off from appearing because there is simply no unskilled labor + high margin + low overhead business line remaining?
  - danschumann 9y ago
    What happened to the gangsters of Al Capone's day, when prohibition took away their competitive edge? Did they sell "insurance"? You seem quite passive aggressive, without offering any thoughts yourself. My guess is, most will be unemployed. They aren't criminal geniuses. They've found a cheap way to make money and get high at the same time, most of them.
burger_moon 9y ago
What about other drugs like steroids and growth hormones? Those are schedule 2 drugs which can be prescribed but have no addictive properties. Testosterone is something your [male] body produces but even if you have a low free T count doctors often still won't prescribe it, and since you cannot buy it legally most men live out their lives feeling the negative affects of this. Of course the focus is always on weed, opiates, and other common hallucinogenic drugs, but what about all the other drugs that aren't. What is the reason for those to be illegal? I legitimately don't know the reasons because even the reasons for 'harmful' drugs causes lots of debate such as the comment thread here shows.
- redblacktree 9y ago
  Steroids are drugs of abuse by athletes seeking better performance in their sports. That is the reason why it's scheduled, despite low addictive potential.
Madmallard 9y ago
Seems really dangerous to have things like PCP and Heroin available

Drugs cause psychopathic behavior in those who didn't take them. It is all because of a self-enslavement formula where it is magically expected to have every angle of everyones life managed by others. I say we force them to smoke the weed and calm them the fuck down. It's just better for them.

dispo001 9y ago
I suppose I should clarify that without joking so much. Drug addiction can be very harmful but society retaliating against the victim is endlessly worse. Its like death by a thousand cuts, everyone seems to want to take a stab at the person as if that is going to cure them but it only makes them use more. They have to hang out with criminals to buy their fix and become one themselves to finance it. A drug addict can be successful and have a happy life but only if no one finds out. When people do it triggers a kind of social death spiral. You get the proverbial guy drinking a liter of coffee then smoking a cigar with a glass of whiskey at 11 am ranting about drugs as if the drug user is the embodiment of evil on earth.

grondilu 9y ago

Imagine a old dam. It's in poor condition, with cracks here and there, letting some water through. Its maintenance is extremely expensive and seemingly useless, since for ever crack that is fixed, a new one appears. Now some guy shows up and says "this dam costs us too much and we are failing to fix it. Let's just blow it up!"

OscarCunningham 9y ago
So the problem with blowing up the dam is that there's a large amount of water behind it that will flood out dangerously if they blow up the dam. I guess? So what's the analogy here? You think there's a large amount of potential drug users who will suddenly start abusing as soon as drugs are legalised?
- grondilu 9y ago
  > You think there's a large amount of potential drug users who will suddenly start abusing as soon as drugs are legalised? The opiod crisis already is quite severe. And yet most opioids are illegal. I doubt making them legal will decrease usage. Also, if they were legal, big pharma companies would see them as business opportunities. Things could get ugly fast.
  - TallGuyShort 9y ago
    I'm not following any of the logic here. Big pharma companies are already making a killing on a significant portion of the opioid addiction epidemic. They're legally (but perhaps irresponsibly) prescribed by a doctor, and either become abused by the intended patient or subsequently depart from those legal channels. The opioid crisis isn't the only crisis. America hovers around being the 1st or 2nd worst incarceration rate in the world, and it's predominantly non-violent drug offenses. Friend of mine just lost a job offer they had provisionally because of a tiny marijuana possession charge from years ago, and that's happened to them over and over again. If your best argument in favor of continuing to ruin people lives over something so petty is "big pharma will make money off of opioids", I call bullshit. edit: I would also argue that in your analogy, there is almost no water built up behind that dam, and getting rid of the dam would hardly be noticeable downstream. We can't even keep drugs out of prisons very well. I live in a town that hasn't had a single case of violent crime in 13 years, and yet I know exactly where I could go and buy some heroin right this very minute if I wanted to. I know where in the Bay Area I could buy some meth if I wanted to. And these are locations that have been repeatedly raided by the cops, but the selling of drugs at those locations doesn't stop, because someone else who recently finished their sentence will just take over while the person who got busted servers theirs. I was in a concert venue last night with cops, and weed, everywhere. Freaking out about the weed, but no one caring about people having 6 or 7 beers and then getting in their cars to drive home drunk at 1am. The dam makes zero sense to me.
  - castis 9y ago
    decriminalization is not legalization.

AKifer 9y ago

The drug war not working does NOT mean that all the drugs should be decriminalized. If you fail to fight drug cartels, it's a political and organizational issue. We should never fall into the trap of mixing everything.

