5 ms·

I'm glad we're starting to move the conversation and American laws towards decriminalizing drugs. With Oregon leading the way last week. Focusing on helping ad

I'm glad we're starting to move the conversation and American laws towards decriminalizing drugs. With Oregon leading the way last week. Focusing on helping addiction not ignoring it and shaming people will go a long way to breaking the cycle

Broken_Hippo 6y ago
It isn't enough. Legalisation needs to happen, even for things I wouldn't touch. It isn't just about breaking a cycle, though not shaming addiction is helpful. It isn't just addicts that do drugs: I've met folks that do cocaine twice a year, for example. Few folks are addicted to LSD, and most folks only take MDMA occasionally. There is more than one way to take heroin, and folks do use occasionally. All drugs I wouldn't take are safer if folks know they are getting, strength and purity are verified as much as possible. Legalisation takes some strength away from cartels, which hopefully means less human trafficking.
- saiya-jin 6y ago
  Last sentence is especially valid - decriminalization does absolutely 0 with organized crime earning tens of billions every year from all addictives. The same folks that deal in kidnappings, ransom, contract killing, weapons smuggling and many more. As a bonus health of patients(addicts) is not deteriorating so rapidly due to crap they take along with actual drugs, so bonuses go back to whole society in form of lower costs of general healthcare. Imagine cigarettes that would be killing 10x more slowly/less often. Smokers would often die of old age and not in 1-5 years of super expensive agony. Safer methods of applications can be used. The benefits just mount for whole society. All it takes is general acceptance that there will always be some part of society that will want to get high / calm the existential pain, be it physical of psychical.
  - Skunkleton 6y ago
    > Last sentence is especially valid - decriminalization does absolutely 0 with organized crime earning tens of billions every year from all addictives. The same folks that deal in kidnappings, ransom, contract killing, weapons smuggling and many more. Surely decriminalization is an improvement.
    - Broken_Hippo 6y ago
      Sure, it is definitely an improvement and will improve lives greatly. But that still leaves work to do: It should be treated as a stepping stone instead of the end goal because legalization does so much more. For this reason, I try to bring it up in conversations about decriminalization.
    - pyuser583 6y ago
      Yes, “an improvement.” Is a pretty low bar. Would “drug courts,” where offenders are not prosecuted provided they complete treatment not also be an improvement?
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - joveian 6y ago
      How do you expect it to have an impact on those things? It will be an improvement for drug users in the US, but I doubt much will change for the cartels. To really have an impact the drugs need to be produced and distributed legally.
  - asdff 6y ago
    As long as it is more profitable to sell drugs illegally they will continually be sold and trafficked illegally no matter the letter of the law. Even marijuana is grown and trafficked by the cartel in CA, because of the onerous licensing process and the heavy taxation imposed by the state and local governments make it more profitable to operate on the black market. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-10-28/aguanga-riverside-marijuana-grow-murders-laotian https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-10-28/aguanga-...
    - Broken_Hippo 6y ago
      To a point, sure: Tobacco and alcohol are still sold illegally. But most folks buy it from the stores, and if they aren't, adjustments need to be made. Taxation isn't generally the issue (as alcohol & tobacco are taxed) as long as it is easy to purchase and reasonably priced. The other issue is that there are conflicts between state and federal law. Not being able to bank easily is a major hurdle, and these sorts of things need fixed.
      - asdff 6y ago
        And that's the caveat. The black market still outweighs the legal market because it is difficult to purchase because of the difficulty in opening a legitimate dispensary, and it isn't reasonably priced with a 30% upcharge for taxes. right off the bat the illegal dispensary is 30% cheaper, and that makes a bigger difference in the MJ market where the base cost of the product is much higher than for a $16 bottle of liquor. Even with alcohol and tobacco it is very typical for people living near a state border to buy their product on the side with the more favorable taxes, routinely done even.
