5 ms·

>all drugs Maybe not all drugs. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater here. There are very dangerous drugs that can cause addiction such that people will

>all drugs Maybe not all drugs. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater here. There are very dangerous drugs that can cause addiction such that people will kill for more (and can never get enough). That said, wiping away weed, peyote, and LSD from the list of criminal substances should make the DEA’s job much more realistic.

8note 6y ago
Doctors can already prescribe dangerous and addictive drugs. I don't see why we can't let them also prescribe other dangerous and addictive drugs.
- pfundstein 6y ago
  Who's gonna offer those doctors kickbacks to sell heroin baggies? Ohh right probably pharma companies [1] [2] [3] [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622774/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622774/ [2] https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m409 https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m409 [3] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/opioids-doctors-prescriptions-payments/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/opioids-d...
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    If you take a snapshot of the state of things at the height of opioid prescriptions and a snapshot now it's hard to say that it wasn't a hell of a lot better. People weren't ODing or engaging in petty crime with anywhere near the same frequency when they could get their fix from their doctor. The feds cracked down and people turned to the black market and that gets us to where we are today. Obviously manufacturers giving doctors kickbacks for getting people onto addictive substances is far from ideal but the enemy of my enemy is my ally and all that.
syshum 6y ago
Punish Abuse not use. While yes there are very dangerous drugs that can cause addiction there is ZERO evidence that large scale criminal prohibition reduces the number of people addicted to those drugs, assists anyone to become clean or does anything at all to resolve the issue of addiction In contrast there is A LOT of indications that even for very dangerous drugs that can cause addiction criminal drug prohibition makes the problem WORSE, creates worse outcomes for the general public, erodes basic human rights, and wastes resources that should be put into treatment instead of criminalization
- refurb 6y ago
  Punish Abuse not use. I would say punishment of abuse doesn't get us very far. What do we do with alcoholics? Sure, we punish them if they drive while intoxicated, but other than that, they are offered treatment and if they refuse it, they just suffer the consequences of their addiction until they decide treatment is a better option. Seems like that could work for drugs as well.
  - Funes- 6y ago
    >they just suffer the consequences of their addiction No, their family and society as a whole suffer as well. I'd even go on to say that drug addiction is usually more destructive towards others than towards the addicted individuals themselves. I'm not advocating for keeping the so called "war on drugs" up, but let's be real here, people.
    - redisman 6y ago
      > I'm not advocating for keeping the so called "war on drugs" up, but let's be real here, people. So what would you have us do? Throw them in jail and pay for that?
      - cortesoft 6y ago
        I think there are a lot of options between "let everyone do whatever drugs they want as much as they want" and "throw them all in jail"
        syshum 6y ago
        Such as? Remember all laws are only compulsory because they backed by the threat of violence, the threat of jail. Everything else is just a suggestion. Even if you suggest "well just fine them", what happens if they do not pay the fine? Generally the answer is jail.. so you have simply moved jail one position down In general if you are not willing to kill someone over X, then X should not be illegal because all criminal law is backed by the threat of government initiated violence
TillE 6y ago
Criminalization helps nothing, achieves no positive goals. Quite the opposite. We've been trying this for about a century, we've seen the results. At some point you have to act on the evidence. We're talking about maybe a slight increase in health issues (legalization does not imply a significant increase in use, eg cannabis usage in the Netherlands is pretty average for Europe), as opposed to the entire monstrosity of the War on Drugs, including the empowerment of violent criminals ranging from local gangs to international cartels.
- Natsu 6y ago
  Ever ask China how that whole opium thing worked out for them?
  - raxxorrax 6y ago
    Wiki says it increased usage for 2 centuries after it became prohibited. "Opium prohibition in China began in 1729, yet was followed by nearly two centuries of increasing opium use." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium Don't know if we can trust numbers from that time though, you probably want to look at production.
    - Natsu 6y ago
      And population growth...
  - belorn 6y ago
    Heroin is still very illegal in the Netherlands, with 12 to 16 years in jail for trading it. Heroin usage is also illegal.
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  This language is too loose. "(de)Criminialization" usually refers to demand side, not supply side.
jandrese 6y ago
Some drugs are dangerous because of the drug war. Crack cocaine for example has little reason to exist except that it is easier to smuggle than powder cocaine. It's also harder to hold dealers to account for poor quality control when they are unable to be regulated or monitored.
- smokelegend 6y ago
  Sorry, but you don't seem to understand why crack was made. It's not because it's easier to ship, it's because you can double or triple your money... Example... 1 kilo raw coke...40k [US price] cook that same 1 kilo into crack and now you have 3 kilos of crack that you can easily make 100k or more off in the street The drug it's self, in crack form, is 10x more addictive then powdered cocaine. The user experience of a "high" only last for a few minutes, side effect being users use the product faster. This is why it's a lucrative market for gangs and street dealers. If you hold territory to distribute your product, you increase your revenue. Cash is what every dealer wants, product is what ever user wants. Supply and demand effects. Don't know why some may believe people make crack because "it's easier to transport"... no, no its not, especially when you consider liquid cocaine. Yes cartels smuggle liquid cocaine![1] It's about money. Cartels have billions & billions of US dollars to spend, they spend big money on R & D too.[2][3] [1]https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2019/11/15/houston-airport-man-tried-smuggle-35-pounds-liquid-cocaine/4200369002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2019/11/15/housto... [2]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-40480405 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-40480405 [3]https://www.nytimes.com./2012/06/17/magazine/how-a-mexican-drug-cartel-makes-its-billions.html https://www.nytimes.com./2012/06/17/magazine/how-a-mexican-d...
