5 ms·

I look forward for the US to decriminalize all drugs. I’m Mexican and I live near the border, I’ve seen every day for the last 10 years how cartels gain power w

by elboru 7y ago

I look forward for the US to decriminalize all drugs. I’m Mexican and I live near the border, I’ve seen every day for the last 10 years how cartels gain power with all the money sent from US consumers. That money and power has corrupted not only police and politicians, but also some sectors of the population, drugs and narcos used to be anathema to most people, now they are part of our pop culture, thanks to news, TV series, movies and music.

MuffinFlavored 7y ago
> I look forward for the US to decriminalize all drugs. Is there evidence to prove that legal cocaine/meth/heroin being readily available for citizens would be good for society?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- fsloth 7y ago
  Most addictions are a social and healthcare problem. Criminalization is the problem because it makes on so many levels so hard for the people suffering from addiction to get proper healthcare. I mean look at the opioid crisis. There is no insurance policy for addiction, plus, you are labeled as a dedbeat by the society. And only because doctor prescribed you something they should not have. Without criminalization of addiction the opioid crisis would have been much easier to deal with. You can use that as a template for other things as well. Besides, I would much prefer people got addicted to mushrooms and cannabis rather than alcohol. The damage alcohol does to an addict is total and eventually lethal and irreversible.
  - MuffinFlavored 7y ago
    > Criminalization is the problem because it makes on so many levels so hard for the people suffering from addiction to get proper healthcare. Can't you argue that by making it illegal, you make it less available, therefore ending up with less people addicted?
    - MichaelApproved 7y ago
      Illegal drugs are available everywhere. They're even available in prisons. If you can't even keep them out of prisons, how effective do you think making them illegal has been on availability?
      - nobleach 7y ago
        I feel this is a very important point. Legality appears to have little effect on usage. All we really do is apply another label to a user/abuser; that of a "criminal".
    - fsloth 7y ago
      If the aim is to reduce the social problems caused by addiction then criminalization is the wrong way to do it. Now addicts are 'taken care' by the justice system which is less effective and more expensive than social and healthcare programs would be if applied to the same population.
- naringas 7y ago
  Is there evidence to prove that illegal cocaine/meth/heroin being available for citizens would be good for society? I fact I am pretty sure that since the alcohol prohibition era there's evidence that turning markets with a lot of demand into illegal markets is worse for society .
- zadkey 7y ago
  There is a difference between decriminalization vs making something readily available. They are not the same thing. Look at Portugal. They treated drugs as a social issue and are making great progress. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radical-drugs-policy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radic... https://time.com/longform/portugal-drug-use-decriminalization/ https://time.com/longform/portugal-drug-use-decriminalizatio...
  - MuffinFlavored 7y ago
    Am I wrong in feeling like comparing Portugal to the US is a bit different because Portugal doesn't have many South American drug cartels looking to make money/do business at such scale knocking at their borders?
    - cookieswumchorr 7y ago
      Portugal is within border-free EU and no so far away from Africa as well, there is plenty of opportunity for cartels there.
- gregkerzhner 7y ago
  Its already readily available. The only difference is that a lot of people die to make it available. People who want to get high will find a way, be it by purchasing illegal drugs, huffing glue, or drinking legal alcohol. Now imagine if we took all the money we dump into stopping people from getting high, and put it into helping people with addiction issues. Not saying it would work, but it seems like a good thing to try given that the current approach is a failure
- SparkyMcUnicorn 7y ago
  It's readily available already. Anyone that wants some can get it quite easily.
- blackflame 7y ago
  Does one person have the right to define what another does with their body in a country that prides itself on the freedom of the individual? If they commit crimes while on drugs, punish them for that.
  - jasonlfunk 7y ago
