7 ms·

Maybe for marijuana but the societal effects of legalizing something like heroin wouldn’t be so clear cut. I personally don’t want to live in a society with le

by koolba 8y ago

Maybe for marijuana but the societal effects of legalizing something like heroin wouldn’t be so clear cut. I personally don’t want to live in a society with legalized recreational opioids and programs like needle sharing are (IMHO) part of the slippery slope towards the normalization of that degenerate behavior. EDIT: I meant to type “injection sites”.

neilsimp1 8y ago
Not saying that you're wrong, but let's say that heroin is legal starting tomorrow. Do you go out and buy some? Do your friends/family/coworkers? I'm not so sure that the only people that would go buy it legally would be the people already buying it illegally.
- shady-lady 8y ago
  maybe those who don't fully internalise the risk go use it..because now _it's legal_ and why would the government let anything be sold in a normal retail setting if it wasn't ok to use? so, you & I are ok but the next generation..maybe it starts becoming a _much_ better bang for buck than alcohol. and soon we have a load more with a serious life-devastating drug addiction. short sighted at best to legalise it which (make no mistake) absolutely will normalise it.. criminally insane otherwise.
  - ianai 8y ago
    That’s not really how addiction works. Criminalization of the drug makes users criminals - and isolates them from society. Isolation makes people use the drug more. It’s a feedback loop. To stop the loop requires terminating the isolating criminalization. Something being legal takes a lot of the desire to do something away (except violence, of course).
    - shady-lady 8y ago
      I think it goes without saying that you have to get & use a product before becoming addicted. If a product is more widely available & readily sold, then there are going to be more people addicted. Criminalization has nothing to do with the process of somebody becoming addicted to something. Heroin(& friends) are addictive to people who try them because they give immense pleasure. When the pleasure becomes less, people don't stop the drug, they take larger doses of it. And then if they're stuck for cash, go for something cheaper that still has pleasure. Isolation may play a part but it is a small part. from https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/how-addiction-hijacks-the-brain https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/how-addict...: "Addictive drugs provide a shortcut to the brain's reward system by flooding the nucleus accumbens with dopamine. The hippocampus lays down memories of this rapid sense of satisfaction, and the amygdala creates a conditioned response to certain stimuli." > Something being legal takes a lot of the desire to do something away That is just not true. What is that statement based on? People want to experiment with things(either purely for a new experience or to conform with their peers). If product x gives you a high, you will want to try it again..and again..and again. This isn't theoretical, we see this issue with heroin, opioids, crack cocaine.
      - codyb 8y ago
        That if a thing is more readily available more people will do is just flat out wrong. Case in point, less people in the Netherlands smoke weed frequently than in the USA.
        shady-lady 8y ago
        > That if a thing is more readily available more people will do is just flat out wrong. for real?
coopr 8y ago
Have a look at the results in Portugal (this is a good summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal#Observations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal#Observ...) - then, come back here and tell us what evidence you've found of a slippery slope. I don't believe you'll be able to find any such evidence, because there is no such slippery slope in practice.
- owlninja 8y ago
  Portgual and the United States doesn't seem like apples to apples...
  - _Schizotypy 8y ago
    So what IS the difference?
crunchlibrarian 8y ago
It's a lot easier for me to find oxy and heroine than weed if I wanted to today, and I live in Colorado. I have three neighbors who deal pills openly, and one who has pretty good heroine. I have to get in a car to find weed. The effects are already here, there is no need to hand wring about what might happen. It's a waste of time and intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise.
Someone1234 8y ago
> programs like needle sharing What? Did you mean needle exchanges? Needle sharing is the problem, needle exchanges help take dirty needles off the street, and reduce the spread of blood diseases like HIV. > normalization of that degenerate behavior Why should your morality define what other people can do with their bodies? Ultimately it is about a constructive approach forward instead of a destructive one. Putting people who use illicit substances in tiny cells and making it near impossible to find employment after they do their time is destructive. Using that money on treatment and addiction programs and letting people who are clean find jobs is constructive.
