3 ms·

> and it's better to design regimes that prevent commercial actors from abusing vulnerable populations. Unless we're looking to apply the law inconsistently ba

> 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.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  I live in a place where the government had a monopoly on alcohol retail until recently (Ontario, Canada). I don't think it had any impact on sales. The biggest factor was price, the government fixed the prices fairly high (but those prices were the same for the retail exceptions, such as brewers' own premises). > 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 Well, if you nationalize heroin retail, then you will need to have a heroin shop in every hamlet, town, and neighbourhood. It hardly seems practical. You'll just end up with a somewhat smaller black market, instead of eliminating it.
  - rectang 9y ago
    I am skeptical of your don't-bother-regulating-because-it-has-no-effect arguments. Cigarette usage in the world, for example, seems to correlate well with how unfettered commercial suppliers are. Everything we know about retail says that convenience and marketing impact sales. Advertising works, or companies wouldn't buy ads. Premium shelf placement works or retailers wouldn't study it to death. Getting people hooked works or pushers at every level wouldn't bother. Addiction to hard drugs (e.g. opioids) is a huge ball of misery and human suffering. It bothers me that you shrug that off so easily.
  - vidarh 9y ago
    The point of having the monopoly is be able to strictly enforce restrictions on things like marketing through an organization that is judged by compliance rather than by selling as much as possible. > Well, if you nationalize heroin retail, then you will need to have a heroin shop in every hamlet, town, and neighbourhood. It hardly seems practical. You'll just end up with a somewhat smaller black market, instead of eliminating it. Yet somehow places like Norway, with a population density nearly identical to Ontario manages to keep the black market for wine and spirits quite small, despite very high taxes on them compared to e.g. neighboring Denmark. Which means there already is a suitable retail network. Or you can license pharmacies. And the big difference is that people would be assured of getting clean, uncut, predictable doses. The cost of heroin is also so high and unstable that while there is reason to be concerned about making it too cheap, a large portion of the harm from heroin today is the high cost. The daily consumption of heroin for a typical user in clean, medical grade heroin costs less than $20 (we know, because it is produced for medical use, and prescribed e.g. in UK hospitals).
rectang 9y ago
Here's a representative Kleiman article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-kleiman/six-undeniable-facts-abou_b_9664302.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-kleiman/six-undeniable-fa... The bullet points: 1. Cannabis prohibition is broken and can’t be fixed. 2. Cannabis is an abusable drug, and the rate of problem use has been soaring for two decades. 3. Legalization on the alcohol model is likely to make cannabis extremely cheap. 4. Cheap cannabis is a threat to public health. 5. The interests of the industry conflict with the public interest. 6. There are many alternatives to current laws, and the differences matter.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  My own bullet point: 7. The market is moving forward despite the law, so current [and likely future] laws are largely irrelevant (save for a small and shrinking premium in price). I don't think anyone can credibly suggest that more enforcement is a practical solution to detrimental habitual use of marijuana. As far as I can tell, it is effectively a demand-side problem. I also think there is a greater societal cost to somebody in prison for weed because they had too much on stock, than there to somebody who is at home and stoned all the time.

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.

microcolonel 9y ago
I live in a place where the government had a monopoly on alcohol retail until recently (Ontario, Canada). I don't think it had any impact on sales. The biggest factor was price, the government fixed the prices fairly high (but those prices were the same for the retail exceptions, such as brewers' own premises). > 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 Well, if you nationalize heroin retail, then you will need to have a heroin shop in every hamlet, town, and neighbourhood. It hardly seems practical. You'll just end up with a somewhat smaller black market, instead of eliminating it.
- rectang 9y ago
  I am skeptical of your don't-bother-regulating-because-it-has-no-effect arguments. Cigarette usage in the world, for example, seems to correlate well with how unfettered commercial suppliers are. Everything we know about retail says that convenience and marketing impact sales. Advertising works, or companies wouldn't buy ads. Premium shelf placement works or retailers wouldn't study it to death. Getting people hooked works or pushers at every level wouldn't bother. Addiction to hard drugs (e.g. opioids) is a huge ball of misery and human suffering. It bothers me that you shrug that off so easily.
- vidarh 9y ago
  The point of having the monopoly is be able to strictly enforce restrictions on things like marketing through an organization that is judged by compliance rather than by selling as much as possible. > Well, if you nationalize heroin retail, then you will need to have a heroin shop in every hamlet, town, and neighbourhood. It hardly seems practical. You'll just end up with a somewhat smaller black market, instead of eliminating it. Yet somehow places like Norway, with a population density nearly identical to Ontario manages to keep the black market for wine and spirits quite small, despite very high taxes on them compared to e.g. neighboring Denmark. Which means there already is a suitable retail network. Or you can license pharmacies. And the big difference is that people would be assured of getting clean, uncut, predictable doses. The cost of heroin is also so high and unstable that while there is reason to be concerned about making it too cheap, a large portion of the harm from heroin today is the high cost. The daily consumption of heroin for a typical user in clean, medical grade heroin costs less than $20 (we know, because it is produced for medical use, and prescribed e.g. in UK hospitals).

rectang 9y ago

Here's a representative Kleiman article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-kleiman/six-undeniable-facts-abou_b_9664302.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-kleiman/six-undeniable-fa... The bullet points: 1. Cannabis prohibition is broken and can’t be fixed. 2. Cannabis is an abusable drug, and the rate of problem use has been soaring for two decades. 3. Legalization on the alcohol model is likely to make cannabis extremely cheap. 4. Cheap cannabis is a threat to public health. 5. The interests of the industry conflict with the public interest. 6. There are many alternatives to current laws, and the differences matter.

microcolonel 9y ago
My own bullet point: 7. The market is moving forward despite the law, so current [and likely future] laws are largely irrelevant (save for a small and shrinking premium in price). I don't think anyone can credibly suggest that more enforcement is a practical solution to detrimental habitual use of marijuana. As far as I can tell, it is effectively a demand-side problem. I also think there is a greater societal cost to somebody in prison for weed because they had too much on stock, than there to somebody who is at home and stoned all the time.