7 ms·

Depends on your goal. If it's to reduce mortality, yes, decriminalize is good. But it will increase usage.

lagadu 9y ago
The most notorious large-scale, well studied example of complete decriminalization, Portugal, shows the opposite to be true[0]. [0] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decriminalised-drugs-14-years-ago-and-now-hardly-anyone-dies-from-overdosing-10301780.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decr...
- lqdc13 9y ago
  That's not true. Usage increased[0,1]. - Reported lifetime use of "all illicit drugs" increased from 7.8% to 12%, lifetime use of cannabis increased from 7.6% to 11.7%, cocaine use more than doubled, from 0.9% to 1.9%, ecstasy nearly doubled from 0.7% to 1.3%, and heroin increased from 0.7% to 1.1% [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20110725093536/http://www.idt.pt/PT/IDT/Documents/Ponto_Focal/2009_NationalReport.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20110725093536/http://www.idt.pt...
  - piva00 9y ago
    Lifetime usage is a different metric than "repeated usage", people can be more curious about it and try but not necessarily stick to using them. Even more when you have policies in place for education and harm reduction.
    - lqdc13 9y ago
      You're right[0] but it looks like it depends on age group[1,2]. [0] https://kek.gg/i/6vgYNF.png https://kek.gg/i/6vgYNF.png [1] https://kek.gg/i/7-w6PD.png https://kek.gg/i/7-w6PD.png [2] https://kek.gg/i/3Jn4G6.png https://kek.gg/i/3Jn4G6.png
    - kgwgk 9y ago
      > people can be more curious about it and try but not necessarily stick to using them Yeah, it's not like they are addictive or anything.
      - pault 9y ago
        Addiction isn't binary. Serious addiction takes long periods of sustained use. Source: I have done a lot of drugs.
        dlp211 9y ago
        Addiction isn't that simple either. Some people become addicted rapidly, others not so much. I've known people that quickly fell down the rabbit hole, others that just quit one day and never looked back, and others who have replaced one addiction for another, sometimes for the better, other times for the worst.
  - lagadu 9y ago
    That only shows more people trying drugs out, it doesn't show a total drugs consumed amount (by weight/dosage or similar volume metrics) increase.
  - majewsky 9y ago
    Does "lifetime use" mean "percentage of people who ever tried it"? If so, I can totally see that. When stuff is legal, more people are going to try it. However, using it once or a few times is nowhere near being addicted. And all the other bullet points in your source [0] look pretty great: - Increased uptake of treatment - Reduction in new HIV diagnoses amongst drug users - Reduction in drug related deaths - Drug use among adolescents (13-15 yrs) and "problematic" users declined - Decreased street value of most illicit drugs, some significantly
  - slamdance 9y ago
    'lifetime use' could have also increased due to people not being afraid to admit past use after decriminalization. Was there a control for that?
ekianjo 9y ago
>But it will increase usage. Not necessarily. When people really want something they will eventually find a way to get it anyway, it's not because you criminalize it that its usage drops. Just like IP infringement has not significantly dropped since they can put people in jail for it.
- everdev 9y ago
  Well, barriers to entry matter. If you're craving a drug and it's sold in a convenient store around the corner, you might purchase it more frequently than if you had to buy it from potentially dangerous people in a seedy part of town. That said, as with any bad habit I'm sure usage would still decrease over time for most individuals as they mature or if healthier alternatives are readily available.
  - xahrepap 9y ago
    But also, people who have addictions wouldn't be considered criminals so they wouldn't be so reluctant to get help.
    - colejohnson66 9y ago
      Being high is not illegal; Being in possession is
  - joesb 9y ago
    Barrier to exit matters as well. When you buy it from dangerous people, you have to be in contact with dangerous people. It gives dangerous people leverage against you and people who care about you.
    - alexasmyths 9y ago
      There is no 'danger' from 'not buying stuff from your dealer' anymore.
      - 9y ago
sneak 9y ago
When the United States criminalized alcohol, usage went up.
- merpnderp 9y ago
  Citation needed. First that seems incredibly hard to measure. Second I doubt many people tried that hard to measure. And third, access to alcohol during prohibition was never reduced by much. It just created a bunch of gangsters and violence.
  - sethrin 9y ago
    It is hard to measure, but yes, people did try, both at the time and in more recent eras. To some degree the end of the first World War was a confounding factor, but the bulk of the sources I've seen support the parent's claims. The real effect of Prohibition was to change the quality of the alcohol consumed, for the worse (and even more unfortunately, one of the darker episodes of Prohibition involved the US Government deliberately poisoning alcohol). So, a quick search pulled up this[0] as a reference, but I'm sure that you can follow your interests to other results as you deem meet. [0] http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults1.htm http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults1.htm
- neworbit 9y ago
  That doesn't seem to be the case per NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibiti...
fsloth 9y ago
What's better than reduction of mortality?
InclinedPlane 9y ago
OK. Show your work. There are examples of decriminalization in different nations and regions. Where's the evidence?
merpnderp 9y ago
The percentage of the population using illegal drugs has stayed nearly constant since the war on drugs began. In times of lax enforcement and in times of heavy enforcement.
lightbyte 9y ago
Why does it matter if usage is increased?
- ytNumbers 9y ago
  There are often negative consequences for society when someone becomes a drug addict. There are the costs to society at the macro level. And, of course, there's the devastation suffered by families. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intervention_(TV_series) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intervention_(TV_series)
  - lightbyte 9y ago
    Most negative consequences are caused by society and how the drug addict is treated, not by the drugs themselves.
  - jhayward 9y ago
    Two logical fallacies; First, "use" does not equate to addiction by any means. The vast majority of people who try "addictive" drugs do not proceed to addiction or even regular use. Second, the costs to society are predominantly those imposed by society. The violence of the drug trade, the lives ruined by a drug arrest or conviction, the families broken up by incarceration of young men are all self-inflicted by society. Just having to deal with the ravages of addiction would be a welcome relief from all those things.