        GoOnThenDoTell 6y ago
        It takes time for each successive group of new users to come to market where they weren’t exposed to the black market in the first place, who are averse to unknown quality of the black market
        6y ago
  - kboom 6y ago
    Well I dont get why we dont get the cartels to become legal entreprises. Even gradually. We should even make deals with them today. Say: reduce death rate by 10% and we give you this and that.
- johnisgood 6y ago
  Prices will compete with black market prices. Black market for weed in California is still a thing because it is much cheaper. Edit: someone already mentioned it and provided evidence.
- bsder 6y ago
  > There is more than one way to take heroin, and folks do use occasionally. My anecdata contradicts this. I know a lot of musicians who say "Yeah, they lied to us about pot. So, I assumed they were lying about everything else, too. And they were--except heroin. Do NOT do heroin--that's a path you do not want to be on." I don't know of any who use it "recreationally" and control it. It just doesn't seem to work that way. > All drugs I wouldn't take are safer if folks know they are getting, strength and purity are verified as much as possible. I agree with this 100%.
  - joveian 6y ago
    https://life.spectator.co.uk/articles/the-case-for-prescription-heroin/ https://life.spectator.co.uk/articles/the-case-for-prescript... Ok, this might not really contradict you since it is more about being able to use it regularly and still be functional.
- DougN7 6y ago
  Wouldn’t there be more human trafficking as the underworld would need to make up for lost revenue from drugs?
caymanjim 6y ago
Would decriminalization really help in this particular case? The author isn't in jail for dealing, possession, or consumption of drugs. They're in jail for breaking into someone's house and stealing things to buy drugs. That particular problem doesn't go away if drugs are legal. They still cost money. Maybe you can argue that legal drugs could be cheaper, but there's not really much evidence of that; legal weed is just about the same price as black market weed, often more. I have no reason to think that legal heroin or cocaine or other drugs would be so cheap as to eliminate crime related to obtaining drug money. People deep in the throes of addiction are still going to have trouble holding down jobs to feed their habit, and legal drugs are not going to be free. Making addiction itself less criminal isn't going to eliminate all the accompanying social problems. Addicts are going to have trouble working, maintaining relationships, caring for children, staying housed, or avoiding crimes related to both obtaining money for their habits or as a result of poor decisions they make while intoxicated. I'm in favor of decriminalizing all drugs, because I don't think getting high should be a crime by itself; because I don't think the government has any right to control what people do with their own bodies; because the war on drugs costs a fortune and doesn't do anything to prevent drug use; because unregulated drugs are more dangerous than legal ones; and because our prisons are overflowing with people whose only crime was possessing the drugs themselves. But if someone breaks into my house and steals my shit to feed their habit, I still want them locked up. It's a terrifying experience to be victimized, and it's not always just a property crime; there's a lot of violent crime too.
- ElijahLynn 6y ago
  It _could_ have helped because, for example, here in Oregon where we just decriminalized they are taking tax revenue from marijuana sales and building drug addiction treatment centers. If you get caught with a small amount of the drugs, you pay $100 or have to go to an appointment at the drug addiction treatment center. It _could_ have helped in this case because maybe Ryan M. Moser would have gotten help and broken his addiction with a treatment center that didn't have shame and felony crime associated with it. Maybe Ryan M. Moser would have sought help. Maybe. And at least Ryan M. Moser would have had the option if the drug addiction treatment centers were more accessible, walk-in style.
pyuser583 6y ago
Sorry isn’t the guy incarcerated for burglary? Legalizing drugs doesn’t legalize property crimes committed to support drug addiction.

