6 ms·

Is illegality even A way to prevent addiction? Because most of the data in the US indicates no correlation between enforcement and addiction rates. We say we en

Is illegality even A way to prevent addiction? Because most of the data in the US indicates no correlation between enforcement and addiction rates. We say we enforce drug laws for people's protection, catch them with drugs, throw them in jail and say, "see? this is what happens when you take drugs." The discussion around Denver's laws has often been on the assumption that before Colorado legalized marijuana, no one had access to marijuana. They throw around statistics with out before / after comparisons, or without full context. One famous example was a guy who drove into a parked cop car - a test confirmed that some time in the last 6 months he had smoked marijuana. Nevermind that his BAC was astronomical. Anti-marijuana headlines for days on that one.

Misdicorl 7y ago
Yes, absolutely. There is a significant population who will not do something if its illegal. Full stop.
- michaelmior 7y ago
  The question is whether that same population do the thing if it were not illegal? Certainly not everyone in that group. I'm not sure it's even possible to collect this kind of data, but it's a relevant question.
  - Misdicorl 7y ago
    Of course its relevant to understand the scope. But the question is `Does making something illegal have any ability to prevent addiction?` The answer here is an incredibly clear yes.
    - beat 7y ago
      I don't think it's "incredibly clear" at all.
      - Misdicorl 7y ago
        You've never met anyone who won't do something because its illegal? I suppose thats reasonable. In any event, I can assure you they exist.
        TallGuyShort 7y ago
        Your arguments are stupidly repetitive and anecdotal. I can also assure you that people exist who make a lot of money pushing drugs because it's illegal and they're good at breaking the law. You've posted far less data and just complained about semantics of my first sentence being different from the data I've posted.
        beat 7y ago
        Ok, let's put this a more complex way. There are problems caused by drug prohibition that have nothing to do with addiction - namely, the black market. Prohibition creates a market where courts and the legal system cannot be used to settle disputes. Hence, drive-by shootings, money laundering, and a host of other ills. And the more you crack down, the more valuable this market becomes. Market forces don't care that something is illegal. Supply and demand. So here's the question for you... even accepting your premise that some portion of the population is kept from using drugs simply because they are illegal, does that justify the social cost incurred by the creation of the black market?
        Misdicorl 7y ago
        I understand the broader argument. Mine truly is as narrow in scope as my text: I do not think it reasonable to say the illegality of some addictive drugs has not prevented addiction for some people.
        beat 7y ago
        But that's just being narrowly pedantic. You're asking if we can; I'm asking if we should. To be really ugly about it, suicide is a 100% effective way to prevent cancer. Doesn't mean it's a solution, because cancer isn't the real problem - early death is the problem. Likewise, the problem of opioids isn't addiction... it's harm to society. And it's completely obvious that the very existence of prohibition causes harm - a black market that handles business by violence and corruption, a police state that keeps further encroaching our rights in the name of "war on drugs", and innocent victims caught in the crossfire. Worse, user-level prohibition keeps otherwise peaceable citizens from seeking treatment for addiction, pinning them in the arms of both the addiction and the criminal enterprise that provides their fix. Being "narrow in scope" is not only ignoring the external costs, it's ignoring the actual problem at hand.
- TallGuyShort 7y ago
  Maybe, but there's clearly and consistently no correlation between enforcing said illegality and addiction: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2018/03/more-imprisonment-does-not-reduce-state-drug-problems https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-bri.... In both of the specific cases mentioned in the article and my comment, it's a lower jurisdiction stopping enforcement of a higher jurisdiction's laws. Marijuana is still illegal in Colorado, but everyone knows that the TSA are the only ones enforcing it. There's also the fact that a lot of black-market stuff only ever happens because it's illegal, which is why countries that decriminalize prostitution and take a treat-instead-of-prosecute approach tend to see benefits in addition to fewer people in jail for the associated crimes. I know there are people that won't break the law, but there are also people that make beaucoup bucks breaking the law because they're good at it. Which one wins out? No idea. Not sure if there's a way to get data on that beyond the enforcement vs. addiction studies.
  - Misdicorl 7y ago
    Look, you prefaced your comment with a question that has a simple answer. You don't like that answer because it doesn't fit your premise that the law is never helpful to anyone. But it is the answer. There is plenty of room to discuss the effectiveness/costs of making drugs illegal and how (potential) enforcement should be handled. To whit, your response is answering an entirely different question than the one you originally posed! EDIT Response to below. I can't understand your position. How is the data we do have even remotely relevant? Its a study about enforcement and so presupposes a population that is excluded by the very question posed...
    - TallGuyShort 7y ago
      No I don't like your answer because you have zero data to back it up and it contradicts very closely related data that we do have.
