6 ms·

Some reasons for decriminalization of use and possession, summarized: (i.e., removing criminal penalties or making it no jail time possible, but not government

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.
- KozmoNau7 9y ago
  >A drugged out, non-productive population costs a ton Look at the data from Colorado and other states that have legalized pot, and from Portugal, where they've decriminalized all drugs. Legalization does not make for a "drugged out, non-productive population".
- sannee 9y ago
  > A drugged out, non-productive population costs a ton. Is the only reason you are not using opiates at the moment the fact that it is illegal to do so?
rectang 9y ago
The main reason we won't get decriminalization is moral panic. :( But if we did... There are still better and worse ways to make drugs available. Same as with alcohol, addicts doing high volume are where the money is -- and it's better to design regimes that prevent commercial actors from abusing vulnerable populations. Mark Kleiman has a lot of great stuff to say on the subject.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  > and it's better to design regimes that prevent commercial actors from abusing vulnerable populations. Unless we're looking to apply the law inconsistently based on some arbitrary prejudice of "vulnerability", this would seem to be basically what we're already doing. Any decriminalization approach which criminalizes access for addicts almost defeats the purpose according to your own rubric.
  - vidarh 9y ago
    Consider that some countries have state monopoly stores for wine and stronger alcoholic drinks, and most no longer allow advertising for alcohol. Similarly, consider the option of regulations like those in place for pharmacies in some countries, that e.g. requires the pharmacist to ensure you are aware of certain risks, but doesn't prevent you from buying. Consider the way some countries now requires tobacco to be out of view and with health warnings all over or no branding. In other words: There are mechanisms you can put in place that legalizes drugs fully, but still heavily restricts commercial entities ability to try to take advantage of peoples weaknesses. Personally I believe even drugs like heroin should be legal, on the basis of harm reduction, but at the same time, I don't see a problem with e.g. restricting where it can be sold and ensuring that it's sold in plain packaging, no advertising is allowed, and to e.g. have a pharmacist inform you of the risks before selling it. I don't think that threshold will be high enough to make people go to a dealer, but it may still reduce abuse. In the UK there are restrictions on how many pills of paracetamol (acetaminophen) and ibuprofen you can buy at a time, for example. In pharmacies you can buy up to 32 of each at a time, while elsewhere only up to 16 of each at a time. Those restrictions were put in place because of overdose deaths, and they appear to have saved hundreds of lives so far, while being lenient enough not to drive anyone to a black market. So while I think we should be allowed to buy pretty much whatever drugs we want, we can combine that with making it sufficiently unattractive that you're not buying them on a whim.
icebraining 9y ago
Other reasons: - Prisons are known to make criminals. You don't want to risk converting a non-violent addict into a violent one. - The psychological effects on the addict's children when visiting them. A rehab home for non-violent addicts is a actually a nice place, in a way that most prisons simply can't be. - At least in Portugal, prisons are actually not a very difficult place to get a fix. Rehab houses can be, since they're usually much smaller and isolated, not worth the dealer's time.
- donquichotte 9y ago
  - drug cartels run dry if you can just farm and distribute narcotics through regular, taxed sales channels, just like alcohol.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    That's only if you legalize, we were talking about just decriminalization :)
blubb-fish 9y ago
I'm going to play the devil's advocate here (waited for a long time to use this formulation): > War on drugs has failed. Yes - but - most politicians will go the extra mile to deny they failed. > Consensual crimes that don’t harm others shouldn’t be crimes. Yes - but - how about Armin Meiwes eating Bernd Brandes :o (this time it's the cannibal card I play - the CP card is still ready up my sleeve) > Drug prohibition doesn’t seem to decrease use That's because it wasn't enforced tough enough and has been back stabbed by the left! > Drug war enforcement costs a ton, we could save tax money. Well ... guess where the money goes - to my client and from there to me :) > 1.2 million people arrested for drug possession in 2015 So? I just invested in CoreCivic! > Prisons are crowded. Would reduce this a little. Yes and we also need swimming pools there and anyway prison should be nicer - of course - evil grin > Easier for addicts to seek treatment. I don't know any addicts and they don't vote for me.
- Anon1096 9y ago
  Devil's advocate means you're going to argue in good faith. It's the difference between steelmanning and strawmanning Your comment is a weak attack on a type of person that doesn't exist
- Qantourisc 9y ago
  cannibal card -> I'd say this is mostly about others people discomfort with it. As this seems to boil down to suicide / cult suicide + meat consumption of a uncommonly consumed animal (humans in this case). The main problem lies in the reason for suicide. (There might also be health problems with eating certain meat, I don't know.)
zby 9y ago
Also there is a whole industry of developing new substances - the law process does not keep up with this.