AKifer 9y ago

I'm thinking internally if all this buzz on drug decriminalization isn't just the visible part of darwinian process that will naturally eliminate the stupids and the mentally weak from humanity gene pool.

fifnir 9y ago
Yeah their idiotic comments in online forums should hopefully make them undesirable to the opposite sex...

palad1n 9y ago

Paywall?

grzm 9y ago
There's a workaround via Facebook: here's an example of its use: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15270969 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15270969
- anythingnonidin 9y ago
  A clickable one for this one would then be: http://facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/24/top-medical-experts-say-we-should-decriminalize-all-drugs-and-maybe-go-even-further/ http://facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.washingtonpost.com/n...
leguman_ac 9y ago
Hint: the paywall works via Javascript...

caxistic 9y ago

Needs to go even further, and deregulate access to prescription drugs as well, to open up provider competition and increase consumer choice.

anythingnonidin 9y ago
What does this mean? Make all Rx drugs OTC?
- andrewfromx 9y ago
  I think we leave the Rx system as is, in that we still let pharmacists do their job and protect their mainstream normal patients and give good standard of care, but any party drugs where there is already a clandestine market become OTC. i.e. if you want some weird medicine for some weird thing that no one else wants, you'll have to go through the steps to get a Rx for it. But it won't be hard to get. Because once adderall is OTC there will be 1000's of freed up doctors who don't have to write Rx for that.
  - fujiters 9y ago
    I just wish we could do away with having to get the prescription in the first place and have the pharmacist be the gatekeeper. You keep a medical history on file so they can quickly figure out if the medication you want is likely to cause complications. Then I don't have to leave work and meet with my doctor every few weeks/months to get another prescription which I then have to take to the drug store and wait to get filled.
    - subroutine 9y ago
      Right now are you paying cash out-of-pocket or does your health insurance cover your Rx aside from ~ $10 copay?
    - vidarh 9y ago
      In the UK we now have at least three alternatives (other than "grey market" import; most prescription drugs outside of narcotics can be legally imported to the UK for personal use): For OTC drugs with restrictions, online pharmacies can sell subject to asking you sufficient questions (and potentially doing a followup call if you answers raises questions). This covers drugs like steroid creams and the like which may have risks, but are usually ok. For prescription drugs, online pharmacies can likewise sell to you if they have you fill in a questionnaire and a qualified GP agrees to write a prescription for you. This is increasingly done for low risk but prescription only drugs like Viagra. The mechanisms above are simple enough that even though buying from e.g. companies shipping from Indian manufacturers is trivial in the UK, I'll prefer UK online pharmacies when possible as the extra hassle is minimal and they're better regulated. Alternatively there's a service called Push Doctor (I've got no connection to them other than being a satisfied user) that lets you have an actual conversation with a doctor over a video chat (+ text chat and ability to upload images) after which they can issue you a prescription that gets sent electronically to the nearest pharmacy. I've tried it twice - once I got seen within an hour, the other time in less than 10 minutes, and the prescriptions were ready within half an hour in both cases, so I could just wait for a text message and go pick it up when it was ready. It's a fantastic service - the only downside is it's private only, and while the consultations aren't expensive (28 pounds or 20/month), for more expensive prescriptions it's not great as you'd be paying full price for the drugs (but you do have the option of e.g. use them for diagnosis and go see your GP to get an NHS prescription if they think you need anything expensive, so you at least avoid having to visit your GP for minor things); I'd love to see this service get a deal with the NHS... With the above setup there's very little reason to take risks as the barriers are low enough for most people to have very little reason to circumvent them. I do agree with you though that for most drugs delegating it to a pharmacist would probably provide a good enough barrier - at least in the UK, and I suspect most other places too, they're well educated. When it isn't we should ask why. E.g. are doctors looking for signs of any issues? If those issues are simple enough and there's low enough abuse potential, then either let pharmacists do it or standardize a questionnaire.

fsloth 9y ago

Finally. I hope this will signal a turning point on this insane approach to national health in all countries. Drugs are a health problem, not a criminal problem. Lone experts have been fired in western countries when they have expressed this common sense sentiments alone [0]. I hope this groups fares better. Nixon started the war on drugs anyway as a mean to attack left and black activists [1]. Any previous legislation for control has been instigated on behalf of race and class warfare.The fact that some drugs have been the staple narcotic in some groups has been used as a control mechanism upon those groups by criminalizing the substance. Substance distribution should be controlled by law. But that is status quo anyway - governments control the distribution of any number of dangerous substances at any point. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/30/drugs-adviser-david-nutt-sacked https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/30/drugs-advis... [1] https://qz.com/645990/nixon-advisor-we-created-the-war-on-drugs-to-criminalize-black-people-and-the-anti-war-left/ https://qz.com/645990/nixon-advisor-we-created-the-war-on-dr...

pitcharoad 9y ago
enabling medical issues is a criminal problem, prohibition or not.
enord 9y ago
I think we passed the turning point some years ago when the medical community decided that harm reduction is more important than patient compliance. As long as doctors insist, the rest of society will come around eventually. Of course, it took 40+ years of people literally dying in the streets before doctors began "washing their hands" (i.e. prescribing opiates to addicts, particularily non-compliant addicts who take additional drugs).
mc32 9y ago
I'll agree with consumption not being punishable but a medically treatable issue. Misditribution (illegal distribution) of controlled dugs (not over the counter) should be punishable --whether they be doctors who knowingly over prescribe or black market sellers (drug dealers).
- 9y ago

Synaesthesia 9y ago

As Chomsky said, the way to deal with drug abuse is through education and treatment. That’s how we successfully reduced smoking, drinking coffee and other unhealthy habits in the USA. Not by throwing people in jail.