  - stef25 6y ago
    1kg of coke becomes 3kg of crack ... I seriously doubt that. When you cook crack you wash any impurities out of the coke (and convert the salt to base). If anything it should weigh less (I think?).
  - funviolence 6y ago
    smoking crack feels great everyone should smoke if as often as possible.
kube-system 6y ago
The really addictive and dangerous drugs are the ones that society would most benefit from decriminalization. Sure, it's not great when college kids get a criminal record from smoking reefer, but that's the least of our drug problems in the US. It's the dangerous drugs that are killing people and orphaning children, and those are the people who have the most trouble getting effective help due to the criminal nature of their addiction. Portugal had a bad heroin problem in the 90s. How did they fix it? They decriminalized possession of every drug, including heroin. Instead of sending users to jail, they now send them to treatment. It was an overwhelming success.
yboris 6y ago
Yes all drugs: consider reading "Legalize This" a super-short and superbly written book by a philosopher and legal scholar who has been thinking about this issue for decades. https://www.amazon.com/Legalize-This-Decriminalizing-Practical-Ethics/dp/1859843204 https://www.amazon.com/Legalize-This-Decriminalizing-Practic... TL;DR version: anyone being put in jail deserves an explanation. None can be given when they are a non-violent drug user.
- belorn 6y ago
  I got a simple explanation, so feel free to quote the book if it has an argument to counter it. Drug addicts are a high risk group for triggering cost in social safety nets. The risk of driving under the influence of drugs are higher for drug addicts, there is a higher risk that parents fail their responsibility while under drugs, and as with other addictions there is an increase in risk for failing to pay rent and having enough money to pay for food. Drug addicts are also more likely to get sick and needing health care (relevant for countries where the government guaranties health care). Since the government is expected to step in and pay for the social safety net, it then make sense that they implement laws to manage the risk and reduce costs. One way to do so is to make drugs illegal, especially those direct associated with risks that increase government costs. If the government did not have any responsibility to supply a social safety net then there would be no need to have those laws.
  - pille 6y ago
    I think that argument falls apart as soon as you consider alcohol. Alcohol certainly qualifies as a hard drug, based on its impact for both users and bystanders (especially in your example with driving). We tried to ban it and that made things worse. Also, isn't imprisoning people a huge cost itself?
    - belorn 6y ago
      Governments did indeed try that and would likely still want to do it, but there were way too much cultural values embedded in alcohol and production is also too easy that controlling it is not possible. Alcohol is however generally not defined as a hard drug. Soft drugs would be alcohol, marijuana, sleeping pills and sedatives, while hard drugs includes heroin and cocaine. Netherlands has a very strict line between the two in both enforcement and punishment. Netherlands has a war on hard drugs, but is celebrated for not having one for soft drugs. When it comes to alcohol and driving, Sweden for example uses a system that directly punish that circumstance. Driving licenses are very expensive to get and take a lot of time. Getting hit by a DUI not only mean you have to retake the tests and pay for a new license, but you are also likely to get a ban for up to 3 years. For many that is a very harsh punishment and one enough to discourage drunk driving. For sever DUI with blood values over 1.0 you also risk jail sentences up to 2 years. Any DUI involving other drugs than alcohol is regulated under the harsher rules. You do not need to trigger an accident for this to happen. Drug laws does not need to be all or nothing. Scientists could/do define the risk profiles for different drugs in different circumstances and law makers can make more lenient or strict laws depending on those risk profiles. Sadly culture do play a role in permitting some high risk over other, but that doesn't mean risk management is bad explanation for why laws exist that punish non-violent drug user. It only make them inconsistent.
vidarh 6y ago
Even for most of the really dangerous drugs, both society overall and the addicts suffer more harm due to the war on drugs than they would have with a pure, cheap supply. Experiments with e.g handing out heroin to addicts pretty consistently reduces both direct harm from overdoses and secondary effects such as crime. The latter in large part because the less harmful, because it is pure and consistent, medical grade heroin is cheap. There are some drugs that serve no purpose if most drugs are legalised, because safer options with the same effects exists. E.g many opiates are pretty interchangeable for addicts - the reason why oxycodone has been a recruitment avenue to heroin abuse for example, and a reason for the use of fentanyl - and so some of the most dangerous analogues could remain restricted without retaining a black market demand. But overall the war on drugs is immoral and unethical, and politicians maintaining it have blood on their hands.
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  Let's be clear. Safely administered heroin is much better than street heroin. It's far far worse than not taking heroin. Letting all the children in the country hooked on safe heroin is not a solution.
  - vidarh 6y ago
    The notion that legalising it would get "all the children in the country" hooked on heroin is ludicrous scare-mongering.

