4 ms·

I wholeheartedly disagree with you. Criminalization of drug production and distribution has been an abject policy failure from the start. Ending the criminaliza

by ttul 6y ago

I wholeheartedly disagree with you. Criminalization of drug production and distribution has been an abject policy failure from the start. Ending the criminalization of drugs and bringing all drugs into a regulatory framework that is guided by health outcomes rather than the one-size-fits-all goal of eradication is the only path that has a hope of reducing the harms associated with the hardest of drugs. You can't stop people from using even the most devastating drugs simply by making drugs illegal to produce and distribute. There will always be someone willing to take the risk, regardless of the penalties. Criminalization is the WORST form of regulation. Instead of ending up with a dangerous, yet pure product, from a trusted, regulated supplier, you end up with an impure and potentially deadly product from an unregulated and completely untrusted supplier. You can judge drug users all day long, but they're going to seek these drugs regardless of the prohibitions. And there will always be a criminal willing to supply the addiction, because the demand is 100% inelastic (i.e. totally unrelated to price). Drug criminalization has created a $400B global market that fuels terrorism, human trafficking, child exploitation, and the destruction of democracy in many corners of the world.

sandworm101 6y ago
>> bringing all drugs into a regulatory framework that is guided by health outcomes Outcomes for who? The individual or the population? Seriously. Ask a doctor and they would probably agree that, for a particular patient, having access to legal safe alternatives is a good thing. But ask them about drugs as a whole, for the entire population, and the answer will always be "less is better but zero is best." Stemming the supply will damage current users, but illegality also suppresses uptake by new users. Opioids are different than pot. LSD is different than rohypnol. Cocaine is not the same as ketamine. Balling all "drugs" into one category and declaring them legal for traffic and sale is a horrible idea. I don't want to see GHB to ever be sold or transported openly.
- nitrogen 6y ago
  illegality also suppresses uptake by new users. Clearly that's not true, as evidenced by the enormous illegal drug trade. Highly regulated availability of safer substitutes for the worst drugs might reduce uptake of those worse drugs. Balling all "drugs" into one category and declaring them legal for traffic and sale is a horrible idea. That's not what the parent comment said. They specifically said based on health.
  - umvi 6y ago
    > Clearly that's not true, as evidenced by the enormous illegal drug trade. Highly regulated availability of safer substitutes for the worst drugs might reduce uptake of those worse drugs. Hold on, that logic isn't sound. You are saying because the illegal drug trade is enormous, therefore the illegal status of drugs has no suppressive effect on new user uptake? Why can't both statements be true? "The illegal trade is enormous and making drugs legal would make the drug user base even more enormous" Illegality status might suppress 50% of new users and impulse buyers, who knows. You can claim illegality does not suppress 100% (that much is clear), but I guarantee illegality has suppressed some non-zero % of potential users from trying it.
    - ttul 6y ago
      Legalization probably increases the user base somewhat. But does it increase negative outcomes? The evidence is already in: the legalization of alcohol after the 1930s definitely improved outcomes.
- netizen-9748 6y ago
  Why would you ask a doctor? Ask a pharmacologist, the person who researches it.
- ttul 6y ago
  I'm not advocating selling heroin at the corner store. Perhaps it should be sold over the counter at pharmacies? A licensed pharmacist can advice the buyer of the risks and can connect them with resources to help with addiction if there is a desire for that. We already massively promote and sell alcohol nearly everywhere. It's a deadly drug that is more dangerous to use than many illegal drugs. Tobacco is similarly broadly distributed, yet causes cancer and early death in millions of people. If drugs were regulated based on their risk level, then it's likely that tobacco would be sold in plain packaging at pharmacies and MDMA would be available in a vending machine...
  - umvi 6y ago
    > We already massively promote and sell alcohol nearly everywhere. Two wrongs don't make a right. Alcohol and tobacco are "grandfathered in" to the current system due to widespread usage for centuries. If I were king for a day, alcoholic beverage marketing would be made immediately illegal, but in our current democracy there's no way the alcohol lobby would allow that.
  - leakybit 6y ago
    Most people wouldn't need heroin if big pharma, doctors, and pharmacists didn't flood the country with oxycodone in the first place.
- caskstrength 6y ago
  > Ask a doctor and they would probably agree that, for a particular patient, having access to legal safe alternatives is a good thing. But ask them about drugs as a whole, for the entire population, and the answer will always be "less is better but zero is best." I guess doctors would say the same about alcohol. However, I would prefer to have my glass of beer once or twice a month and I don't want to go to jail for it, thank you very much.
crazydoggers 6y ago
Very well said. The real world pain caused by drug money going to black market criminals can’t be ignored. It’s easy to bury our heads in the sand and ignore how drug money fuels victimization through exploitation and human trafficking. And I’m sure someone will pipe up that they know some nice weed dealers etc, but you have to realize that’s a nice little bubble you’re living in. For many, the drug dealers are linked to some very nasty individuals, and the criminalization of drugs has simply given them huge income streams.
- ttul 6y ago
  Rest assured that the friendly weed dealer is buying upstream from someone who is significantly less friendly. And the person he or she is buying from is likely a murderous psychopath. _By definition_, the most successful in the drug trade are those who are willing to do anything for profit.
pasttense01 6y ago
Tobacco and alcohol are two legal drugs. They have vastly more usage than any of the illegal drugs. They incur vast costs--including hundreds of thousands of deaths each year. Why do they have vastly more usage than the illegal drugs? A major reason is because they are illegal--such as risk of arrest, poor and uncertain quality, hard to find. Legalizing them would vastly increase usage.

