6 ms·

I'm not sure why people aren't being just a little more cautious about ballot measures like in Oregon where even heroin and such hard drugs are now decriminaliz

I'm not sure why people aren't being just a little more cautious about ballot measures like in Oregon where even heroin and such hard drugs are now decriminalized. This deserves a little more consideration about the unintended side effects of this policy, don't you think? I look at the massive illegal drug manufacturing interests (countries, cartels) who spend vast sums on getting illegal drugs to our shores. It cannot just be a pure good thing that we make this ok now, can it? I think we will be finding out the negative unintended consequences of these policies in the years to come. edit: yeah, real courteous and open-minded, to be downvoting an otherwise legitimate opinion for discussion, isn't it?

Sargos 6y ago
You're right, it should have been full legalization so that only regulated producers make the drugs which makes them much safer for the populace and hurts and possibly shuts down the violent cartels. The problem is that it needs to be done in steps or some people who are afraid of change will get too worried that society is going to crumble and so they fight to keep the violence in place.
intricatedetail 6y ago
What do you want to discuss? People have natural urge to use drugs and there is nothing you can do about it apart from trying to educate and ensure drugs are as safe as possible. Banning drugs is an idea of the same sort like banning music or sex for pleasure. Cartels make money on drug supply, because there is mostly no one else people can buy drugs from.
- supernova87a 6y ago
  I agree that the war on drugs was a failure. But is your position that whatever people want to do, you should not try to prevent it? What are your positions on applying that logic to carbon emissions, letting people work for less than minimum wage, companies putting out products that people buy willingly but are non-repairable? Should government step out of those areas too? People want to do all those things.
  - crispyporkbites 6y ago
    Those things have large negative externalities that the individual doesn’t pay for. Drugs don’t really have that- unless you make them high cost and illegal.
    - ip26 6y ago
      That isn't quite true, addiction has a high social cost. Hurts relationships, breaks families apart, and increases national medical spending.
      - intricatedetail 6y ago
        Some drugs do cause problems like alcohol, but for other drugs issues come from legal status rather than drugs themselves. I know plenty of people who take cannabis multiple times a day and they have great lives.
      - anonAndOn 6y ago
        If you think medical spending is high (pun intended), you should see what incarceration costs, perhaps 10x as much.[0] [0]https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-drug-abuse-treatment-criminal-justice-populations-research-based-guide/providing-drug-abuse-treatment-to-offenders-worth-financial-investment https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-drug-abuse...
    - refurb 6y ago
      Alcohol has massive externalities and it’s legal.
  - tomatocracy 6y ago
    Many things in life and in politics are not a case of “good” vs “bad” but of “bad” vs “worse”. I think it’s quite acceptable to think that legalisation might be the least worst policy there is even for hard drugs. Yes it will have negative effects but they may be less bad on aggregate than the alternative. The same may well be true for the other examples you cite (I tend to personally believe not but it doesn’t mean it’s not a balancing act or that I’m right) - but I suspect that a lot of these things are also all likely to have quite a lot of local situational differences in determining which is worse.
ratww 6y ago
What about discussing the unintended consequences of the War on Drugs so far? It is undeniable that as an experiment it was a complete failure and a money pit, but it's also an enabler of police brutality, cause of massive disfranchisement, contributor to public health issues, and a war on freedom in general. This is just an alternative, which is being tried in other countries and with other drugs, and so far it seems to be a better solution. Those cartels you mention profit billions from the existence of a War on Drugs, and I'm pretty sure the last thing they want is the government meddling in their business.
viraptor 6y ago
> It cannot just be a pure good thing that we make this ok now, can it? This is not what this law does. It doesn't allow for drug dealing and production. The part about manufacturing and importing did not change and nobody said it's ok. What changed is that once you're found in possession of a tiny amount you won't go to jail, but instead will have access to more health/addiction services.
- supernova87a 6y ago
  So, is your belief, or the belief of this measure, that completely decriminalizing possession and use will cause no change in demand? More people will not be tempted or trapped into using or trying drugs? Is that not a legitimate thing to question?
  - viraptor 6y ago
    No, I have not said or implied that in any way. We can look at other countries and states for information and what to expect. With Portugal being one where long-term effects are known. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/05/upshot/portugal-drug-legalization-treatment.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/05/upshot/portugal-drug-lega... It's not all perfect, but looking at the overall impact on society it looks the right decision. Of course soft drugs will get more use as a result.
  - nine_k 6y ago
    Portugal has this policy since 2001. No, demand hasn't skyrocketed.
cblconfederate 6y ago
Smoking is not illegal but look people barely smoke now. Criminalization seems like a brutish way to achieve the same effect
throwaway2245 6y ago
This is full-on concern trolling. What makes you think the policy hasn't been fully considered over many decades? Does a policy have to be pure good, or just better than the alternative?
saiya-jin 6y ago
Downvoting is also about disagreeing with opinion in discussion. You are wondering about ill effect of decriminalization of drug users - most people including me cannot fathom why the heck should users be criminalized. This policy is pure evil, didn't make any real measurable benefit to society, just filled US prisons with normal citizens who like to smoke weed or maybe do some psychedelics from time to time (clue, in country like Switzerland, around 10% of population smokes regularly and nobody really cares, its not causing any harm to society). Its great if you run a private prison or have shares of it though. I go one step beyond and argue that soft drugs should be legal and limits should be same as for alcohol - if cigarettes and alcohol are legal, so should be weed and its variants. Or ban them all if you want to be properly fair and scientific and brace yourself for mass riots. Of course no politician would do that, thats suicide.
draw_down 6y ago
Yeah, if we’re not careful about our drug laws, America could develop some issue or maybe some kind of gigantic horrific problem with drugs. Would be a shame