    I agree with this generally. Though making specific laws can be helpful. For example, drunk driving laws. The only reason drunk driving is illegal is because it causes you to be a reckless driver, which is also already illegal. But the drunk driving laws make explicit the direct link between the alcohol and the recklessness. Maybe there is a similar case to be made for other drugs as well.
    - blackflame 7y ago
      That's an interesting point. Frankly, I don't think we should punish DUI drivers if their only infraction is the DUI. Obviously, if they were driving wreaklessly then that is illegal, but I don't like the concept of charging someone for a crime because it COULD have lead to something worse. I think we should just impose extremely harsh penalties if it DOES lead to something worse. Usually, that "something worse" also has worse penalties. People should have the freedom to determine if they are impaired but also not be shielded from the responsibility freedom requires.
- hannasanarion 7y ago
  Decriminalization means that the thing isn't treated as a crime, not that it is legal. Making an accidental error on your taxes is illegal, but it is not a crime. You're given the chance to fix it, or assessed a small fine. Setting up a lemonade stand without a license is illegal, but it is not a crime. You're told to shut down, or assessed a small fine (or more likely, not bothered by the authorities at all). This is why people advocate for decriminalization, not legalization. Keep it against the rules, but make it a slap-on-the-wrist civil offense, not a crime you can be thrown in jail for. This is how illicit drugs were treated before the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 added production, possession, sale, and use to the criminal code.
- semiotagonal 7y ago
  It surely wouldn't be good for American society, but at least it's a choice for those who decide to use those substances. As it stands, the prohibition on drugs has created a business that many find worth resorting to violence over, and it impacts people in Mexico who would never have chosen to get involved. There's no good answer here, but letting addicts drop out of society and damage their health with legal drugs seems more moral than banning drugs and having bystanders suffer.
  - ergothus 7y ago
    You are skipping the audience that ARENT life-destroying addicts, such as the target of the article. The fact that researchers can barely study schedule 1 drugs to determine if they should BE scheduled 1 drugs is a big red flag. The disproportionate response, the people sent to jail for minor offenses, the....well, all the points in the post you are replying to that you didnt address. How can you stick to your claims of morality if you don't consider ALL the impacts?
    - semiotagonal 7y ago
      I'm arguing in favor of legalization, not against it. In my estimation legalization means more addicts, a greater burden of addiction for society, fewer people in jail, and fewer bystanders hurt by the business. On balance it's the more moral choice, because for the most part those who end up experiencing the negative effects are doing so by choice, and dealing with legal addicts is preferable to dealing with illegal enterprises. tl;dr Legalization makes sense, because even though more people end up negatively impacted, they are generally only hurting themselves.
- cf141q5325 7y ago
  Some European countries have very promising research projects supplying selected heroin addicts (with a long enough history of discontinued therapies) with medical heroin. They go to a state run distribution station once or twice a day and get a dose. With that acquisitive crime are no longer an issue and the subjects can reintegrate into a normal life.
hos234 7y ago
I have a feeling there is certain minority in any population that is quiet happy to live off the weaknesses of the rest. Whatever those weaknesses maybe. And they usually just migrate to the next weakness exploiting enterprise once one is shutdown. Just a feeling...maybe totally wrong.
- jonfw 7y ago
  If you eliminate the low hanging fruit- you can make it much harder to live off the weaknesses of the rest. The bad people in the cartels very well may just continue being bad people- but without the lucrative illegal drug trade they will no longer be the most rich and powerful people in their society.
  - hos234 7y ago
    Yeah makes sense. I guess there is some kind of Tree of Weakness that keeps evolving and needs constant pruning.
- samvher 7y ago
  The next weakness might not be "as weak" though. Sure, many might start doing something else, but it will not be as profitable or as easy (otherwise they would be doing it already). The world won't suddenly be perfect but it will be progress.
  - hos234 7y ago
    Good point