brndnmtthws 9y ago
Drinking coffee is unhealthy? You sure about that? > Studies have shown that coffee may have health benefits, including protecting against Parkinson's disease, type 2 diabetes and liver disease, including liver cancer. Coffee also appears to improve cognitive function and decrease the risk of depression. http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/expert-answers/coffee-and-health/faq-20058339 http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-he...
- gremlinsinc 9y ago
  Don't tell any of that to a mormon... (I can say as an almost ex-mormon - out in mind/spirit if not officially).
- spaceseaman 9y ago
  The high caffeine intake is still quite bad for your heart. And it's bad for your teeth. Just googling shows that the scientific results have been quite mixed. By that I mean that scientists have found some positive correlations, and some negative ones. From my layman's perspective, I would think a doctor would say there isn't a consensus on whether coffee is holistically healthy. In other words, it's good for some things, bad for others.
  - moozilla 9y ago
    What scientific results are you googling exactly? Everything I can find shows a strong consensus that coffee has positive effects across the board. This seems like a good summary: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/upshot/more-consensus-on-coffees-benefits-than-you-might-think.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/upshot/more-consensus-on-... Highlight from that article: >There have been two meta-analyses published within the last year or so. The first reviewed 20 studies, including almost a million people, and the second included 17 studies containing more than a million people. Both found that drinking coffee was associated with a significantly reduced chance of death. I can’t think of any other product that has this much positive epidemiologic evidence going for it. I don't understand how you can claim coffee is bad for your heart in good faith if you have read _any_ of the research... for example, this meta-analysis of 36 studies: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24201300 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24201300 > A nonlinear association between coffee consumption and CVD risk was observed in this meta-analysis. Moderate coffee consumption was inversely significantly associated with CVD risk, with the lowest CVD risk at 3 to 5 cups per day, and heavy coffee consumption was not associated with elevated CVD risk. I think any doctor worth their salt would tell you that there is a strong scientific consensus that drinking coffee is not only completely safe, but it has preventative effects towards cancer, cardiovascular disease, Parkinson's, and Type-2 diabetes. Here's a bonus review of 112 meta-analyses: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-nutr-071816-064941 http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-nutr-07... > Of the 59 unique outcomes examined in the selected 112 meta-analyses of observational studies, coffee was associated with a probable decreased risk of breast, colorectal, colon, endometrial, and prostate cancers; cardiovascular disease and mortality; Parkinson's disease; and type-2 diabetes.

ars 9y ago

And not just recreational drugs. All drugs. We trust people to manage their own life, this includes medicine. Maybe insurance won't pay for it without a Dr, but if someone wants to self pay, that's their choice.

Johnny555 9y ago
There are lots of reasons to keep many drugs available as prescription-only. Misuse of antibiotics affects everyone, not just the person taking them. Plus, drug interactions are hard even for professionals to manage. I don't think it's a good idea to let people self-prescribe prescription drugs for themselves and others (like their children).
- gremlinsinc 9y ago
  I agree, but if someone somehow gets a hold of drugs--and puts it in their body they shouldn't go to jail for that... putting substances in one's own body doesn't necessarily hurt others--unless they become violent as a result - but until they commit some violent crime hopped up on meth -- innocent till guilty of a violent crime. Morality and what not should not be forced on people. And most people with drug dependency issue deserve to be in hospitals NOT prisons. Let's have some compassion as a society instead of fueling the drug -> prison -> poverty because dad-in-jail/single-mom-as-a-result cycle that's so prevalent in the lower class.
  - ams6110 9y ago
    Problem is, if there's anyplace more expensive to keep a person than in prison, it's probably in a hospital. Doctors and nurses make a lot more money than guards (and a hospital treating drug addicts will need guards too).
    - smcl 9y ago
      Well I don't think that statement was meant to be taken literally - you don't just sentence someone to 4 years of hospital instead of 4 years of prison. It's more that you provide support for anyone with drug problems whether that is counselling, support for kicking the habit, replacement drugs on prescription (methadone or what have you) clean needles and needle exchanges. We should be doing this anyway for the sake of treating people humanely instead of cruelly. The fact that it'd probably be cheaper and would result in more productive, healthy citizens is just a pleasant side-effect.

pcurve 9y ago

I think this can cause interest shift in relevant job sectors.

anythingnonidin 9y ago
How so?

anythingnonidin 9y ago

Full report: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)00619-X/abstract http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67...

anythingnonidin 9y ago

Some reasons for decriminalization of use and possession, summarized: (i.e., removing criminal penalties or making it no jail time possible, but not government supplied) - War on drugs has failed. Criminalization has consequences on community - in many cases, most of the negative effects come from the criminalization, not the drug. - Consensual crimes that don’t harm others shouldn’t be crimes. - Drug prohibition doesn’t seem to decrease use — Portugal. (Also perhaps Czech, Italy, Spain?) - Drug war enforcement costs a ton, we could save tax money. - 1.2 million people arrested for drug possession in 2015. http://www.drugwarfacts.org/chapter/crime_arrests#arrests http://www.drugwarfacts.org/chapter/crime_arrests#arrests - Prisons are crowded. Would reduce this a little. - Easier for addicts to seek treatment. I think the strongest reasons are that drug use should be treated as a health issue and not a criminal issue, and that consensual crimes that don't harm others shouldn't be crimes. What is the single strongest reason for or against decriminalizing all drugs, in your opinion?

