3 ms·

I was with you until the end. You lost me at 'selling cocaine to his friends' I personally support legalizing and/or decriminalizing a significant array of dru

I was with you until the end. You lost me at 'selling cocaine to his friends' I personally support legalizing and/or decriminalizing a significant array of drugs; but I do not think we should ever accept the distribution of drugs by non-regulated entities. Possession/consumption, fine. Distribution: Not fine. Drugs sold on the street are not tested for purity or manufacturing standards. There is no accountability, no regulated employee rights, no taxes levied, etc. Selling drugs should remain a felony. Personally, I think the gov't should grant licenses for the manufacture and distribution of these substances with rigorous controls, and adult citizens should be legally allowed to purchase an amount that is fit for personal consumption, on a schedule that would make it exceedingly difficult to resell/stash (e.g. You may purchase 1-2gs of cocaine or 2 tabs of acid every 6 months) Obviously, we have seen problems with this, as this scheme is essentially just prescription drugs combined with Canada's 'beer stores'.

mdorazio 6y ago
The problem with this is that the opioid crisis has shown a large majority of people simply can't handle "hard" drugs. They either get physiologically addicted or psychologically dependent and rapidly enter downward spirals as a result. So even if you legalized and regulated the distribution of cocaine, for example, many people would still turn into addicts and pursue the black market to get their fix after their monthly allowed amount runs out. I don't think there really is a good answer in the near-term, honestly. You either go the Portugal route and trade massive spending on anti-drug policing for massive spending on rehab and mental healthcare or you get one opioid crisis after another. Long-term I personally think the solution would be to invent recreational drugs that are non-dependency forming and distribute those in the same way some states are now handling marijuana.
- freedomben 6y ago
  > Long-term I personally think the solution would be to invent recreational drugs that are non-dependency forming and distribute those in the same way some states are now handling marijuana. I totally agree. In fact our ridiculous anti-drug stance has no doubt delayed or prevented the development of these things. I would imagine we would have some pretty good options if a legitimate pharmaceutical company could do this. Recreational, non addictive (or minimally addictive) options would be available. Instead our harsh prohibition and penalties means the R&D are from drug cartels who want the most addictive/powerful product possible. I read a book called "Narconomics" which discusses how bad the Heroin has gotten because of this.
freedomben 6y ago
I agree, although I think putting harsh limits will just continue to drive addicts and users with high tolerances to a black market. We don't place limits on alcohol, I'm not sure why we should on these things either. If there are legal, regulated places to buy them the "black market" would be mostly crushed anyway, just like the black market for alcohol is today.
- wcarron 6y ago
  It's true we don't limit alcohol consumption, unless one is at a bar, where a bartender legally must cut you off in some instances, and has discretion otherwise. I think we should place limits specifically designed to prevent tolerance buildup or the ability to repeat said habit-forming behavior on a habit-forming schedule, basically. Like, I can do coke 1x a year and have a good time but not be addicted, especially if I can't get it again for a year. If one could just go back the Drugs'R'Us and pick up another g, well... we're even worse off than square 1.
  - thatguy0900 6y ago
    That does nothing to stop the black market though. I would actually argue allowing people to legally get one fix of a addictive substance and then not allowing them a second would be a great boon to the black market. The concept doesn't really make sense. And then you also give law enforcement the headache of determining what is illegal coke and what is legal coke. What if I bought a bag 6 months ago,never consume it, then police find me with it.How can they possibly know if I used it six months ago and refilled the container on the street or not.
    - wcarron 6y ago
      The environmentally-conscious side of me hates this: Single use, tax stamped containers that, once opened, cannot be resealed or reused. Theoretically, ne wouldn't have any trouble because possession is legal/decriminalized. If any drugs are found in a search by police that aren't in the state-approved containers, they are confiscated and destroyed, but the possessor is obviously not charged with anything. Problem solved, mostly. I also don't care about any difficulties the purveyors of state-backed violence (police) may encounter as a result of this. They can spend their budgets that way instead of purchasing weapons of war. Win win win.
standardUser 6y ago
Letting "users" off the hook but going after the people who must exist for those users to obtain drugs makes no sense. The distinction is mostly imaginary (I say this as a former drug dealer). I'd further argue that decriminalizing a drug for "personal use" but keeping it a crime to participate in the market for that drug is essentially a government endorsement of a black market.
- wcarron 6y ago
  Being a former drug user of various substances, I think it makes perfect sense. Addiction is a health issue, and addicts shouldn't be punished for it. The dealers, those responsible for the deterioration of both physical and mental health of the users, are directly responsible for that and should face charges for the damage they inflict on society. I think that is a very real and not imagined distinction. I obviously concede that without a legal alternative to obtaining drugs that yes, the gov't would be endorsing an illegal market. But, clearly, I've stated that's an intermediary step and I believe the sale of these drugs should be legal in a highly controlled environment to consenting adults. I also think meth and opiods are exceptions and should never be legalized for consumption outside of a prescription, but then I'm splitting hairs based on opinion and experience.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
maxerickson 6y ago
It'd be way cheaper to just seize and destroy any drugs that didn't have a tax stamp. It also creates a nice incentive for the legal distribution system to charge cost+a bit instead of way too much. What limits on purchasing do stores impose in Canada? If you buy a handle on Monday do you have to wait 6 months until you can buy one again?
JamesBarney 6y ago
I think a goal of legalization should be making buying coke easy for addicts, and hard for non-addicts. The problem with your solution is that's not nearly enough cocaine for addicts, so compared to the current drug war you've made it far easier for non-addicts to buy drugs, without really influencing the supply for addicts. I think a better solution is to allow people to buy up to a personal amount of coke for an addict, 1g per day. But require a request one month in advance. This allow addicts to purchase enough cocaine to satiate their habit, while still making it difficult for an individual to pick up some coke on a bad day and never stop. Hyperbolic discounting can be our friend.