- koolba 8y ago
  No I meant injection sites.
scarface74 8y ago
What slippery slope? We have an existence proof that the “War on Drugs” has been ineffective and the only people who have been served by it are the prison complex and politicians who want to disenfranchise voters.
wrecursion 8y ago
Here's what we know for sure: Prohibition CREATES crime.
fcarraldo 8y ago
I can sort of understand concerns around an increase in recreational opioid usage, but that's already happening. Drug overdoses are at epidemic proportions, largely due to the increase in usage of illicitly manufactured synthetic opioids. [0] The argument for adding regulation, supervision, and proper labeling to opioid manufacture is simple: significantly fewer people will die. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2018/p0329-drug-overdose-deaths.html https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2018/p0329-drug-overdose-...
jakamau 8y ago
I agree that full legalization of all substances would be dangerous - but I would support decriminalization. Why so punctilious on the distinction between legalized and decriminalized? Individuals would no longer risk felony convictions for consumption. - Deaths related to accidental overdose would drop - State and Federal agencies could still pursue "distributors" - Reduce the stress on the prison and judicial system (I'll forgo my usual rant regarding for-profit prisons) - Gives states the legal wiggle room for legalization socially acceptable drugs (i.e. marijuana) - Could open up more avenues of research on substances that have otherwise been effectively blacklisted. The execution becomes problematic in having everyone agree on what amount constitutes personal consumption (misdemeanor) versus distribution with intent to sell (felony). But I still believe it would be a step forward.
- mrsteveman1 8y ago
  > - Deaths related to accidental overdose would drop If you want to have any chance of achieving this one, the drug in question has to be obtained from a pharmaceutical channel rather than a black market channel. That means legalizing sale in some way too, otherwise the drugs themselves will continue to be impure and unsafe. Luckily the drugs that are the most problematic are already legal, they just require a prescription to obtain. So in the short term the answer is to start treating the drug aspect of drug addiction as the medical issue that it is, and allow doctors to write prescriptions to addicts. Then you'll have a much easier time providing them assistance finding a job, education, safe housing, and medical care for any underlying condition they might have, which most of them really, really want.
  - harimau777 8y ago
    I think maybe the idea is not so much that the drugs would be safer but that people would be more willing to go to call an ambulance.
    - ianai 8y ago
      It’s very dangerous to purchase anything on the illicit market. I’d rather someone just have the effects of addiction and the drug itself to fight than also flipping the dice on their lives every time they use.
mrsteveman1 8y ago
> Maybe for marijuana but the societal effects of legalizing something like heroin wouldn’t be so clear cut. Here's the issue though, it's simply not the case that the law gives us any control over the situation. The opposite is true: banning individual substances like heroin actually prevents us from having any control over them at all. We made heroin illegal, but the market continued to exist. It simply shifted to a different set of manufacturers, distributers, and retailers. And, it totally removed any control we had over who could buy it, as well as the authenticity, purity, and safety of the product. Worse still, banning it actually incentivized the market to continue and even expand, by artificially increasing the value of the product and significantly increasing the potential profit. The manufacturers have no accountability or regulation whatsoever, they're pumping out fentanyl analogs of varying potency that are almost impossible to even handle safely. That alone is responsible for many, many overdose deaths. The distributors are frequently tied to or directly run by organized crime. The retailers can sell whatever they want to whoever they want, regardless of how dangerous it is, how fraudulent the sale is, or how many people die. Continuing to hope that restricting it just a little more will finally solve the problem is not only unreasonable but making the very things we're concerned about worse.
madamelic 8y ago
>I personally don’t want to live in a society with legalized recreational sex and programs like free condoms are (IMHO) part of the slippery slope towards the normalization of that degenerate behavior. Sounds pretty crazy now? People are going to do it regardless of your or anybody else's moral tutting. The best we can do is not shame them and keep them inside a medical system, making sure to minimize harm and keeping the door open to medical treatment. Shutting the door on addicts and making them afraid of even EMTs is causing way more harm and death then helping minimize harm.