yodsanklai 9y ago
I think you're missing the most important reason. As an informed adult, I should be free to grow and smoke (or vaporize) weed in the privacy of my home because I don't hurt anyone. Freedom should be the default and interdiction should come with very good reasons (and not the other way around).
- sethrin 9y ago
  You may be interested to know that the 1975 Alaska Supreme Court ruling which legalized cannabis in that state used more or less your exact reasoning. The court found that as long as cannabis use was not a public health issue, the State had no right to infringe the privacy of one's home. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravin_v._State https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravin_v._State
closeparen 9y ago
>Criminalization has consequences on community Mass addiction has consequences on community. > Consensual crimes that don’t harm others shouldn’t be crimes People who self-destruct rarely do so in a vacuum. The community, and specifically their families, are harmed. Just look at what addiction as a public health crisis is doing to the places ravaged by opioid abuse. > Drug war enforcement costs a ton A drugged out, non-productive population costs a ton. I'm for decriminalization because we've had enough time to determine that prison and lifelong unemployability (via criminal records) cause massive damage while not actually serving as deterrents. Still in favor of using force to reduce the prevalence of life-wrecking drugs, i.e. mandatory treatment, but it has to be less life-wrecking than the drug.

romeopov 9y ago

Yes! Drugs and Prostitution should be legal! A sugar daddy can pay a girls rent to have sex with her but if he just gives her the money for sex it's illegal. There's billions that can be taxed and go to things like healthcare and eventually a universal basic income.

jeffdavis 9y ago

"scientific consensus" I am very troubled by this phrase -- it's almost an oxymoron. Science is not democratic, and scientists aren't anointed arbiters of facts. Anyone can be a scientist simply by following the scientific method and collecting data in good faith; and a lone outsider with new data can challenge 100 years of "consensus". Obviously they are subject to challenges themselves, or if it's unlikely enough they might reasonably be ignored (e.g. a known charlatan saying they observed cold fusion). Did this terminology start with the "scientific consensus" on anthropogenic climate change (which I do not dispute, by the way)? I think I understand why it was used in that debate, but I don't think it was a good precedent. Now it's being used to directly apply to policy ("growing scientific consensus on the failures of the global war on drugs"). Before long, it will be used directly in political debates to try to force some scientific organizations to choose a side. And then all credibility is lost. Researching policies that require deep analysis of scientific (or other) data should be left to think tanks or something similar.

kelnos 9y ago
While science is in theory "perfect", unfortunately the people doing the science are still just flawed, imperfect humans. Even scientists who have no malicious intent can still have their work influenced by unconscious biases if they aren't careful. Given that, I think "consensus" is a useful term. It suggests that a strong supermajority of scientists have findings that agree with something, and with that chorus of agreement, it's harder to oppose those claims by accusing all of those scientists to have flawed results. I think you can probably find a lot of science out there that supports criminalization of drugs, and showing that there's a "growing scientific consensus" on the failures of criminalization is useful to show that previous research on the subject has either been debunked or proved false by later observations. Because that's literally what's happening.
- graphitezepp 9y ago
  Yeah, scientific consensus is a valuable thing. It just means "oh like a lot of probably smart people who looked at this issue rigorously mostly agree" and that is pretty much as close to truth as we have.

leksak 9y ago

> decriminalization of all nonviolent drug use and possession What is meant by nonviolent drug use?

subroutine 9y ago
They just want to make it clear to bullies and torturers that violence shall remain illegal whether or not drug use is decriminalized. Honestly, it seems like a spin word.
DanBC 9y ago
You can't be a criminal gang that murders people to smuggle the drugs into the country. You can't be a criminal gang that forces modern slaves to grow cannabis in squat houses. You can't be a criminal gang that uses violence to control a street corner.
ghettoimp 9y ago
Using drugs without being violent?
MaxfordAndSons 9y ago
It means bath salts will remain illegal...wait a second...

watertom 9y ago

Legalize. Why should we funnel money to illegal drug cartels to fuel their crime and violence by decriminalizing drugs?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

marze 9y ago

Bottom line is deaths from overdose. Drugs criminalized, USA: 150 deaths/million people/year Drugs legalized, Portugal: 3 deaths/million people/year

lagadu 9y ago
To be clear, drugs aren't legalized in Portugal; they're decriminalized. That means that traffic and selling is still a crime but consumption and possession of small amounts (there's a table listing those) is not a crime.
kobeya 9y ago
I'm more concerned with violence than overdosing. And that definitely goes down with decriminalization.
yznovyak 9y ago
Death penalty for drug trafficking, Singapore: 0 deaths/million people/year
- maze-le 9y ago
  Drug use might be more prevalent than the official statistics suggest. [0]: https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSSIN135004 https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSSIN135004

SilentCrossing 9y ago

The article is about "decriminalization of all nonviolent drug use and possession". This sounds noble, but as we found out in the Netherlands you will have to make a distinction between soft drugs and hard drugs. Hard drugs is always associated with crime and most of the time violent crime and gangs. So I would say. Been there done that. We are cracking down on this type of policy, since 'education' does not work and it seems that prisons do not make the criminal as some other comments claim... Well they can always wish for it, but reality does not care either way.