8note 6y ago

Doctors can already prescribe dangerous and addictive drugs. I don't see why we can't let them also prescribe other dangerous and addictive drugs.

pfundstein 6y ago
Who's gonna offer those doctors kickbacks to sell heroin baggies? Ohh right probably pharma companies [1] [2] [3] [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622774/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622774/ [2] https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m409 https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m409 [3] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/opioids-doctors-prescriptions-payments/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/opioids-d...
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  If you take a snapshot of the state of things at the height of opioid prescriptions and a snapshot now it's hard to say that it wasn't a hell of a lot better. People weren't ODing or engaging in petty crime with anywhere near the same frequency when they could get their fix from their doctor. The feds cracked down and people turned to the black market and that gets us to where we are today. Obviously manufacturers giving doctors kickbacks for getting people onto addictive substances is far from ideal but the enemy of my enemy is my ally and all that.

syshum 6y ago

Punish Abuse not use. While yes there are very dangerous drugs that can cause addiction there is ZERO evidence that large scale criminal prohibition reduces the number of people addicted to those drugs, assists anyone to become clean or does anything at all to resolve the issue of addiction In contrast there is A LOT of indications that even for very dangerous drugs that can cause addiction criminal drug prohibition makes the problem WORSE, creates worse outcomes for the general public, erodes basic human rights, and wastes resources that should be put into treatment instead of criminalization