Broken_Hippo 6y ago

It isn't enough. Legalisation needs to happen, even for things I wouldn't touch. It isn't just about breaking a cycle, though not shaming addiction is helpful. It isn't just addicts that do drugs: I've met folks that do cocaine twice a year, for example. Few folks are addicted to LSD, and most folks only take MDMA occasionally. There is more than one way to take heroin, and folks do use occasionally. All drugs I wouldn't take are safer if folks know they are getting, strength and purity are verified as much as possible. Legalisation takes some strength away from cartels, which hopefully means less human trafficking.

saiya-jin 6y ago
Last sentence is especially valid - decriminalization does absolutely 0 with organized crime earning tens of billions every year from all addictives. The same folks that deal in kidnappings, ransom, contract killing, weapons smuggling and many more. As a bonus health of patients(addicts) is not deteriorating so rapidly due to crap they take along with actual drugs, so bonuses go back to whole society in form of lower costs of general healthcare. Imagine cigarettes that would be killing 10x more slowly/less often. Smokers would often die of old age and not in 1-5 years of super expensive agony. Safer methods of applications can be used. The benefits just mount for whole society. All it takes is general acceptance that there will always be some part of society that will want to get high / calm the existential pain, be it physical of psychical.
- Skunkleton 6y ago
  > Last sentence is especially valid - decriminalization does absolutely 0 with organized crime earning tens of billions every year from all addictives. The same folks that deal in kidnappings, ransom, contract killing, weapons smuggling and many more. Surely decriminalization is an improvement.
  - Broken_Hippo 6y ago
    Sure, it is definitely an improvement and will improve lives greatly. But that still leaves work to do: It should be treated as a stepping stone instead of the end goal because legalization does so much more. For this reason, I try to bring it up in conversations about decriminalization.
  - pyuser583 6y ago
    Yes, “an improvement.” Is a pretty low bar. Would “drug courts,” where offenders are not prosecuted provided they complete treatment not also be an improvement?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - joveian 6y ago
    How do you expect it to have an impact on those things? It will be an improvement for drug users in the US, but I doubt much will change for the cartels. To really have an impact the drugs need to be produced and distributed legally.
- asdff 6y ago
  As long as it is more profitable to sell drugs illegally they will continually be sold and trafficked illegally no matter the letter of the law. Even marijuana is grown and trafficked by the cartel in CA, because of the onerous licensing process and the heavy taxation imposed by the state and local governments make it more profitable to operate on the black market. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-10-28/aguanga-riverside-marijuana-grow-murders-laotian https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-10-28/aguanga-...
  - Broken_Hippo 6y ago
    To a point, sure: Tobacco and alcohol are still sold illegally. But most folks buy it from the stores, and if they aren't, adjustments need to be made. Taxation isn't generally the issue (as alcohol & tobacco are taxed) as long as it is easy to purchase and reasonably priced. The other issue is that there are conflicts between state and federal law. Not being able to bank easily is a major hurdle, and these sorts of things need fixed.
    - asdff 6y ago
      And that's the caveat. The black market still outweighs the legal market because it is difficult to purchase because of the difficulty in opening a legitimate dispensary, and it isn't reasonably priced with a 30% upcharge for taxes. right off the bat the illegal dispensary is 30% cheaper, and that makes a bigger difference in the MJ market where the base cost of the product is much higher than for a $16 bottle of liquor. Even with alcohol and tobacco it is very typical for people living near a state border to buy their product on the side with the more favorable taxes, routinely done even.
      - GoOnThenDoTell 6y ago
        It takes time for each successive group of new users to come to market where they weren’t exposed to the black market in the first place, who are averse to unknown quality of the black market
        6y ago
- kboom 6y ago
  Well I dont get why we dont get the cartels to become legal entreprises. Even gradually. We should even make deals with them today. Say: reduce death rate by 10% and we give you this and that.
johnisgood 6y ago
Prices will compete with black market prices. Black market for weed in California is still a thing because it is much cheaper. Edit: someone already mentioned it and provided evidence.
bsder 6y ago
> There is more than one way to take heroin, and folks do use occasionally. My anecdata contradicts this. I know a lot of musicians who say "Yeah, they lied to us about pot. So, I assumed they were lying about everything else, too. And they were--except heroin. Do NOT do heroin--that's a path you do not want to be on." I don't know of any who use it "recreationally" and control it. It just doesn't seem to work that way. > All drugs I wouldn't take are safer if folks know they are getting, strength and purity are verified as much as possible. I agree with this 100%.
- joveian 6y ago
  https://life.spectator.co.uk/articles/the-case-for-prescription-heroin/ https://life.spectator.co.uk/articles/the-case-for-prescript... Ok, this might not really contradict you since it is more about being able to use it regularly and still be functional.
DougN7 6y ago
Wouldn’t there be more human trafficking as the underworld would need to make up for lost revenue from drugs?

caymanjim 6y ago

Would decriminalization really help in this particular case? The author isn't in jail for dealing, possession, or consumption of drugs. They're in jail for breaking into someone's house and stealing things to buy drugs. That particular problem doesn't go away if drugs are legal. They still cost money. Maybe you can argue that legal drugs could be cheaper, but there's not really much evidence of that; legal weed is just about the same price as black market weed, often more. I have no reason to think that legal heroin or cocaine or other drugs would be so cheap as to eliminate crime related to obtaining drug money. People deep in the throes of addiction are still going to have trouble holding down jobs to feed their habit, and legal drugs are not going to be free. Making addiction itself less criminal isn't going to eliminate all the accompanying social problems. Addicts are going to have trouble working, maintaining relationships, caring for children, staying housed, or avoiding crimes related to both obtaining money for their habits or as a result of poor decisions they make while intoxicated. I'm in favor of decriminalizing all drugs, because I don't think getting high should be a crime by itself; because I don't think the government has any right to control what people do with their own bodies; because the war on drugs costs a fortune and doesn't do anything to prevent drug use; because unregulated drugs are more dangerous than legal ones; and because our prisons are overflowing with people whose only crime was possessing the drugs themselves. But if someone breaks into my house and steals my shit to feed their habit, I still want them locked up. It's a terrifying experience to be victimized, and it's not always just a property crime; there's a lot of violent crime too.

ElijahLynn 6y ago
It _could_ have helped because, for example, here in Oregon where we just decriminalized they are taking tax revenue from marijuana sales and building drug addiction treatment centers. If you get caught with a small amount of the drugs, you pay $100 or have to go to an appointment at the drug addiction treatment center. It _could_ have helped in this case because maybe Ryan M. Moser would have gotten help and broken his addiction with a treatment center that didn't have shame and felony crime associated with it. Maybe Ryan M. Moser would have sought help. Maybe. And at least Ryan M. Moser would have had the option if the drug addiction treatment centers were more accessible, walk-in style.

pyuser583 6y ago

Sorry isn’t the guy incarcerated for burglary? Legalizing drugs doesn’t legalize property crimes committed to support drug addiction.