katastic 9y ago
We're living in a strange culture of over optimism that thinks if we just magically change certain systems "literally everyone will be better." No. Heroin users aren't going to magically become productive members of society just because we legalize heroin.
- grzm 9y ago
  The article is a bit more nuanced than expecting "literally everyone will be better" or "heroin users aren't going to magically become productive members of society". 'anythingnonidin has summarized a number of the points from the article here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15281949 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15281949
- KozmoNau7 9y ago
  Maybe not, but the heroin addicts will no longer have to resort to robberies and other crime in order to fund their addictions, and it will become easier to offer them help and treatment.
  - chrisan 9y ago
    > the heroin addicts will no longer have to resort to robberies and other crime in order to fund their addictions How does decriminalization of the possession and use lead to increased money for addicts that they will no longer have to resort to illegal acts to fund addictions? Less jail/court fees = more money in pocket to buy drugs?

lord_jim 9y ago

Full steam ahead with decriminalization of possession/use, and with regulated markets for psychedelic and most stimulants However after seeing how business behaves when it can sell opiates, I'm in favor of even more regulation than we currently have on some drug markets (Also, if it were up to me, I'd ban ads for drugs, including alcohol and prescriptions)

Synaesthesia 9y ago
Stimulants can be pretty dangerous TBH. I don’t think class a drugs should just go on sale, but I don’t think people should be locked up for them. Baby steps.
- vidarh 9y ago
  The problem is that for a lot of these drugs the greatest harm comes from the lack quality control and regulation of sale. Not just because it results in drugs getting cut with all kinds of shit, and people being sold the wrong thing (e.g. selling heavily cut fentanyl instead of heroin), but also because of a the race to find alternatives that slip through cracks. A great deal of modern drugs only exists to circumvent the law, either because they're not covered for a while, or because they can more easily be produced. E.g. a number of "synthetic cannabinoids" have been manufactured, and so far indications are that at least some of them have health effects that are far worse than anything possible to tie to actual cannabis. Without decriminalising and regulating manufacture and sale, there will still be an incentive for dealers to sell drugs like that which nobody particularly want, and that increases harm, instead of selling clean versions of the safest drugs. E.g. for opiates, many of them are "close enough" in terms of effect that there is a lot of potential harm reduction benefit just in getting the more dangerous variants off the market by legalizing and regulating the safest ones. Unlike blanket bans that has a hope of working.
  - Synaesthesia 9y ago
    Yes but even the pure, quality drugs like adderall, which is really amphetamine can be dangerous. For opiates, especially people injecting, it is very inportant to get clean drugs, and actually opiates are not particularly harmful to the body if used correctly. They also don’t really present a threat to society if given the drug. Holland has provided addicts with heroin with great success, as a form of treatment.

blauditore 9y ago

Honest question: How would decriminalization of drugs work in practice? Would it be legal to e.g. import and sell cristal meth in stores? What about cheap self-made alcohol that might contain dangerous stuff like methanol; where do you draw the line?

MaxfordAndSons 9y ago
Decriminalization ≠ legalization; the idea here is decriminalizing usage and personal possession, which in no way entails legalizing production, cultivation or commercialization. The point is to enable addicts to seek treatment without fear of legal trouble.
- subroutine 9y ago
  I would argue, somewhat pedantically, that decriminalization = legalization. Drug use can either be legal or illegal. Drug possession can be either legal or illegal. Same for drug, manufacture, and drug distribution. In that order: use, possession, manufacture, distribution I think you will get a reduction in the number of people who would agree with having no restrictions. For instance, drug use is probably ok, but not while driving a vehicle, or playing a competitive sport. Drug possession is probably fine, but not more than X amount. Drug manufacture might be fine, if you are just growing/making for yourself. Drug distribution is probably not ok unless you have a license and follow state/federal guidelines. I think where the law breaks down is under: 'possession' If it's legal to possess say, 200 pills of oxy at any time, no Rx, no questions asked, I don't see how that isn't going to result in increased distribution.
pseud0r 9y ago
legalization = regulation Alcohol regulation obviously wouldn't change

blubb-fish 9y ago

Here in Germany politicians are still stating that Cannabis is a gateway drug, causes psychosis and makes stupid. They will even actively lie and twist statistics. My theory for why many politicians - especially from the right-wing - are so opposed is b/c they didn't like their weed smoking and long-haired fellow students. It's a Pavlov thing. Like many people dislike golf (justly so in my humble opinion) b/c they dislike the stereotypical golf enthusiasts.

firmgently 9y ago
That may be part of it but (at least here in the UK) the bigger factor is votes. The increasingly-shrinking (the most recent general election being an exception) voter demographic has a large overlap with the hysterical "lock 'em all up" authoritarian demographic. Legalisation of drugs is political suicide. When the UK gov's drugs advisor advised that drugs should be legal they sacked him.
- heavenlyblue 9y ago
  It's interesting though how informally liberal UK is about drugs, at the same time.
  - dood 9y ago
    The drug system in the UK is quite funny - the politicians pretend drug use needs to be treated criminally, the police pretend to enforce drug laws, and the voting public are satisfied with the status quo because if they dislike drugs they can buy into the pretense, if they like drugs they can mostly use them without much bother, and if they are indifferent to drugs they have better things to worry about.
    - heavenlyblue 9y ago
      Yes. Exactly.
- dood 9y ago
  I don't think it is even authoritarianism, we've become stuck in a strange cycle - people think drug use needs to be treated criminally because that is what they've been told for decades, and politicians keep repeating the falsehood because that's what people expect to hear. Neither voters nor politicians are even thinking about it, both just react as they've been conditioned to by the other. It'll take something dramatic to break out of this bizarre self-perpetuating cycle.