mdorazio 6y ago

The problem with this is that the opioid crisis has shown a large majority of people simply can't handle "hard" drugs. They either get physiologically addicted or psychologically dependent and rapidly enter downward spirals as a result. So even if you legalized and regulated the distribution of cocaine, for example, many people would still turn into addicts and pursue the black market to get their fix after their monthly allowed amount runs out. I don't think there really is a good answer in the near-term, honestly. You either go the Portugal route and trade massive spending on anti-drug policing for massive spending on rehab and mental healthcare or you get one opioid crisis after another. Long-term I personally think the solution would be to invent recreational drugs that are non-dependency forming and distribute those in the same way some states are now handling marijuana.

freedomben 6y ago
> Long-term I personally think the solution would be to invent recreational drugs that are non-dependency forming and distribute those in the same way some states are now handling marijuana. I totally agree. In fact our ridiculous anti-drug stance has no doubt delayed or prevented the development of these things. I would imagine we would have some pretty good options if a legitimate pharmaceutical company could do this. Recreational, non addictive (or minimally addictive) options would be available. Instead our harsh prohibition and penalties means the R&D are from drug cartels who want the most addictive/powerful product possible. I read a book called "Narconomics" which discusses how bad the Heroin has gotten because of this.

freedomben 6y ago

I agree, although I think putting harsh limits will just continue to drive addicts and users with high tolerances to a black market. We don't place limits on alcohol, I'm not sure why we should on these things either. If there are legal, regulated places to buy them the "black market" would be mostly crushed anyway, just like the black market for alcohol is today.

wcarron 6y ago
It's true we don't limit alcohol consumption, unless one is at a bar, where a bartender legally must cut you off in some instances, and has discretion otherwise. I think we should place limits specifically designed to prevent tolerance buildup or the ability to repeat said habit-forming behavior on a habit-forming schedule, basically. Like, I can do coke 1x a year and have a good time but not be addicted, especially if I can't get it again for a year. If one could just go back the Drugs'R'Us and pick up another g, well... we're even worse off than square 1.
- thatguy0900 6y ago
  That does nothing to stop the black market though. I would actually argue allowing people to legally get one fix of a addictive substance and then not allowing them a second would be a great boon to the black market. The concept doesn't really make sense. And then you also give law enforcement the headache of determining what is illegal coke and what is legal coke. What if I bought a bag 6 months ago,never consume it, then police find me with it.How can they possibly know if I used it six months ago and refilled the container on the street or not.
  - wcarron 6y ago
    The environmentally-conscious side of me hates this: Single use, tax stamped containers that, once opened, cannot be resealed or reused. Theoretically, ne wouldn't have any trouble because possession is legal/decriminalized. If any drugs are found in a search by police that aren't in the state-approved containers, they are confiscated and destroyed, but the possessor is obviously not charged with anything. Problem solved, mostly. I also don't care about any difficulties the purveyors of state-backed violence (police) may encounter as a result of this. They can spend their budgets that way instead of purchasing weapons of war. Win win win.

standardUser 6y ago

Letting "users" off the hook but going after the people who must exist for those users to obtain drugs makes no sense. The distinction is mostly imaginary (I say this as a former drug dealer). I'd further argue that decriminalizing a drug for "personal use" but keeping it a crime to participate in the market for that drug is essentially a government endorsement of a black market.

wcarron 6y ago
Being a former drug user of various substances, I think it makes perfect sense. Addiction is a health issue, and addicts shouldn't be punished for it. The dealers, those responsible for the deterioration of both physical and mental health of the users, are directly responsible for that and should face charges for the damage they inflict on society. I think that is a very real and not imagined distinction. I obviously concede that without a legal alternative to obtaining drugs that yes, the gov't would be endorsing an illegal market. But, clearly, I've stated that's an intermediary step and I believe the sale of these drugs should be legal in a highly controlled environment to consenting adults. I also think meth and opiods are exceptions and should never be legalized for consumption outside of a prescription, but then I'm splitting hairs based on opinion and experience.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

maxerickson 6y ago

It'd be way cheaper to just seize and destroy any drugs that didn't have a tax stamp. It also creates a nice incentive for the legal distribution system to charge cost+a bit instead of way too much. What limits on purchasing do stores impose in Canada? If you buy a handle on Monday do you have to wait 6 months until you can buy one again?

JamesBarney 6y ago

I think a goal of legalization should be making buying coke easy for addicts, and hard for non-addicts. The problem with your solution is that's not nearly enough cocaine for addicts, so compared to the current drug war you've made it far easier for non-addicts to buy drugs, without really influencing the supply for addicts. I think a better solution is to allow people to buy up to a personal amount of coke for an addict, 1g per day. But require a request one month in advance. This allow addicts to purchase enough cocaine to satiate their habit, while still making it difficult for an individual to pick up some coke on a bad day and never stop. Hyperbolic discounting can be our friend.