- jdavis703 7y ago
  I see people breaking the law hundreds of times every week. People jaywalking, smoking too close to a building, texting while driving, double parking, taking a piss in public, theft, buying drugs, dealing drugs, selling sex and assaults. I would in fact be shocked if there is anyone out there who does not break at least one law per month.
  - Misdicorl 7y ago
    You (probably) do not see people breaking the criminal code every day. You see people breaking the civil code. There is a difference, and yes people are aware of what will get them a ticket vs. sent to prison.
- mijamo 7y ago
  There is also a population that will do it BECAUSE it is illegal. And no data that I'm aware actually points towards prohibition having significant effect.
  - Misdicorl 7y ago
    The question is not 'Is the number of people doing drugs affected by its legality' (though I think its quite likely there is a fairly large effect. Its 'Are there people who would do drugs (and become addicted) if they were legal but will not currently because they are illegal'.
    - jchrisa 7y ago
      Or in real life, how many potential alcoholics will be better off with cannabis as their drug of choice? Clearly the lifetime outcomes for heavy drinking are worse than for heavy cannabis usage, and they seem to be strong substitutes for each other. What the discussion here is missing is that it would be nearly impossible to abuse mushrooms, and that mushrooms seem more likely to get people out of other addictions than push them into one.
- DennisP 7y ago
  If it's true that "most of the data in the US indicates no correlation between enforcement and addiction rates" then that just means a somewhat different group of people is doing it, while still being about the same number of people.
  - Misdicorl 7y ago
    This doesn't follow at all. Enforcement may not deter addiction, but illegality does in some subset of the population.
    - DennisP 7y ago
      I'll grant "some subset" but does it change overall addiction rates? It's entirely possible that it increases addiction in other subsets, e.g. by making treatment less available. And if you claim it does reduce overall rates, can you provide a source? Portugal's drug addiction rates have plummeted since they decriminalized: https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/04/18/524380027/in-portugal-drug-use-is-treated-as-a-medical-issue-not-a-crime https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/04/18/524380027/...
      - Misdicorl 7y ago
        Yes agreed. Though I think it's not a panacea. There was an article/interview that I can't find discussing the lack of available services for those with addiction in a Scandinavian country post decriminalisation. I don't remember it all that well but the jist was that now that drugs were legal, it was a personal problem rather than a societal one; the 'treat it as a medical condition' aspect of the broader argument never actually materialized with services for those in need
- throwaway98374 7y ago
  I think it's healthier and more reasonable to think of these problems (and their solutions) as existing on a spectrum and not in black and white. It may or may not be illegal to jump off a cliff, but even if the government declared it explicitly legal tomorrow how many more people will start doing it?
sonnyblarney 7y ago
"Because most of the data in the US indicates no correlation between enforcement and addiction rates." This is simply not true. This notion that legalizing something will incur less addiction is simply not reasonable. Opiates are available by prescription and that is huge source of addiction, even within that controlled environment. Doctors in Canada now give out the absolute minimum - I had major dental surgery and got two pills. Just two! Because it's that addictive. US doctors are changing as well. Consider what full opiate legality would mean: it would be infused into tobacco, cola, alcohol, food etc. and available within an arms reach with billions in advertising behind it. Even though a good number of people wouldn't use it, and another chunk can actually 'handle their drugs' - for a significantly high group of others it would be destructive. If only 5% of our population fell prey to this, and instead of having jobs they were stealing, in hospitals, rehab etc. - it would be a huge crisis. I'm always surprised by how people put this issue mostly in the context of the here and now, and don't consider how so many things would transform. Vaping (i.e. repackaging of nicotine) is blowing up massively in the US, Juul is hiring 2000 people just in SF and their business is exploding! This is not because vaping 'tastes good'. It's because it's deeply addictive, and as an ex-vaper (short period) I suggest there's a whole host of problems we haven't seen yet. No good will come of a generation re-addicted to nicotine. So yes, Portugual et. al. took a different path on hard drugs, but this is nothing remotely near legalization. It's still a health problem, they just deal with it differently. Mushrooms are a different thing, they are not remotely addictive, so they're in a different class. That said, they are actually dangerous. Also the inherent demand is just not nearly there. Some degree of de-criminalization ought to be considered surely.
- TallGuyShort 7y ago
  I do agree with most of your points - I do wish policy & discussion was at least based on harm and addictiveness, etc. and not fear mongering because "schedule 1" == "the devil". I think alcohol, tobacco and prescription opiates cause far more harm than marijuana ever would, for instance. There is, however, a very strong corpus of data that drug enforcement as implemented in America really does achieve nothing. I posted one link further up the thread, you'll find similarly strong trends between DEA budgets, frequency of all sorts of LE activities, and addiction rates, amounts found on arrestees, etc.

