3 ms·

“Drugs” aren’t exclusively from Mexico. The DEA’s remit includes domestic production. You’re correct in that strong demand for illegal drugs imported from Mexi

“Drugs” aren’t exclusively from Mexico. The DEA’s remit includes domestic production. You’re correct in that strong demand for illegal drugs imported from Mexico fuels gang violence - but the DEA would prosecute me regardless of whether or not my hypothetical cannabis was ethically sourced, home-grown, or was the product of cartel wars, exploited workers, and gang violence. I don’t believe there is any argument to be had in good-faith to advocate for the punishment for the possession, personal-use, and personal-production of drugs to be worse than the effect of the drug itself. This is what we mean when we talk about the DEA pursuing victimless crimes. Note that I’m not at all saying that dealers who push addictive substances should be allowed to operate: by all means go after opiates’ supply-chain (and we can start with Perdue’s executives!) but it’s senseless to have the laws against cannabis, LSD, et cetera that we have today, especially when alcohol and tobacco are legal. I’d rather we banned alcohol and had state-licensed LSD counters in supermarkets... Remember, “drugs” are not a monolithic social-ill and it’s dangerously ignorant to lump entirely different substances together, label them broadly as “drugs” and suggest they’re all equally bad while giving alcohol and tobacco a free-pass - because this leads to horribly misguided social policymaking and damages the credibility of those in-charge. I wouldn’t have a problem with the DEA if they left individuals alone, and employed more social-workers than Hank Schrader-types. It’s maddening how few departments in the US gov (or any country’s gov, really) have evidence-based policymaking as an organisational pillar.

Reelin 6y ago
> by all means go after opiates’ supply-chain (and we can start with Perdue’s executives!) I agree with the rest of what you wrote, but I'd like to suggest that the vast majority of the negative effects of opiates are entirely due to how society treats them. (Also note their incredibly low wholesale prices, and that (as with alcohol) most people who become addicted to them seem to have other problems in their lives that don't magically go away when the drug is banned.)
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  Purdue absolutely knew that they were over prescribing opiates.
  - Reelin 6y ago
    That's completely unrelated to what I wrote. I was suggesting that opiates themselves aren't the problem and that we shouldn't persecute their use. (Also Purdue wasn't prescribing anything. They're a drug manufacturer not a clinical practice.)
    - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
      Purdue was engaged in aggressive marketing of their opiate drugs to doctors who then prescribe them. Their marketing objective was to rehabilitate doctors’ then dim-view on opiates - and their marketing material went with unchallenged claims such as that they had developed new opiate formulations that weren’t addictive or otherwise had less addictive potential compared to older opiates - these claims have all since been debunked. I understand that the marketing executives at Purdue and others were aware that they were both being dishonest and that what they were doing would result in more OD deaths and ruined lives. Charitably, it can be argued that making opiates more accessible to those who benefit from them who were previously denied them due to doctors’ reservations about opiates - despite increased OD deaths - would still result in a net improvement in overall disability-adjusted-life-years, but because Purdue’s leadership stood to personally gain from increased sales (and cynically: assured long-term sales due to iatrogenic addiction) we cannot assume they were simply acting in the public’s best interest and the increased revenue was just a pleasant side-effect. That is the problem. I recommend checking-out the work of Ben Goldacre if you’re interested to find out more. Pharma companies, of all sizes, manufacture drugs with very high addictive potential - no-one is angry at other companies for making generic fentanyl: those companies weren’t telling doctors it was somehow “safe”. (So I’m not saying it was only Purdue).

Reelin 6y ago

> by all means go after opiates’ supply-chain (and we can start with Perdue’s executives!) I agree with the rest of what you wrote, but I'd like to suggest that the vast majority of the negative effects of opiates are entirely due to how society treats them. (Also note their incredibly low wholesale prices, and that (as with alcohol) most people who become addicted to them seem to have other problems in their lives that don't magically go away when the drug is banned.)

ashtonkem 6y ago
Purdue absolutely knew that they were over prescribing opiates.
- Reelin 6y ago
  That's completely unrelated to what I wrote. I was suggesting that opiates themselves aren't the problem and that we shouldn't persecute their use. (Also Purdue wasn't prescribing anything. They're a drug manufacturer not a clinical practice.)
  - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
    Purdue was engaged in aggressive marketing of their opiate drugs to doctors who then prescribe them. Their marketing objective was to rehabilitate doctors’ then dim-view on opiates - and their marketing material went with unchallenged claims such as that they had developed new opiate formulations that weren’t addictive or otherwise had less addictive potential compared to older opiates - these claims have all since been debunked. I understand that the marketing executives at Purdue and others were aware that they were both being dishonest and that what they were doing would result in more OD deaths and ruined lives. Charitably, it can be argued that making opiates more accessible to those who benefit from them who were previously denied them due to doctors’ reservations about opiates - despite increased OD deaths - would still result in a net improvement in overall disability-adjusted-life-years, but because Purdue’s leadership stood to personally gain from increased sales (and cynically: assured long-term sales due to iatrogenic addiction) we cannot assume they were simply acting in the public’s best interest and the increased revenue was just a pleasant side-effect. That is the problem. I recommend checking-out the work of Ben Goldacre if you’re interested to find out more. Pharma companies, of all sizes, manufacture drugs with very high addictive potential - no-one is angry at other companies for making generic fentanyl: those companies weren’t telling doctors it was somehow “safe”. (So I’m not saying it was only Purdue).