5 ms·

Prohibition doesn't work for meth or heroin either. Making them freely available under doctor supervision is what works. Switzerland did it and an out of contro

Prohibition doesn't work for meth or heroin either. Making them freely available under doctor supervision is what works. Switzerland did it and an out of control heroin problem went away and especially important, usage among young people plummeted. Yes it costs money to treat a medical problem. It costs way more money to treat medical problems as something else. Let's go with the most effective solution even if "free and legal heroin" upsets some people's morals. Also consider that methamphetamine is not "life destroying poison". Addiction is the medical condition that destroys lives. Methamphetamine and similar drugs are also prescribed for medical conditions where they help people. Focusing on the substance is just more drug war propaganda.

lixtra 6y ago
> Switzerland did it and an out of control heroin problem went away and especially important, usage among young people plummeted. You still go to prison in Switzerland for selling heroine on the street. Also there still is a heroine problem though arguably smaller than it used to be.
- tchaffee 6y ago
  > You still go to prison in Switzerland for selling heroine on the street. And yet it was widely available on the streets back when it was illegal, and now it's hard to find on the streets and it's still illegal. So what changed? Clearly it was not the law that fixed things, right? > Also there still is a heroine problem though arguably smaller than it used to be. A tiny fraction of what it used to be. Since I would consider that success, I don't get your point? I very much doubt anyone is expecting addiction to disappear? The point is that it costs tax payers far less when you fix the actual problem instead of trying to treat medical problems as if they are a legal problem.
- alex_young 6y ago
  In Switzerland there are legal injection sites where addicts medicate with medical supervision and controlled dose. Very few people are incarcerated for dealing because people with this problem have better and safer alternatives than street scores.
thaumasiotes 6y ago
> Also consider that methamphetamine is not "life destroying poison". Addiction is the medical condition that destroys lives. It might not sound like it, but this is nothing but a tautology. Interfering with the person's life was just the definition of addiction. This was obviously-dumb enough that the DSM-V gave up on the word "addiction" entirely.
- tchaffee 6y ago
  > It might not sound like it, but this is nothing but a tautology. Quite the opposite. Focusing on the substance instead of the medical condition is part of the war on drugs and essential for the propaganda to work.
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    Here's what I'm saying: Imagine two people who regularly consume cocaine. One of them is homeless; the other is an executive somewhere. By definition, the definition of "addiction", the first one was "addicted", and the second one wasn't. There are arguments to be made for this kind of definition. But you can't use it to say "addiction is what destroys lives, not drugs". That's a tautology. Addiction is the name we give to destroyed lives, not something that can be observed independently of whether a life is destroyed.
    - tchaffee 6y ago
      > you can't use it to say "addiction is what destroys lives, not drugs". Sure you can. It's perfectly reasonable to say sports injuries are what hurts people, not sports themselves. Even though by definition an injury hurts someone. Especially to make the point that what we want to focus on is reducing the injuries, not reducing the sports. Everyone understands why the distinction was made, and flagging it as a tautology is just engaging in pedantry. But here's an interesting experiment: rewrite my point that "it isn't the substance that destroys lives but the medical condition of addiction" - without using the offending tautology. Maybe I'll learn something.
umvi 6y ago
> Prohibition doesn't work for meth or heroin either. Making them freely available under doctor supervision is what works. Those things can be mutually exclusive though. For example, you could make it so meth/heroin isn't readily available at the local pharmacy/gas station, yet also make it freely available under doctor supervision at rehab centers. I think many people (myself included) are apprehensive about making drugs totally legal because many law abiding citizens who otherwise would have never touched the drug may whimsically decide to try it at a rough patch in their life just by seeing it on the shelf at the gas station. I am more in favor of decriminalization, but if legalization really is the most effective solution I would like to see advertising completely banned, behind-the-counter only, generic labels only, etc.
- mlrtime 6y ago
  It difficult to even start talking about decriminalizing all drugs because it immediately turns into hypothetical situations about "buy heroin at 7-11 across from a school". Nobody is advocating that position, no need to bring it up.
- tchaffee 6y ago
  > many people (myself included) are apprehensive Well yes, a lot of the discussion is around fear of what might happen. Why isn't anyone afraid of what already is happening? Illegal recreational drugs are literally a greater than $ billion dollar a year business in the US alone. I could understand this position if recreational drugs were somewhat uncommon and the fear was that legalizing them would make them more widespread. They are widespread already. Anyone who wants recreational drugs in the US can easily get them. > many law abiding citizens who otherwise would have never touched the drug may whimsically decide to try it at a rough patch in their life just by seeing it on the shelf at the gas station They already do. Anyone can try alcohol to get over a rough patch in life. I think a lot of people would be shocked just how low addiction rates are for addictive drugs. Even a drug like heroin that can cause physical dependence, has an addiction rate of about 12%. Let's turn that around. A full 88% of people who try heroin never get addicted. Plenty of people even become physically dependent on opiates like heroin but never become addicted. Think pain treatment and then the thing causing the pain goes away. People successfully withdraw from the physical dependence because they don't have an addiction problem. > I would like to see advertising completely banned, behind-the-counter only, generic labels only I don't find that unreasonable. Interesting how that contrasts to the constant advertising on TV in the USA for prescription drugs.