Misdicorl 7y ago

Yes, absolutely. There is a significant population who will not do something if its illegal. Full stop.

michaelmior 7y ago
The question is whether that same population do the thing if it were not illegal? Certainly not everyone in that group. I'm not sure it's even possible to collect this kind of data, but it's a relevant question.
- Misdicorl 7y ago
  Of course its relevant to understand the scope. But the question is `Does making something illegal have any ability to prevent addiction?` The answer here is an incredibly clear yes.
  - beat 7y ago
    I don't think it's "incredibly clear" at all.
    - Misdicorl 7y ago
      You've never met anyone who won't do something because its illegal? I suppose thats reasonable. In any event, I can assure you they exist.
      - TallGuyShort 7y ago
        Your arguments are stupidly repetitive and anecdotal. I can also assure you that people exist who make a lot of money pushing drugs because it's illegal and they're good at breaking the law. You've posted far less data and just complained about semantics of my first sentence being different from the data I've posted.
      - beat 7y ago
        Ok, let's put this a more complex way. There are problems caused by drug prohibition that have nothing to do with addiction - namely, the black market. Prohibition creates a market where courts and the legal system cannot be used to settle disputes. Hence, drive-by shootings, money laundering, and a host of other ills. And the more you crack down, the more valuable this market becomes. Market forces don't care that something is illegal. Supply and demand. So here's the question for you... even accepting your premise that some portion of the population is kept from using drugs simply because they are illegal, does that justify the social cost incurred by the creation of the black market?
        Misdicorl 7y ago
        I understand the broader argument. Mine truly is as narrow in scope as my text: I do not think it reasonable to say the illegality of some addictive drugs has not prevented addiction for some people.
        beat 7y ago
        But that's just being narrowly pedantic. You're asking if we can; I'm asking if we should. To be really ugly about it, suicide is a 100% effective way to prevent cancer. Doesn't mean it's a solution, because cancer isn't the real problem - early death is the problem. Likewise, the problem of opioids isn't addiction... it's harm to society. And it's completely obvious that the very existence of prohibition causes harm - a black market that handles business by violence and corruption, a police state that keeps further encroaching our rights in the name of "war on drugs", and innocent victims caught in the crossfire. Worse, user-level prohibition keeps otherwise peaceable citizens from seeking treatment for addiction, pinning them in the arms of both the addiction and the criminal enterprise that provides their fix. Being "narrow in scope" is not only ignoring the external costs, it's ignoring the actual problem at hand.
TallGuyShort 7y ago
Maybe, but there's clearly and consistently no correlation between enforcing said illegality and addiction: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2018/03/more-imprisonment-does-not-reduce-state-drug-problems https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-bri.... In both of the specific cases mentioned in the article and my comment, it's a lower jurisdiction stopping enforcement of a higher jurisdiction's laws. Marijuana is still illegal in Colorado, but everyone knows that the TSA are the only ones enforcing it. There's also the fact that a lot of black-market stuff only ever happens because it's illegal, which is why countries that decriminalize prostitution and take a treat-instead-of-prosecute approach tend to see benefits in addition to fewer people in jail for the associated crimes. I know there are people that won't break the law, but there are also people that make beaucoup bucks breaking the law because they're good at it. Which one wins out? No idea. Not sure if there's a way to get data on that beyond the enforcement vs. addiction studies.
- Misdicorl 7y ago
  Look, you prefaced your comment with a question that has a simple answer. You don't like that answer because it doesn't fit your premise that the law is never helpful to anyone. But it is the answer. There is plenty of room to discuss the effectiveness/costs of making drugs illegal and how (potential) enforcement should be handled. To whit, your response is answering an entirely different question than the one you originally posed! EDIT Response to below. I can't understand your position. How is the data we do have even remotely relevant? Its a study about enforcement and so presupposes a population that is excluded by the very question posed...
  - TallGuyShort 7y ago
    No I don't like your answer because you have zero data to back it up and it contradicts very closely related data that we do have.
jdavis703 7y ago
I see people breaking the law hundreds of times every week. People jaywalking, smoking too close to a building, texting while driving, double parking, taking a piss in public, theft, buying drugs, dealing drugs, selling sex and assaults. I would in fact be shocked if there is anyone out there who does not break at least one law per month.
- Misdicorl 7y ago
  You (probably) do not see people breaking the criminal code every day. You see people breaking the civil code. There is a difference, and yes people are aware of what will get them a ticket vs. sent to prison.
mijamo 7y ago
There is also a population that will do it BECAUSE it is illegal. And no data that I'm aware actually points towards prohibition having significant effect.
- Misdicorl 7y ago
  The question is not 'Is the number of people doing drugs affected by its legality' (though I think its quite likely there is a fairly large effect. Its 'Are there people who would do drugs (and become addicted) if they were legal but will not currently because they are illegal'.
  - jchrisa 7y ago
    Or in real life, how many potential alcoholics will be better off with cannabis as their drug of choice? Clearly the lifetime outcomes for heavy drinking are worse than for heavy cannabis usage, and they seem to be strong substitutes for each other. What the discussion here is missing is that it would be nearly impossible to abuse mushrooms, and that mushrooms seem more likely to get people out of other addictions than push them into one.
DennisP 7y ago
If it's true that "most of the data in the US indicates no correlation between enforcement and addiction rates" then that just means a somewhat different group of people is doing it, while still being about the same number of people.
- Misdicorl 7y ago
  This doesn't follow at all. Enforcement may not deter addiction, but illegality does in some subset of the population.
  - DennisP 7y ago
    I'll grant "some subset" but does it change overall addiction rates? It's entirely possible that it increases addiction in other subsets, e.g. by making treatment less available. And if you claim it does reduce overall rates, can you provide a source? Portugal's drug addiction rates have plummeted since they decriminalized: https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/04/18/524380027/in-portugal-drug-use-is-treated-as-a-medical-issue-not-a-crime https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/04/18/524380027/...
    - Misdicorl 7y ago
      Yes agreed. Though I think it's not a panacea. There was an article/interview that I can't find discussing the lack of available services for those with addiction in a Scandinavian country post decriminalisation. I don't remember it all that well but the jist was that now that drugs were legal, it was a personal problem rather than a societal one; the 'treat it as a medical condition' aspect of the broader argument never actually materialized with services for those in need
throwaway98374 7y ago
I think it's healthier and more reasonable to think of these problems (and their solutions) as existing on a spectrum and not in black and white. It may or may not be illegal to jump off a cliff, but even if the government declared it explicitly legal tomorrow how many more people will start doing it?