by koolba 8y ago

neilsimp1 8y ago

Not saying that you're wrong, but let's say that heroin is legal starting tomorrow. Do you go out and buy some? Do your friends/family/coworkers? I'm not so sure that the only people that would go buy it legally would be the people already buying it illegally.

shady-lady 8y ago
maybe those who don't fully internalise the risk go use it..because now _it's legal_ and why would the government let anything be sold in a normal retail setting if it wasn't ok to use? so, you & I are ok but the next generation..maybe it starts becoming a _much_ better bang for buck than alcohol. and soon we have a load more with a serious life-devastating drug addiction. short sighted at best to legalise it which (make no mistake) absolutely will normalise it.. criminally insane otherwise.
- ianai 8y ago
  That’s not really how addiction works. Criminalization of the drug makes users criminals - and isolates them from society. Isolation makes people use the drug more. It’s a feedback loop. To stop the loop requires terminating the isolating criminalization. Something being legal takes a lot of the desire to do something away (except violence, of course).
  - shady-lady 8y ago
    I think it goes without saying that you have to get & use a product before becoming addicted. If a product is more widely available & readily sold, then there are going to be more people addicted. Criminalization has nothing to do with the process of somebody becoming addicted to something. Heroin(& friends) are addictive to people who try them because they give immense pleasure. When the pleasure becomes less, people don't stop the drug, they take larger doses of it. And then if they're stuck for cash, go for something cheaper that still has pleasure. Isolation may play a part but it is a small part. from https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/how-addiction-hijacks-the-brain https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/how-addict...: "Addictive drugs provide a shortcut to the brain's reward system by flooding the nucleus accumbens with dopamine. The hippocampus lays down memories of this rapid sense of satisfaction, and the amygdala creates a conditioned response to certain stimuli." > Something being legal takes a lot of the desire to do something away That is just not true. What is that statement based on? People want to experiment with things(either purely for a new experience or to conform with their peers). If product x gives you a high, you will want to try it again..and again..and again. This isn't theoretical, we see this issue with heroin, opioids, crack cocaine.
    - codyb 8y ago
      That if a thing is more readily available more people will do is just flat out wrong. Case in point, less people in the Netherlands smoke weed frequently than in the USA.
      - shady-lady 8y ago
        > That if a thing is more readily available more people will do is just flat out wrong. for real?

coopr 8y ago

Have a look at the results in Portugal (this is a good summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal#Observations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal#Observ...) - then, come back here and tell us what evidence you've found of a slippery slope. I don't believe you'll be able to find any such evidence, because there is no such slippery slope in practice.

owlninja 8y ago
Portgual and the United States doesn't seem like apples to apples...
- _Schizotypy 8y ago
  So what IS the difference?

crunchlibrarian 8y ago

It's a lot easier for me to find oxy and heroine than weed if I wanted to today, and I live in Colorado. I have three neighbors who deal pills openly, and one who has pretty good heroine. I have to get in a car to find weed. The effects are already here, there is no need to hand wring about what might happen. It's a waste of time and intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise.

Someone1234 8y ago

> programs like needle sharing What? Did you mean needle exchanges? Needle sharing is the problem, needle exchanges help take dirty needles off the street, and reduce the spread of blood diseases like HIV. > normalization of that degenerate behavior Why should your morality define what other people can do with their bodies? Ultimately it is about a constructive approach forward instead of a destructive one. Putting people who use illicit substances in tiny cells and making it near impossible to find employment after they do their time is destructive. Using that money on treatment and addiction programs and letting people who are clean find jobs is constructive.

koolba 8y ago
No I meant injection sites.