Sargos 6y ago

You're right, it should have been full legalization so that only regulated producers make the drugs which makes them much safer for the populace and hurts and possibly shuts down the violent cartels. The problem is that it needs to be done in steps or some people who are afraid of change will get too worried that society is going to crumble and so they fight to keep the violence in place.

intricatedetail 6y ago

What do you want to discuss? People have natural urge to use drugs and there is nothing you can do about it apart from trying to educate and ensure drugs are as safe as possible. Banning drugs is an idea of the same sort like banning music or sex for pleasure. Cartels make money on drug supply, because there is mostly no one else people can buy drugs from.

supernova87a 6y ago
I agree that the war on drugs was a failure. But is your position that whatever people want to do, you should not try to prevent it? What are your positions on applying that logic to carbon emissions, letting people work for less than minimum wage, companies putting out products that people buy willingly but are non-repairable? Should government step out of those areas too? People want to do all those things.
- crispyporkbites 6y ago
  Those things have large negative externalities that the individual doesn’t pay for. Drugs don’t really have that- unless you make them high cost and illegal.
  - ip26 6y ago
    That isn't quite true, addiction has a high social cost. Hurts relationships, breaks families apart, and increases national medical spending.
    - intricatedetail 6y ago
      Some drugs do cause problems like alcohol, but for other drugs issues come from legal status rather than drugs themselves. I know plenty of people who take cannabis multiple times a day and they have great lives.
    - anonAndOn 6y ago
      If you think medical spending is high (pun intended), you should see what incarceration costs, perhaps 10x as much.[0] [0]https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-drug-abuse-treatment-criminal-justice-populations-research-based-guide/providing-drug-abuse-treatment-to-offenders-worth-financial-investment https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-drug-abuse...
  - refurb 6y ago
    Alcohol has massive externalities and it’s legal.
- tomatocracy 6y ago
  Many things in life and in politics are not a case of “good” vs “bad” but of “bad” vs “worse”. I think it’s quite acceptable to think that legalisation might be the least worst policy there is even for hard drugs. Yes it will have negative effects but they may be less bad on aggregate than the alternative. The same may well be true for the other examples you cite (I tend to personally believe not but it doesn’t mean it’s not a balancing act or that I’m right) - but I suspect that a lot of these things are also all likely to have quite a lot of local situational differences in determining which is worse.

ratww 6y ago

What about discussing the unintended consequences of the War on Drugs so far? It is undeniable that as an experiment it was a complete failure and a money pit, but it's also an enabler of police brutality, cause of massive disfranchisement, contributor to public health issues, and a war on freedom in general. This is just an alternative, which is being tried in other countries and with other drugs, and so far it seems to be a better solution. Those cartels you mention profit billions from the existence of a War on Drugs, and I'm pretty sure the last thing they want is the government meddling in their business.

viraptor 6y ago

> It cannot just be a pure good thing that we make this ok now, can it? This is not what this law does. It doesn't allow for drug dealing and production. The part about manufacturing and importing did not change and nobody said it's ok. What changed is that once you're found in possession of a tiny amount you won't go to jail, but instead will have access to more health/addiction services.

supernova87a 6y ago
So, is your belief, or the belief of this measure, that completely decriminalizing possession and use will cause no change in demand? More people will not be tempted or trapped into using or trying drugs? Is that not a legitimate thing to question?
- viraptor 6y ago
  No, I have not said or implied that in any way. We can look at other countries and states for information and what to expect. With Portugal being one where long-term effects are known. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/05/upshot/portugal-drug-legalization-treatment.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/05/upshot/portugal-drug-lega... It's not all perfect, but looking at the overall impact on society it looks the right decision. Of course soft drugs will get more use as a result.
- nine_k 6y ago
  Portugal has this policy since 2001. No, demand hasn't skyrocketed.

cblconfederate 6y ago

Smoking is not illegal but look people barely smoke now. Criminalization seems like a brutish way to achieve the same effect

throwaway2245 6y ago

This is full-on concern trolling. What makes you think the policy hasn't been fully considered over many decades? Does a policy have to be pure good, or just better than the alternative?

saiya-jin 6y ago

Downvoting is also about disagreeing with opinion in discussion. You are wondering about ill effect of decriminalization of drug users - most people including me cannot fathom why the heck should users be criminalized. This policy is pure evil, didn't make any real measurable benefit to society, just filled US prisons with normal citizens who like to smoke weed or maybe do some psychedelics from time to time (clue, in country like Switzerland, around 10% of population smokes regularly and nobody really cares, its not causing any harm to society). Its great if you run a private prison or have shares of it though. I go one step beyond and argue that soft drugs should be legal and limits should be same as for alcohol - if cigarettes and alcohol are legal, so should be weed and its variants. Or ban them all if you want to be properly fair and scientific and brace yourself for mass riots. Of course no politician would do that, thats suicide.

draw_down 6y ago

Yeah, if we’re not careful about our drug laws, America could develop some issue or maybe some kind of gigantic horrific problem with drugs. Would be a shame