refurb 6y ago
Punish Abuse not use. I would say punishment of abuse doesn't get us very far. What do we do with alcoholics? Sure, we punish them if they drive while intoxicated, but other than that, they are offered treatment and if they refuse it, they just suffer the consequences of their addiction until they decide treatment is a better option. Seems like that could work for drugs as well.
- Funes- 6y ago
  >they just suffer the consequences of their addiction No, their family and society as a whole suffer as well. I'd even go on to say that drug addiction is usually more destructive towards others than towards the addicted individuals themselves. I'm not advocating for keeping the so called "war on drugs" up, but let's be real here, people.
  - redisman 6y ago
    > I'm not advocating for keeping the so called "war on drugs" up, but let's be real here, people. So what would you have us do? Throw them in jail and pay for that?
    - cortesoft 6y ago
      I think there are a lot of options between "let everyone do whatever drugs they want as much as they want" and "throw them all in jail"
      - syshum 6y ago
        Such as? Remember all laws are only compulsory because they backed by the threat of violence, the threat of jail. Everything else is just a suggestion. Even if you suggest "well just fine them", what happens if they do not pay the fine? Generally the answer is jail.. so you have simply moved jail one position down In general if you are not willing to kill someone over X, then X should not be illegal because all criminal law is backed by the threat of government initiated violence

TillE 6y ago

Criminalization helps nothing, achieves no positive goals. Quite the opposite. We've been trying this for about a century, we've seen the results. At some point you have to act on the evidence. We're talking about maybe a slight increase in health issues (legalization does not imply a significant increase in use, eg cannabis usage in the Netherlands is pretty average for Europe), as opposed to the entire monstrosity of the War on Drugs, including the empowerment of violent criminals ranging from local gangs to international cartels.

Natsu 6y ago
Ever ask China how that whole opium thing worked out for them?
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  Wiki says it increased usage for 2 centuries after it became prohibited. "Opium prohibition in China began in 1729, yet was followed by nearly two centuries of increasing opium use." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium Don't know if we can trust numbers from that time though, you probably want to look at production.
  - Natsu 6y ago
    And population growth...
- belorn 6y ago
  Heroin is still very illegal in the Netherlands, with 12 to 16 years in jail for trading it. Heroin usage is also illegal.
srtjstjsj 6y ago
This language is too loose. "(de)Criminialization" usually refers to demand side, not supply side.

jandrese 6y ago

Some drugs are dangerous because of the drug war. Crack cocaine for example has little reason to exist except that it is easier to smuggle than powder cocaine. It's also harder to hold dealers to account for poor quality control when they are unable to be regulated or monitored.

smokelegend 6y ago
Sorry, but you don't seem to understand why crack was made. It's not because it's easier to ship, it's because you can double or triple your money... Example... 1 kilo raw coke...40k [US price] cook that same 1 kilo into crack and now you have 3 kilos of crack that you can easily make 100k or more off in the street The drug it's self, in crack form, is 10x more addictive then powdered cocaine. The user experience of a "high" only last for a few minutes, side effect being users use the product faster. This is why it's a lucrative market for gangs and street dealers. If you hold territory to distribute your product, you increase your revenue. Cash is what every dealer wants, product is what ever user wants. Supply and demand effects. Don't know why some may believe people make crack because "it's easier to transport"... no, no its not, especially when you consider liquid cocaine. Yes cartels smuggle liquid cocaine![1] It's about money. Cartels have billions & billions of US dollars to spend, they spend big money on R & D too.[2][3] [1]https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2019/11/15/houston-airport-man-tried-smuggle-35-pounds-liquid-cocaine/4200369002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2019/11/15/housto... [2]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-40480405 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-40480405 [3]https://www.nytimes.com./2012/06/17/magazine/how-a-mexican-drug-cartel-makes-its-billions.html https://www.nytimes.com./2012/06/17/magazine/how-a-mexican-d...
- stef25 6y ago
  1kg of coke becomes 3kg of crack ... I seriously doubt that. When you cook crack you wash any impurities out of the coke (and convert the salt to base). If anything it should weigh less (I think?).
- funviolence 6y ago
  smoking crack feels great everyone should smoke if as often as possible.

kube-system 6y ago

The really addictive and dangerous drugs are the ones that society would most benefit from decriminalization. Sure, it's not great when college kids get a criminal record from smoking reefer, but that's the least of our drug problems in the US. It's the dangerous drugs that are killing people and orphaning children, and those are the people who have the most trouble getting effective help due to the criminal nature of their addiction. Portugal had a bad heroin problem in the 90s. How did they fix it? They decriminalized possession of every drug, including heroin. Instead of sending users to jail, they now send them to treatment. It was an overwhelming success.