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.

KozmoNau7 9y ago
>A drugged out, non-productive population costs a ton Look at the data from Colorado and other states that have legalized pot, and from Portugal, where they've decriminalized all drugs. Legalization does not make for a "drugged out, non-productive population".
sannee 9y ago
> A drugged out, non-productive population costs a ton. Is the only reason you are not using opiates at the moment the fact that it is illegal to do so?

rectang 9y ago

The main reason we won't get decriminalization is moral panic. :( But if we did... There are still better and worse ways to make drugs available. Same as with alcohol, addicts doing high volume are where the money is -- and it's better to design regimes that prevent commercial actors from abusing vulnerable populations. Mark Kleiman has a lot of great stuff to say on the subject.

microcolonel 9y ago
> and it's better to design regimes that prevent commercial actors from abusing vulnerable populations. Unless we're looking to apply the law inconsistently based on some arbitrary prejudice of "vulnerability", this would seem to be basically what we're already doing. Any decriminalization approach which criminalizes access for addicts almost defeats the purpose according to your own rubric.
- vidarh 9y ago
  Consider that some countries have state monopoly stores for wine and stronger alcoholic drinks, and most no longer allow advertising for alcohol. Similarly, consider the option of regulations like those in place for pharmacies in some countries, that e.g. requires the pharmacist to ensure you are aware of certain risks, but doesn't prevent you from buying. Consider the way some countries now requires tobacco to be out of view and with health warnings all over or no branding. In other words: There are mechanisms you can put in place that legalizes drugs fully, but still heavily restricts commercial entities ability to try to take advantage of peoples weaknesses. Personally I believe even drugs like heroin should be legal, on the basis of harm reduction, but at the same time, I don't see a problem with e.g. restricting where it can be sold and ensuring that it's sold in plain packaging, no advertising is allowed, and to e.g. have a pharmacist inform you of the risks before selling it. I don't think that threshold will be high enough to make people go to a dealer, but it may still reduce abuse. In the UK there are restrictions on how many pills of paracetamol (acetaminophen) and ibuprofen you can buy at a time, for example. In pharmacies you can buy up to 32 of each at a time, while elsewhere only up to 16 of each at a time. Those restrictions were put in place because of overdose deaths, and they appear to have saved hundreds of lives so far, while being lenient enough not to drive anyone to a black market. So while I think we should be allowed to buy pretty much whatever drugs we want, we can combine that with making it sufficiently unattractive that you're not buying them on a whim.

icebraining 9y ago

Other reasons: - Prisons are known to make criminals. You don't want to risk converting a non-violent addict into a violent one. - The psychological effects on the addict's children when visiting them. A rehab home for non-violent addicts is a actually a nice place, in a way that most prisons simply can't be. - At least in Portugal, prisons are actually not a very difficult place to get a fix. Rehab houses can be, since they're usually much smaller and isolated, not worth the dealer's time.

donquichotte 9y ago
- drug cartels run dry if you can just farm and distribute narcotics through regular, taxed sales channels, just like alcohol.
- icebraining 9y ago
  That's only if you legalize, we were talking about just decriminalization :)

blubb-fish 9y ago

I'm going to play the devil's advocate here (waited for a long time to use this formulation): > War on drugs has failed. Yes - but - most politicians will go the extra mile to deny they failed. > Consensual crimes that don’t harm others shouldn’t be crimes. Yes - but - how about Armin Meiwes eating Bernd Brandes :o (this time it's the cannibal card I play - the CP card is still ready up my sleeve) > Drug prohibition doesn’t seem to decrease use That's because it wasn't enforced tough enough and has been back stabbed by the left! > Drug war enforcement costs a ton, we could save tax money. Well ... guess where the money goes - to my client and from there to me :) > 1.2 million people arrested for drug possession in 2015 So? I just invested in CoreCivic! > Prisons are crowded. Would reduce this a little. Yes and we also need swimming pools there and anyway prison should be nicer - of course - evil grin > Easier for addicts to seek treatment. I don't know any addicts and they don't vote for me.

Anon1096 9y ago
Devil's advocate means you're going to argue in good faith. It's the difference between steelmanning and strawmanning Your comment is a weak attack on a type of person that doesn't exist
Qantourisc 9y ago
cannibal card -> I'd say this is mostly about others people discomfort with it. As this seems to boil down to suicide / cult suicide + meat consumption of a uncommonly consumed animal (humans in this case). The main problem lies in the reason for suicide. (There might also be health problems with eating certain meat, I don't know.)

zby 9y ago

Also there is a whole industry of developing new substances - the law process does not keep up with this.