sjwright 9y ago

Even if you had a staunchly anti-drug stance, it's also fair to say that law enforcement resources are not unlimited. Dealing with drugs like cannabis and cocaine are a waste of taxpayer dollars relative to serious issues of opioids and methamphetamine.

Yaggo 9y ago

I like how 'drug' can refer to both medicin and non-medical substances in English. In Finnish, they are two separate words.

vectorEQ 9y ago

a lot of drugs used to be legitimate drugs,but are now illegal to be able to sell other shitty substances which are more expensive and often less effective. example: mdma treatment for ptsd. most ptsd treatments are ill effective these days, but before wo2 mdma treatment was very effective. it's now only able to be given in certain places, usually from people who can't licence themselves properly, adding risk to this treatment where before it was solid. http://www.mdmaptsd.org/news.html http://www.mdmaptsd.org/news.html most banned substances are just 'buisness deals' between pharma industry and government. For the US people, this is not just due to war on drugs. war on drugs is an effect , not a cause.

runesoerensen 9y ago

It's worth noting that this article is from March 2016 (e.g. before the UN failed to course correct at UNGASS 2016), and that this and many other efforts have failed already. There are some related discussions in this thread from last year after UNGASS: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12601956#12602296 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12601956#12602296

transverse 9y ago

Instead of drugs, I think we could ban fried chicken and watermelon exceeding a diameter of three inches. It would be more effective for the goals the government has in mind. Fried chicken is well, fried, and a large watermelon can be used to hit someone and cause head injury.

otakucode 9y ago

Drugs were not made illegal because they're bad for your health and they don't remain illegal because they're bad for your health. Poisons are generally not illegal. Drugs are illegal because they make people feel good or make them happy which offends the Protestant Work Ethic. The Protestant Work Ethic says that the only legitimate route to happiness is through physically difficult labor which causes you to suffer. The greater the suffering, the greater the virtue and the greater the happiness you 'deserve' as consequence. The PWE is not openly advocated or consciously held much any longer, but it was a large part of US history and its effects stick with us. Aside from just the people who have bought into the scaremongering about drugs, there is a significant contingent of people who see it as 'unfair' that anyone could use a drug and get even temporary happiness. Nothing offends Americans (I simply don't know how prevalent this is in other countries) more than the idea that someone else might be having an easier time than themselves. It's why many would prefer companies to go without substantive punishment for harming many people over having one person receive a large punitive judgement in court cases. The McDonald's coffee lawsuit is usually the canonical example. If McDonald's had only paid the lady actual damages, they would have simply continued their practices and harmed more people. But that is preferable to the situation where that one lady got a 'payday'. Apparently nothing is worse than the feeling that someone else has had it easier than one has had it ones self.

nafey 9y ago
Wow really explains why China bans drugs. This kind of reductive reasoning is a mere rationalization of a complex socio-political issue.
- Keronk 9y ago
  Well China does have a history with this sort of thing. The Opium wars lead to what China calls the century of humiliation which is still a defining characteristic in their global outlook. More info here : https://youtu.be/xD1nDGeiSAs https://youtu.be/xD1nDGeiSAs
  - Veelox 9y ago

bigtex 9y ago

This was a very good interview with a neuropsychiatrist, Dr. Phyllis Bonafice, who has a different opinion, https://youtu.be/W_i2mC5fAmI https://youtu.be/W_i2mC5fAmI. I do think focusing on treatment more than punishment may be a better idea in most cases.

shihching 9y ago

Perverse, plentiful incentives to addict and sell -- or invest in the manufacturer who does so -- act quicker than panels of doctors, and dodge responsibility too easily. Living long lives as a beacons of philanthropic humanism on top of your legal drug empire (or profits gained through accompanying ownership) counteracts much stigma accrued from the deaths of your customers. > On Tuesday [July 17, 2017], OxyContin manufacturer Raymond Sackler died at the age of 97. The same day, 91 other Americans died due to lethal overdoses of the pill that made Sackler a billionaire. Sackler died in comfort, in a hospital bed, with the best possible medical care, “following a brief illness." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/raymond-sackler-oxycontin-dead_us_596f881ee4b0bb3867496f43 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/raymond-sackler-oxyconti...