sonnyblarney 7y ago

"Because most of the data in the US indicates no correlation between enforcement and addiction rates." This is simply not true. This notion that legalizing something will incur less addiction is simply not reasonable. Opiates are available by prescription and that is huge source of addiction, even within that controlled environment. Doctors in Canada now give out the absolute minimum - I had major dental surgery and got two pills. Just two! Because it's that addictive. US doctors are changing as well. Consider what full opiate legality would mean: it would be infused into tobacco, cola, alcohol, food etc. and available within an arms reach with billions in advertising behind it. Even though a good number of people wouldn't use it, and another chunk can actually 'handle their drugs' - for a significantly high group of others it would be destructive. If only 5% of our population fell prey to this, and instead of having jobs they were stealing, in hospitals, rehab etc. - it would be a huge crisis. I'm always surprised by how people put this issue mostly in the context of the here and now, and don't consider how so many things would transform. Vaping (i.e. repackaging of nicotine) is blowing up massively in the US, Juul is hiring 2000 people just in SF and their business is exploding! This is not because vaping 'tastes good'. It's because it's deeply addictive, and as an ex-vaper (short period) I suggest there's a whole host of problems we haven't seen yet. No good will come of a generation re-addicted to nicotine. So yes, Portugual et. al. took a different path on hard drugs, but this is nothing remotely near legalization. It's still a health problem, they just deal with it differently. Mushrooms are a different thing, they are not remotely addictive, so they're in a different class. That said, they are actually dangerous. Also the inherent demand is just not nearly there. Some degree of de-criminalization ought to be considered surely.

TallGuyShort 7y ago
I do agree with most of your points - I do wish policy & discussion was at least based on harm and addictiveness, etc. and not fear mongering because "schedule 1" == "the devil". I think alcohol, tobacco and prescription opiates cause far more harm than marijuana ever would, for instance. There is, however, a very strong corpus of data that drug enforcement as implemented in America really does achieve nothing. I posted one link further up the thread, you'll find similarly strong trends between DEA budgets, frequency of all sorts of LE activities, and addiction rates, amounts found on arrestees, etc.