yboris 6y ago

Yes all drugs: consider reading "Legalize This" a super-short and superbly written book by a philosopher and legal scholar who has been thinking about this issue for decades. https://www.amazon.com/Legalize-This-Decriminalizing-Practical-Ethics/dp/1859843204 https://www.amazon.com/Legalize-This-Decriminalizing-Practic... TL;DR version: anyone being put in jail deserves an explanation. None can be given when they are a non-violent drug user.

belorn 6y ago
I got a simple explanation, so feel free to quote the book if it has an argument to counter it. Drug addicts are a high risk group for triggering cost in social safety nets. The risk of driving under the influence of drugs are higher for drug addicts, there is a higher risk that parents fail their responsibility while under drugs, and as with other addictions there is an increase in risk for failing to pay rent and having enough money to pay for food. Drug addicts are also more likely to get sick and needing health care (relevant for countries where the government guaranties health care). Since the government is expected to step in and pay for the social safety net, it then make sense that they implement laws to manage the risk and reduce costs. One way to do so is to make drugs illegal, especially those direct associated with risks that increase government costs. If the government did not have any responsibility to supply a social safety net then there would be no need to have those laws.
- pille 6y ago
  I think that argument falls apart as soon as you consider alcohol. Alcohol certainly qualifies as a hard drug, based on its impact for both users and bystanders (especially in your example with driving). We tried to ban it and that made things worse. Also, isn't imprisoning people a huge cost itself?
  - belorn 6y ago
    Governments did indeed try that and would likely still want to do it, but there were way too much cultural values embedded in alcohol and production is also too easy that controlling it is not possible. Alcohol is however generally not defined as a hard drug. Soft drugs would be alcohol, marijuana, sleeping pills and sedatives, while hard drugs includes heroin and cocaine. Netherlands has a very strict line between the two in both enforcement and punishment. Netherlands has a war on hard drugs, but is celebrated for not having one for soft drugs. When it comes to alcohol and driving, Sweden for example uses a system that directly punish that circumstance. Driving licenses are very expensive to get and take a lot of time. Getting hit by a DUI not only mean you have to retake the tests and pay for a new license, but you are also likely to get a ban for up to 3 years. For many that is a very harsh punishment and one enough to discourage drunk driving. For sever DUI with blood values over 1.0 you also risk jail sentences up to 2 years. Any DUI involving other drugs than alcohol is regulated under the harsher rules. You do not need to trigger an accident for this to happen. Drug laws does not need to be all or nothing. Scientists could/do define the risk profiles for different drugs in different circumstances and law makers can make more lenient or strict laws depending on those risk profiles. Sadly culture do play a role in permitting some high risk over other, but that doesn't mean risk management is bad explanation for why laws exist that punish non-violent drug user. It only make them inconsistent.

vidarh 6y ago

Even for most of the really dangerous drugs, both society overall and the addicts suffer more harm due to the war on drugs than they would have with a pure, cheap supply. Experiments with e.g handing out heroin to addicts pretty consistently reduces both direct harm from overdoses and secondary effects such as crime. The latter in large part because the less harmful, because it is pure and consistent, medical grade heroin is cheap. There are some drugs that serve no purpose if most drugs are legalised, because safer options with the same effects exists. E.g many opiates are pretty interchangeable for addicts - the reason why oxycodone has been a recruitment avenue to heroin abuse for example, and a reason for the use of fentanyl - and so some of the most dangerous analogues could remain restricted without retaining a black market demand. But overall the war on drugs is immoral and unethical, and politicians maintaining it have blood on their hands.

srtjstjsj 6y ago
Let's be clear. Safely administered heroin is much better than street heroin. It's far far worse than not taking heroin. Letting all the children in the country hooked on safe heroin is not a solution.
- vidarh 6y ago
  The notion that legalising it would get "all the children in the country" hooked on heroin is ludicrous scare-mongering.