abakker 9y ago
A bit ad hominem, right? Do we complain about Alfred Nobel having invented dynamite, which has been used to kill people?Pain medicine especially seems like a place where we can't rush to judgement. Even if he acted badly, the drug has done good for some people. Billionaires acting philanthropically is probably better than them not acting that way.
- shihching 9y ago
  The Huffington Post article is written by an anti-corporate former heroin addict who, yes, clearly holds animus against those who profited off of opiates. > By convincing doctors that OxyContin was “safer,” offering financial support and special perks to family physicians who were willing to push the drug, and investing millions in a marketing campaign that claimed OxyContin was not only harmless but beneficial, Purdue Pharma cornered the pain pill market. By 2003, Purdue was selling $1.6 billion of the pill annually. The crux of his condemnation is the incentivization of doctors to prescribe -- which one could call bribery. Also, the misrepresentation of known addictive and deleterious long term health effects, which I believe could likely be demonstrated through internal company documents. Wealth allows the purchase of goodwill at a discount price -- the ultimate destination of Mr. Sackler hinges on both the wilfulness and premeditation of his capitalist technique and the breadth and compassion of his philanthropy. Collecting and displaying Oriental artwork appears to be at the center of his humanism -- the other side of which is biomedical research. I have not scrutinized the publications emerging from the Sackler School of Medicine in Tel Aviv, but for the sake of his soul and millions of prescription opiate addicts, I hope the papers reveal cures proportionate to his profits.

chewz 9y ago

Sure. How do you keep millions of unemployed people happy? Give them drugs and UBI.

csmark 9y ago

So 22 medical experts state the War on Drugs "directly and indirectly contribute to lethal violence, disease, discrimination, forced displacement, injustice and the undermining of people’s right to health." In Mexico 23,000 people were killed in drug related violence in 2016. Drug overdoses in the USA jumped to 59,000 in 2016. Arrest numbers in the USA in 2015 totaled 10.8 million. Drug related: 1.49 million; (Broken down: 1.25 million for drug possession; 340,000 for sale or manufacture.) 1.09 million drunk driving; 11,092 for murder or manslaughter. Ratios of note: 438:1 Possession:Sale or manufacture; 1.25:1.5 Drunk driving:Drug related. Government v Science: In 2009 a British psychiatrist and neuropsychopharmacologist was sacked from his position chief drug advisor position in government after publishing a list of most to least harmful drugs. "Alcohol and tobacco are more harmful than many illegal drugs, including LSD, ecstasy and cannabis..." He also stated horse riding was safer than ecstasy with 100 riding fatalities per year(on average). The political blowback was massive. On the floor in House of Commons MPs vehemently rebuffed the document and its author. It was a parade of "my ignorance trumps your expert scientific opinion." The congress and courts in the USA are no better. There's no official list but there is a pattern that has no scientific basis. The crack epidemic of the late 80's saw congress pass mandatory sentencing laws for crack. Crack is the crystalized version of cocaine. It was popular in the inner city minority population. Movie stars from the 80's would have a "cocaine nail." The nail on the pinky finger (it could be any finger) would be noticeably longer. Carrie Fisher in the Empire Strikes Back has one that really stands out. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/29/nutt-drugs-policy-reform-call https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/29/nutt-drugs-... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/30/drugs-adviser-david-nutt-sacked https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/30/drugs-advis... It was difficult to locate reputable sources of recent data on costs in the United States. Tobacco and alcohol combined total slightly over $600 Billion/year while illegal drugs are estimated at just under $200 billion. https://www.verywell.com/what-are-the-costs-of-drug-abuse-to-society-63037 https://www.verywell.com/what-are-the-costs-of-drug-abuse-to... Joshua J. (2017) The Consequences of the Use of Illicit Drugs and Their Associated Private and Social Costs. In: The Economics of Addictive Behaviours Volume III. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham http://ktla.com/2017/05/09/23000-killed-during-mexicos-drug-wars-in-2016-making-it-second-deadliest-conflict-in-the-world-after-syria/ http://ktla.com/2017/05/09/23000-killed-during-mexicos-drug-... http://www.occnewspaper.com/americans-are-still-getting-arrested-for-marijuana-possession-at-staggering-rates/ http://www.occnewspaper.com/americans-are-still-getting-arre... So you discussed your drug habit with your physician? Physician–patient privilege isn't a sure thing anymore. The police are requesting and getting warrants to access a person's medical files. I didn't know this was happening until I started writing this post. https://www.aclu.org/other/faq-government-access-medical-records https://www.aclu.org/other/faq-government-access-medical-rec... Anythingnonidin has a good list of reasons. A few others: - Alcohol is legal yet it's the only drug where stopping cold turkey can be fatal. Most people have heard of DTs or the shakes. So drinking too much too fast and not drinking afters of hitting the bottle every day can both be fatal. - It's impossible to overdose on cannabis. People do have bad reactions or trips and go to the hospital but it's nothing life threatening. - For profit prisons (almost always) cannot take prisoners who've committed a violent crime. Wonder why the dealer to possession ratio was 1:438? This is probably a factor. - We have 5% of the world's population but 25% of the world's prisoners - Tuberculosis, HIV, Hepatitis C - The sentence wasn't for live but these transmissible diseases are. - "If we legalize drugs think of the damage to the economy. ATF, prison guards, police, cities that are only financially solvent because of the income from the courts and prisons would face financial ruin. - Innocent until proven guilty unless there's a empty cell? How is this not a conflict of interest for the parole board? - So we hear nothing about how many drunks get behind the wheel of a 3000lb vehicle. Only after 3-5 DWI's will they possibly face prison time. Someone smoking weed is "a threat to national security?" They pose a threat to the safety of the community. That car swerving down the road only get a slap on the wrist. - I don't think it should be all drugs and I don't think the article made that argument. The point was to stop treating a health condition as a crime and end what Nixon started.