scarface74 8y ago

What slippery slope? We have an existence proof that the “War on Drugs” has been ineffective and the only people who have been served by it are the prison complex and politicians who want to disenfranchise voters.

wrecursion 8y ago

Here's what we know for sure: Prohibition CREATES crime.

fcarraldo 8y ago

I can sort of understand concerns around an increase in recreational opioid usage, but that's already happening. Drug overdoses are at epidemic proportions, largely due to the increase in usage of illicitly manufactured synthetic opioids. [0] The argument for adding regulation, supervision, and proper labeling to opioid manufacture is simple: significantly fewer people will die. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2018/p0329-drug-overdose-deaths.html https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2018/p0329-drug-overdose-...

jakamau 8y ago

I agree that full legalization of all substances would be dangerous - but I would support decriminalization. Why so punctilious on the distinction between legalized and decriminalized? Individuals would no longer risk felony convictions for consumption. - Deaths related to accidental overdose would drop - State and Federal agencies could still pursue "distributors" - Reduce the stress on the prison and judicial system (I'll forgo my usual rant regarding for-profit prisons) - Gives states the legal wiggle room for legalization socially acceptable drugs (i.e. marijuana) - Could open up more avenues of research on substances that have otherwise been effectively blacklisted. The execution becomes problematic in having everyone agree on what amount constitutes personal consumption (misdemeanor) versus distribution with intent to sell (felony). But I still believe it would be a step forward.

mrsteveman1 8y ago
> - Deaths related to accidental overdose would drop If you want to have any chance of achieving this one, the drug in question has to be obtained from a pharmaceutical channel rather than a black market channel. That means legalizing sale in some way too, otherwise the drugs themselves will continue to be impure and unsafe. Luckily the drugs that are the most problematic are already legal, they just require a prescription to obtain. So in the short term the answer is to start treating the drug aspect of drug addiction as the medical issue that it is, and allow doctors to write prescriptions to addicts. Then you'll have a much easier time providing them assistance finding a job, education, safe housing, and medical care for any underlying condition they might have, which most of them really, really want.
- harimau777 8y ago
  I think maybe the idea is not so much that the drugs would be safer but that people would be more willing to go to call an ambulance.
  - ianai 8y ago
    It’s very dangerous to purchase anything on the illicit market. I’d rather someone just have the effects of addiction and the drug itself to fight than also flipping the dice on their lives every time they use.

mrsteveman1 8y ago

> Maybe for marijuana but the societal effects of legalizing something like heroin wouldn’t be so clear cut. Here's the issue though, it's simply not the case that the law gives us any control over the situation. The opposite is true: banning individual substances like heroin actually prevents us from having any control over them at all. We made heroin illegal, but the market continued to exist. It simply shifted to a different set of manufacturers, distributers, and retailers. And, it totally removed any control we had over who could buy it, as well as the authenticity, purity, and safety of the product. Worse still, banning it actually incentivized the market to continue and even expand, by artificially increasing the value of the product and significantly increasing the potential profit. The manufacturers have no accountability or regulation whatsoever, they're pumping out fentanyl analogs of varying potency that are almost impossible to even handle safely. That alone is responsible for many, many overdose deaths. The distributors are frequently tied to or directly run by organized crime. The retailers can sell whatever they want to whoever they want, regardless of how dangerous it is, how fraudulent the sale is, or how many people die. Continuing to hope that restricting it just a little more will finally solve the problem is not only unreasonable but making the very things we're concerned about worse.

madamelic 8y ago

>I personally don’t want to live in a society with legalized recreational sex and programs like free condoms are (IMHO) part of the slippery slope towards the normalization of that degenerate behavior. Sounds pretty crazy now? People are going to do it regardless of your or anybody else's moral tutting. The best we can do is not shame them and keep them inside a medical system, making sure to minimize harm and keeping the door open to medical treatment. Shutting the door on addicts and making them afraid of even EMTs is causing way more harm and death then helping minimize harm.