The most notorious large-scale, well studied example of complete decriminalization, Portugal, shows the opposite to be true[0]. [0] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decriminalised-drugs-14-years-ago-and-now-hardly-anyone-dies-from-overdosing-10301780.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decr...

lqdc13 9y ago
That's not true. Usage increased[0,1]. - Reported lifetime use of "all illicit drugs" increased from 7.8% to 12%, lifetime use of cannabis increased from 7.6% to 11.7%, cocaine use more than doubled, from 0.9% to 1.9%, ecstasy nearly doubled from 0.7% to 1.3%, and heroin increased from 0.7% to 1.1% [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20110725093536/http://www.idt.pt/PT/IDT/Documents/Ponto_Focal/2009_NationalReport.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20110725093536/http://www.idt.pt...
- piva00 9y ago
  Lifetime usage is a different metric than "repeated usage", people can be more curious about it and try but not necessarily stick to using them. Even more when you have policies in place for education and harm reduction.
  - lqdc13 9y ago
    You're right[0] but it looks like it depends on age group[1,2]. [0] https://kek.gg/i/6vgYNF.png https://kek.gg/i/6vgYNF.png [1] https://kek.gg/i/7-w6PD.png https://kek.gg/i/7-w6PD.png [2] https://kek.gg/i/3Jn4G6.png https://kek.gg/i/3Jn4G6.png
  - kgwgk 9y ago
    > people can be more curious about it and try but not necessarily stick to using them Yeah, it's not like they are addictive or anything.
    - pault 9y ago
      Addiction isn't binary. Serious addiction takes long periods of sustained use. Source: I have done a lot of drugs.
      - dlp211 9y ago
        Addiction isn't that simple either. Some people become addicted rapidly, others not so much. I've known people that quickly fell down the rabbit hole, others that just quit one day and never looked back, and others who have replaced one addiction for another, sometimes for the better, other times for the worst.
- lagadu 9y ago
  That only shows more people trying drugs out, it doesn't show a total drugs consumed amount (by weight/dosage or similar volume metrics) increase.
- majewsky 9y ago
  Does "lifetime use" mean "percentage of people who ever tried it"? If so, I can totally see that. When stuff is legal, more people are going to try it. However, using it once or a few times is nowhere near being addicted. And all the other bullet points in your source [0] look pretty great: - Increased uptake of treatment - Reduction in new HIV diagnoses amongst drug users - Reduction in drug related deaths - Drug use among adolescents (13-15 yrs) and "problematic" users declined - Decreased street value of most illicit drugs, some significantly
- slamdance 9y ago
  'lifetime use' could have also increased due to people not being afraid to admit past use after decriminalization. Was there a control for that?

