5 ms·

I think the right approach to drugs is to regulate use by neighborhood. And with monetary fines only. Outright bans cause too many problems. Illegal producti

I think the right approach to drugs is to regulate use by neighborhood. And with monetary fines only. Outright bans cause too many problems. Illegal production makes drugs more dangerous. And allowing everything has some social costs too. Each approach eventually leads to many people wanting the opposite policy, so it will just go back and forth. Regulating it by neighborhood will allow people to keep drug abuse away from their kids, while still allowing those who want to use drugs to access it without too much trouble. They can just travel to a neighborhood where it's allowed. Avoiding fines will give them an incentive. Neighborhoods that do allow drug use will pick which drugs to allow and be able to tax the activity and have rules to handle the activity. There are red light districts for prostitution. Why not handle drug use the same way?

skol 8y ago
Hamsterdam?
tomc1985 8y ago
City governments may very likely choose to have no (as in zero) districts, effectively banning the activity. It's happening much like this with cannabis legalization in California.
- Fjolsvith 8y ago
  Then doesn't the municipalities foot the bill for prosecution and incarceration?
  - tomc1985 8y ago
    Yes, and at least here they are more than willing to do so.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 8y ago
> I think the right approach to drugs is to regulate use by neighborhood. And with monetary fines only. So, if you have the money to pay the fine without breaking a sweat, you just ignore the rule. > Regulating it by neighborhood will allow people to keep drug abuse away from their kids No, it won't. For much the same reason local fireworks bans don't, except drug use is a lot easier to conceal. > Neighborhoods that do allow drug use will pick which drugs to allow and be able to tax the activity No, they won't, for the same reason neighborhood bans don't work. It's impossible to police effectively. Maybe areas that allow drug sales will be able to tax (some of) it (but any tax in the “legal” area directly reduces the impact of fines in the “illegal” area, and even people who go wholly legal will shift activity to the lowest tax areas available; you might also look into what a big business cigarette smuggling to avoid taxes is.)
- dmurray 8y ago
  > So, if you have the money to pay the fine without breaking a sweat, you just ignore the rule. Not just that, but if you can't or won't pay the fine, what happens? You end up imprisoned just as if the penalty had been to throw you in jail all along.
  - testvox 8y ago
    If you can't pay the fine in most states you aren't supposed to go to jail.
- stretchwithme 8y ago
  I'm not worried about activity that people successfully conceal or do in private. That isn't what upsets people who want to criminalize things. It is also possible to have penalties that scale with the value of your property or income. And I don't think we need to worry about policing either. Neighbors in such neighborhoods are perfectly capable of recording video. It is public activity that is the issue, not private, so no need for undercover stings. Activity goes where taxes are low and where it is convenient. Taxes are very high in Manhattan but it is more popular for many activities than rural New Hampshire. And there are other considerations too, like safety. A place where there is no tax and perhaps no order might have lower appeal than a well-policed area with a moderate tax.
campers 8y ago
That approach might help in some circumstances, but it has been tried in some areas in Australia with alcohol, with the effect of pushing up the prices like a black market and people consuming the alcohol quickly as to not get caught with it. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-08/100-dollars-for-a-bag-of-goon-in-remote-community/9938496 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-08/100-dollars-for-a-bag-...
ataturk 8y ago
I'm not so sure. We have unofficial "drug districts" now where the cops pretty much look the other way. As I get older and more mature, I begin to realize how stupid the ideas are and how unsolvable the problem is. Vice is vice, and many humans love vice. Places like Colorado have been ruined by drug tourism. And honestly, I hate Colorado now because the last few times I went, everyone you have to deal with at a gas station, restaurant, or store is high as fuck and they weren't real bright to begin with and now the drugs just make them complete morons. The worst part is, they think they're acting normally! It's a total shit show in Colorado. I've watched drugs and alcohol tear apart the lives of a lot of people around me, including family members. It's ugly as hell. I have pretty much concluded that the only real solution is them taking personal responsibility, removing themselves from the influences (e.g. not hanging around the hopelessly addicted friends anymore), and themselves staying off the sauce. The problem is that they associate having a good time with the substances.

skol 8y ago

Hamsterdam?

tomc1985 8y ago

City governments may very likely choose to have no (as in zero) districts, effectively banning the activity. It's happening much like this with cannabis legalization in California.

Fjolsvith 8y ago
Then doesn't the municipalities foot the bill for prosecution and incarceration?
- tomc1985 8y ago
  Yes, and at least here they are more than willing to do so.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 8y ago

> I think the right approach to drugs is to regulate use by neighborhood. And with monetary fines only. So, if you have the money to pay the fine without breaking a sweat, you just ignore the rule. > Regulating it by neighborhood will allow people to keep drug abuse away from their kids No, it won't. For much the same reason local fireworks bans don't, except drug use is a lot easier to conceal. > Neighborhoods that do allow drug use will pick which drugs to allow and be able to tax the activity No, they won't, for the same reason neighborhood bans don't work. It's impossible to police effectively. Maybe areas that allow drug sales will be able to tax (some of) it (but any tax in the “legal” area directly reduces the impact of fines in the “illegal” area, and even people who go wholly legal will shift activity to the lowest tax areas available; you might also look into what a big business cigarette smuggling to avoid taxes is.)

dmurray 8y ago
> So, if you have the money to pay the fine without breaking a sweat, you just ignore the rule. Not just that, but if you can't or won't pay the fine, what happens? You end up imprisoned just as if the penalty had been to throw you in jail all along.
- testvox 8y ago
  If you can't pay the fine in most states you aren't supposed to go to jail.
stretchwithme 8y ago
I'm not worried about activity that people successfully conceal or do in private. That isn't what upsets people who want to criminalize things. It is also possible to have penalties that scale with the value of your property or income. And I don't think we need to worry about policing either. Neighbors in such neighborhoods are perfectly capable of recording video. It is public activity that is the issue, not private, so no need for undercover stings. Activity goes where taxes are low and where it is convenient. Taxes are very high in Manhattan but it is more popular for many activities than rural New Hampshire. And there are other considerations too, like safety. A place where there is no tax and perhaps no order might have lower appeal than a well-policed area with a moderate tax.

campers 8y ago

That approach might help in some circumstances, but it has been tried in some areas in Australia with alcohol, with the effect of pushing up the prices like a black market and people consuming the alcohol quickly as to not get caught with it. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-08/100-dollars-for-a-bag-of-goon-in-remote-community/9938496 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-08/100-dollars-for-a-bag-...

ataturk 8y ago

I'm not so sure. We have unofficial "drug districts" now where the cops pretty much look the other way. As I get older and more mature, I begin to realize how stupid the ideas are and how unsolvable the problem is. Vice is vice, and many humans love vice. Places like Colorado have been ruined by drug tourism. And honestly, I hate Colorado now because the last few times I went, everyone you have to deal with at a gas station, restaurant, or store is high as fuck and they weren't real bright to begin with and now the drugs just make them complete morons. The worst part is, they think they're acting normally! It's a total shit show in Colorado. I've watched drugs and alcohol tear apart the lives of a lot of people around me, including family members. It's ugly as hell. I have pretty much concluded that the only real solution is them taking personal responsibility, removing themselves from the influences (e.g. not hanging around the hopelessly addicted friends anymore), and themselves staying off the sauce. The problem is that they associate having a good time with the substances.