II2II 9y ago

While I support the decriminalizing of drugs, I also have to question how effective it would be if all drugs were decriminalized and became highly regulated. Example 1: prescription drugs are highly regulated, yet their legal availability has not stopped criminal activities surrounding the illegal trade. Legalizing may solve some social issues relating to the war on drugs, but not all. Example 2: alcohol is legal, easily available, and has a (proportionally) low amount of illegal trade. On the other hand, a lot of people do illegal stuff when impared by it. Perhaps some drugs should not be legal, particularly since there is worse stuff ou there. On the other hand, you have example 3: tobacco. Reasonable precautions taken, its main issue is self harm due to the impact on health. While there are obvious reasons to regulate its use (e.g. people frequently smoke in environments where it can harm others), do we really want to regulate self-harm? Perhaps we should be regulating based upon the drug, keeping some illegal, rather than pursuing blanket legalization and regulation. Edit: an occurance of legal should have been illegal.

tertius 9y ago
> do we really want to regulate self-harm? In the worst cases we do: Euthanasia. Drinking under 21: We do. Marijuana use under 25: We should.
- pitaj 9y ago
  I don't. I think drinking age should be 18, and kids should be allowed to drink with their parents. I think marijuana should be the same way. I think assisted suicide should be allowed (euthanasia is different). I think every drug, even prescription medicines, should be totally legal to possess, distribute, sell, and buy.
  - tertius 9y ago
    Why should we limit it by age? Also, you say that "I think x,y,z." But you do not say why. Do you have some expertise that informs your decision on safety or is your opinion purely philosophical (based on personal freedom or even Darwin Awards)?

good_sir_ant 9y ago

Decriminalization of drugs would have to come with a massive restructuring of our social programs. You could get into a lot of trouble by financially supporting people who become addicted beyond their control.

amigoingtodie 9y ago
As opposed to now? Many of today's opiate addicts' supply is subsidized by the US taxpayer.

mac01021 9y ago

I can't read the article because I have no Washington Post subscription. But isn't this more of a question for an economist than one for a medical doctor?

stretchwithme 9y ago

I think the best approach is to allow each neighborhood to decide what recreational drugs, if any, can be consumed in public. And only enforce such restrictions with fines, not jail time. Regulating at the neighborhood level makes it easier to live in or travel to the kind of neighborhood you want to be in. People that want to use drugs in public where they live can pick their neighborhood accordingly. The more permissive neighborhoods can tax drug use to pay for any negative consequences of drug use. Maybe they need more enforcement of traffic laws, for example. If we allow everything everywhere, eventually there will be pressure to control everything again. Better to allow people who want drug-free neighborhoods to have them, while ensuring that those who want to use drugs are still able to.

knodi123 9y ago

Why would medical experts be considered authoritative? It's a legal and political problem. For the record, I agree with the doctors, but I think decades of research into marijuana have already demonstrated that medical facts have jack shit to do with legislative agendas. My guess is, the only way we'll move past this ridiculous situation is if a majority of individual states decide to legalize hard drugs the same way a minority of them have already legalized weed, and eventually the federal government will cave in once they realize it's not going to cost anybody an election. That is, it will take lots of baby steps over a couple of decades. I hope I'm underestimating progress, though!

danschumann 9y ago

The way to "win" the drug war, is the way you win in capitalism. COMPETITION!!! No one would go to illegal drug gangs if they could go to 7-11(or similar).

ringaroundthetx 9y ago
Out of curiosity, what goods and services will people in that line of business switch to? Will they exploit inefficiencies in other drugs markets that the state hasn't caught on to yet? And just accept the diminishing returns before switching to the next drugs? Will they try other lines of business, like computer hacking syndicates? Or they all magically disappear, or be cut off from appearing because there is simply no unskilled labor + high margin + low overhead business line remaining?
- danschumann 9y ago
  What happened to the gangsters of Al Capone's day, when prohibition took away their competitive edge? Did they sell "insurance"? You seem quite passive aggressive, without offering any thoughts yourself. My guess is, most will be unemployed. They aren't criminal geniuses. They've found a cheap way to make money and get high at the same time, most of them.

burger_moon 9y ago

What about other drugs like steroids and growth hormones? Those are schedule 2 drugs which can be prescribed but have no addictive properties. Testosterone is something your [male] body produces but even if you have a low free T count doctors often still won't prescribe it, and since you cannot buy it legally most men live out their lives feeling the negative affects of this. Of course the focus is always on weed, opiates, and other common hallucinogenic drugs, but what about all the other drugs that aren't. What is the reason for those to be illegal? I legitimately don't know the reasons because even the reasons for 'harmful' drugs causes lots of debate such as the comment thread here shows.

redblacktree 9y ago
Steroids are drugs of abuse by athletes seeking better performance in their sports. That is the reason why it's scheduled, despite low addictive potential.

Madmallard 9y ago

Seems really dangerous to have things like PCP and Heroin available