lixtra 6y ago

> Switzerland did it and an out of control heroin problem went away and especially important, usage among young people plummeted. You still go to prison in Switzerland for selling heroine on the street. Also there still is a heroine problem though arguably smaller than it used to be.

tchaffee 6y ago
> You still go to prison in Switzerland for selling heroine on the street. And yet it was widely available on the streets back when it was illegal, and now it's hard to find on the streets and it's still illegal. So what changed? Clearly it was not the law that fixed things, right? > Also there still is a heroine problem though arguably smaller than it used to be. A tiny fraction of what it used to be. Since I would consider that success, I don't get your point? I very much doubt anyone is expecting addiction to disappear? The point is that it costs tax payers far less when you fix the actual problem instead of trying to treat medical problems as if they are a legal problem.
alex_young 6y ago
In Switzerland there are legal injection sites where addicts medicate with medical supervision and controlled dose. Very few people are incarcerated for dealing because people with this problem have better and safer alternatives than street scores.

thaumasiotes 6y ago

> Also consider that methamphetamine is not "life destroying poison". Addiction is the medical condition that destroys lives. It might not sound like it, but this is nothing but a tautology. Interfering with the person's life was just the definition of addiction. This was obviously-dumb enough that the DSM-V gave up on the word "addiction" entirely.

tchaffee 6y ago
> It might not sound like it, but this is nothing but a tautology. Quite the opposite. Focusing on the substance instead of the medical condition is part of the war on drugs and essential for the propaganda to work.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  Here's what I'm saying: Imagine two people who regularly consume cocaine. One of them is homeless; the other is an executive somewhere. By definition, the definition of "addiction", the first one was "addicted", and the second one wasn't. There are arguments to be made for this kind of definition. But you can't use it to say "addiction is what destroys lives, not drugs". That's a tautology. Addiction is the name we give to destroyed lives, not something that can be observed independently of whether a life is destroyed.
  - tchaffee 6y ago
    > you can't use it to say "addiction is what destroys lives, not drugs". Sure you can. It's perfectly reasonable to say sports injuries are what hurts people, not sports themselves. Even though by definition an injury hurts someone. Especially to make the point that what we want to focus on is reducing the injuries, not reducing the sports. Everyone understands why the distinction was made, and flagging it as a tautology is just engaging in pedantry. But here's an interesting experiment: rewrite my point that "it isn't the substance that destroys lives but the medical condition of addiction" - without using the offending tautology. Maybe I'll learn something.

umvi 6y ago

> Prohibition doesn't work for meth or heroin either. Making them freely available under doctor supervision is what works. Those things can be mutually exclusive though. For example, you could make it so meth/heroin isn't readily available at the local pharmacy/gas station, yet also make it freely available under doctor supervision at rehab centers. I think many people (myself included) are apprehensive about making drugs totally legal because many law abiding citizens who otherwise would have never touched the drug may whimsically decide to try it at a rough patch in their life just by seeing it on the shelf at the gas station. I am more in favor of decriminalization, but if legalization really is the most effective solution I would like to see advertising completely banned, behind-the-counter only, generic labels only, etc.

mlrtime 6y ago
It difficult to even start talking about decriminalizing all drugs because it immediately turns into hypothetical situations about "buy heroin at 7-11 across from a school". Nobody is advocating that position, no need to bring it up.
tchaffee 6y ago
> many people (myself included) are apprehensive Well yes, a lot of the discussion is around fear of what might happen. Why isn't anyone afraid of what already is happening? Illegal recreational drugs are literally a greater than $ billion dollar a year business in the US alone. I could understand this position if recreational drugs were somewhat uncommon and the fear was that legalizing them would make them more widespread. They are widespread already. Anyone who wants recreational drugs in the US can easily get them. > many law abiding citizens who otherwise would have never touched the drug may whimsically decide to try it at a rough patch in their life just by seeing it on the shelf at the gas station They already do. Anyone can try alcohol to get over a rough patch in life. I think a lot of people would be shocked just how low addiction rates are for addictive drugs. Even a drug like heroin that can cause physical dependence, has an addiction rate of about 12%. Let's turn that around. A full 88% of people who try heroin never get addicted. Plenty of people even become physically dependent on opiates like heroin but never become addicted. Think pain treatment and then the thing causing the pain goes away. People successfully withdraw from the physical dependence because they don't have an addiction problem. > I would like to see advertising completely banned, behind-the-counter only, generic labels only I don't find that unreasonable. Interesting how that contrasts to the constant advertising on TV in the USA for prescription drugs.