by elboru 7y ago

MuffinFlavored 7y ago

> I look forward for the US to decriminalize all drugs. Is there evidence to prove that legal cocaine/meth/heroin being readily available for citizens would be good for society?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
fsloth 7y ago
Most addictions are a social and healthcare problem. Criminalization is the problem because it makes on so many levels so hard for the people suffering from addiction to get proper healthcare. I mean look at the opioid crisis. There is no insurance policy for addiction, plus, you are labeled as a dedbeat by the society. And only because doctor prescribed you something they should not have. Without criminalization of addiction the opioid crisis would have been much easier to deal with. You can use that as a template for other things as well. Besides, I would much prefer people got addicted to mushrooms and cannabis rather than alcohol. The damage alcohol does to an addict is total and eventually lethal and irreversible.
- MuffinFlavored 7y ago
  > Criminalization is the problem because it makes on so many levels so hard for the people suffering from addiction to get proper healthcare. Can't you argue that by making it illegal, you make it less available, therefore ending up with less people addicted?
  - MichaelApproved 7y ago
    Illegal drugs are available everywhere. They're even available in prisons. If you can't even keep them out of prisons, how effective do you think making them illegal has been on availability?
    - nobleach 7y ago
      I feel this is a very important point. Legality appears to have little effect on usage. All we really do is apply another label to a user/abuser; that of a "criminal".
  - fsloth 7y ago
    If the aim is to reduce the social problems caused by addiction then criminalization is the wrong way to do it. Now addicts are 'taken care' by the justice system which is less effective and more expensive than social and healthcare programs would be if applied to the same population.
naringas 7y ago
Is there evidence to prove that illegal cocaine/meth/heroin being available for citizens would be good for society? I fact I am pretty sure that since the alcohol prohibition era there's evidence that turning markets with a lot of demand into illegal markets is worse for society .
zadkey 7y ago
There is a difference between decriminalization vs making something readily available. They are not the same thing. Look at Portugal. They treated drugs as a social issue and are making great progress. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radical-drugs-policy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radic... https://time.com/longform/portugal-drug-use-decriminalization/ https://time.com/longform/portugal-drug-use-decriminalizatio...
- MuffinFlavored 7y ago
  Am I wrong in feeling like comparing Portugal to the US is a bit different because Portugal doesn't have many South American drug cartels looking to make money/do business at such scale knocking at their borders?
  - cookieswumchorr 7y ago
    Portugal is within border-free EU and no so far away from Africa as well, there is plenty of opportunity for cartels there.
gregkerzhner 7y ago
Its already readily available. The only difference is that a lot of people die to make it available. People who want to get high will find a way, be it by purchasing illegal drugs, huffing glue, or drinking legal alcohol. Now imagine if we took all the money we dump into stopping people from getting high, and put it into helping people with addiction issues. Not saying it would work, but it seems like a good thing to try given that the current approach is a failure
SparkyMcUnicorn 7y ago
It's readily available already. Anyone that wants some can get it quite easily.
blackflame 7y ago
Does one person have the right to define what another does with their body in a country that prides itself on the freedom of the individual? If they commit crimes while on drugs, punish them for that.
- jasonlfunk 7y ago
  I agree with this generally. Though making specific laws can be helpful. For example, drunk driving laws. The only reason drunk driving is illegal is because it causes you to be a reckless driver, which is also already illegal. But the drunk driving laws make explicit the direct link between the alcohol and the recklessness. Maybe there is a similar case to be made for other drugs as well.
  - blackflame 7y ago
    That's an interesting point. Frankly, I don't think we should punish DUI drivers if their only infraction is the DUI. Obviously, if they were driving wreaklessly then that is illegal, but I don't like the concept of charging someone for a crime because it COULD have lead to something worse. I think we should just impose extremely harsh penalties if it DOES lead to something worse. Usually, that "something worse" also has worse penalties. People should have the freedom to determine if they are impaired but also not be shielded from the responsibility freedom requires.
hannasanarion 7y ago
Decriminalization means that the thing isn't treated as a crime, not that it is legal. Making an accidental error on your taxes is illegal, but it is not a crime. You're given the chance to fix it, or assessed a small fine. Setting up a lemonade stand without a license is illegal, but it is not a crime. You're told to shut down, or assessed a small fine (or more likely, not bothered by the authorities at all). This is why people advocate for decriminalization, not legalization. Keep it against the rules, but make it a slap-on-the-wrist civil offense, not a crime you can be thrown in jail for. This is how illicit drugs were treated before the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 added production, possession, sale, and use to the criminal code.
semiotagonal 7y ago
It surely wouldn't be good for American society, but at least it's a choice for those who decide to use those substances. As it stands, the prohibition on drugs has created a business that many find worth resorting to violence over, and it impacts people in Mexico who would never have chosen to get involved. There's no good answer here, but letting addicts drop out of society and damage their health with legal drugs seems more moral than banning drugs and having bystanders suffer.
- ergothus 7y ago
  You are skipping the audience that ARENT life-destroying addicts, such as the target of the article. The fact that researchers can barely study schedule 1 drugs to determine if they should BE scheduled 1 drugs is a big red flag. The disproportionate response, the people sent to jail for minor offenses, the....well, all the points in the post you are replying to that you didnt address. How can you stick to your claims of morality if you don't consider ALL the impacts?
  - semiotagonal 7y ago
    I'm arguing in favor of legalization, not against it. In my estimation legalization means more addicts, a greater burden of addiction for society, fewer people in jail, and fewer bystanders hurt by the business. On balance it's the more moral choice, because for the most part those who end up experiencing the negative effects are doing so by choice, and dealing with legal addicts is preferable to dealing with illegal enterprises. tl;dr Legalization makes sense, because even though more people end up negatively impacted, they are generally only hurting themselves.
cf141q5325 7y ago
Some European countries have very promising research projects supplying selected heroin addicts (with a long enough history of discontinued therapies) with medical heroin. They go to a state run distribution station once or twice a day and get a dose. With that acquisitive crime are no longer an issue and the subjects can reintegrate into a normal life.

hos234 7y ago

I have a feeling there is certain minority in any population that is quiet happy to live off the weaknesses of the rest. Whatever those weaknesses maybe. And they usually just migrate to the next weakness exploiting enterprise once one is shutdown. Just a feeling...maybe totally wrong.

jonfw 7y ago
If you eliminate the low hanging fruit- you can make it much harder to live off the weaknesses of the rest. The bad people in the cartels very well may just continue being bad people- but without the lucrative illegal drug trade they will no longer be the most rich and powerful people in their society.
- hos234 7y ago
  Yeah makes sense. I guess there is some kind of Tree of Weakness that keeps evolving and needs constant pruning.
samvher 7y ago
The next weakness might not be "as weak" though. Sure, many might start doing something else, but it will not be as profitable or as easy (otherwise they would be doing it already). The world won't suddenly be perfect but it will be progress.
- hos234 7y ago
  Good point