ekianjo 9y ago

>But it will increase usage. Not necessarily. When people really want something they will eventually find a way to get it anyway, it's not because you criminalize it that its usage drops. Just like IP infringement has not significantly dropped since they can put people in jail for it.

everdev 9y ago
Well, barriers to entry matter. If you're craving a drug and it's sold in a convenient store around the corner, you might purchase it more frequently than if you had to buy it from potentially dangerous people in a seedy part of town. That said, as with any bad habit I'm sure usage would still decrease over time for most individuals as they mature or if healthier alternatives are readily available.
- xahrepap 9y ago
  But also, people who have addictions wouldn't be considered criminals so they wouldn't be so reluctant to get help.
  - colejohnson66 9y ago
    Being high is not illegal; Being in possession is
- joesb 9y ago
  Barrier to exit matters as well. When you buy it from dangerous people, you have to be in contact with dangerous people. It gives dangerous people leverage against you and people who care about you.
  - alexasmyths 9y ago
    There is no 'danger' from 'not buying stuff from your dealer' anymore.
    - 9y ago

sneak 9y ago

When the United States criminalized alcohol, usage went up.

merpnderp 9y ago
Citation needed. First that seems incredibly hard to measure. Second I doubt many people tried that hard to measure. And third, access to alcohol during prohibition was never reduced by much. It just created a bunch of gangsters and violence.
- sethrin 9y ago
  It is hard to measure, but yes, people did try, both at the time and in more recent eras. To some degree the end of the first World War was a confounding factor, but the bulk of the sources I've seen support the parent's claims. The real effect of Prohibition was to change the quality of the alcohol consumed, for the worse (and even more unfortunately, one of the darker episodes of Prohibition involved the US Government deliberately poisoning alcohol). So, a quick search pulled up this[0] as a reference, but I'm sure that you can follow your interests to other results as you deem meet. [0] http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults1.htm http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults1.htm
neworbit 9y ago
That doesn't seem to be the case per NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibiti...

fsloth 9y ago

What's better than reduction of mortality?

InclinedPlane 9y ago

OK. Show your work. There are examples of decriminalization in different nations and regions. Where's the evidence?

merpnderp 9y ago

The percentage of the population using illegal drugs has stayed nearly constant since the war on drugs began. In times of lax enforcement and in times of heavy enforcement.

lightbyte 9y ago

Why does it matter if usage is increased?

ytNumbers 9y ago
There are often negative consequences for society when someone becomes a drug addict. There are the costs to society at the macro level. And, of course, there's the devastation suffered by families. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intervention_(TV_series) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intervention_(TV_series)
- lightbyte 9y ago
  Most negative consequences are caused by society and how the drug addict is treated, not by the drugs themselves.
- jhayward 9y ago
  Two logical fallacies; First, "use" does not equate to addiction by any means. The vast majority of people who try "addictive" drugs do not proceed to addiction or even regular use. Second, the costs to society are predominantly those imposed by society. The violence of the drug trade, the lives ruined by a drug arrest or conviction, the families broken up by incarceration of young men are all self-inflicted by society. Just having to deal with the ravages of addiction would be a welcome relief from all those things.