by ttul 6y ago

sandworm101 6y ago

>> bringing all drugs into a regulatory framework that is guided by health outcomes Outcomes for who? The individual or the population? Seriously. Ask a doctor and they would probably agree that, for a particular patient, having access to legal safe alternatives is a good thing. But ask them about drugs as a whole, for the entire population, and the answer will always be "less is better but zero is best." Stemming the supply will damage current users, but illegality also suppresses uptake by new users. Opioids are different than pot. LSD is different than rohypnol. Cocaine is not the same as ketamine. Balling all "drugs" into one category and declaring them legal for traffic and sale is a horrible idea. I don't want to see GHB to ever be sold or transported openly.

nitrogen 6y ago
illegality also suppresses uptake by new users. Clearly that's not true, as evidenced by the enormous illegal drug trade. Highly regulated availability of safer substitutes for the worst drugs might reduce uptake of those worse drugs. Balling all "drugs" into one category and declaring them legal for traffic and sale is a horrible idea. That's not what the parent comment said. They specifically said based on health.
- umvi 6y ago
  > Clearly that's not true, as evidenced by the enormous illegal drug trade. Highly regulated availability of safer substitutes for the worst drugs might reduce uptake of those worse drugs. Hold on, that logic isn't sound. You are saying because the illegal drug trade is enormous, therefore the illegal status of drugs has no suppressive effect on new user uptake? Why can't both statements be true? "The illegal trade is enormous and making drugs legal would make the drug user base even more enormous" Illegality status might suppress 50% of new users and impulse buyers, who knows. You can claim illegality does not suppress 100% (that much is clear), but I guarantee illegality has suppressed some non-zero % of potential users from trying it.
  - ttul 6y ago
    Legalization probably increases the user base somewhat. But does it increase negative outcomes? The evidence is already in: the legalization of alcohol after the 1930s definitely improved outcomes.
netizen-9748 6y ago
Why would you ask a doctor? Ask a pharmacologist, the person who researches it.
ttul 6y ago
I'm not advocating selling heroin at the corner store. Perhaps it should be sold over the counter at pharmacies? A licensed pharmacist can advice the buyer of the risks and can connect them with resources to help with addiction if there is a desire for that. We already massively promote and sell alcohol nearly everywhere. It's a deadly drug that is more dangerous to use than many illegal drugs. Tobacco is similarly broadly distributed, yet causes cancer and early death in millions of people. If drugs were regulated based on their risk level, then it's likely that tobacco would be sold in plain packaging at pharmacies and MDMA would be available in a vending machine...
- umvi 6y ago
  > We already massively promote and sell alcohol nearly everywhere. Two wrongs don't make a right. Alcohol and tobacco are "grandfathered in" to the current system due to widespread usage for centuries. If I were king for a day, alcoholic beverage marketing would be made immediately illegal, but in our current democracy there's no way the alcohol lobby would allow that.
- leakybit 6y ago
  Most people wouldn't need heroin if big pharma, doctors, and pharmacists didn't flood the country with oxycodone in the first place.
caskstrength 6y ago
> Ask a doctor and they would probably agree that, for a particular patient, having access to legal safe alternatives is a good thing. But ask them about drugs as a whole, for the entire population, and the answer will always be "less is better but zero is best." I guess doctors would say the same about alcohol. However, I would prefer to have my glass of beer once or twice a month and I don't want to go to jail for it, thank you very much.

crazydoggers 6y ago

Very well said. The real world pain caused by drug money going to black market criminals can’t be ignored. It’s easy to bury our heads in the sand and ignore how drug money fuels victimization through exploitation and human trafficking. And I’m sure someone will pipe up that they know some nice weed dealers etc, but you have to realize that’s a nice little bubble you’re living in. For many, the drug dealers are linked to some very nasty individuals, and the criminalization of drugs has simply given them huge income streams.

ttul 6y ago
Rest assured that the friendly weed dealer is buying upstream from someone who is significantly less friendly. And the person he or she is buying from is likely a murderous psychopath. _By definition_, the most successful in the drug trade are those who are willing to do anything for profit.

pasttense01 6y ago

Tobacco and alcohol are two legal drugs. They have vastly more usage than any of the illegal drugs. They incur vast costs--including hundreds of thousands of deaths each year. Why do they have vastly more usage than the illegal drugs? A major reason is because they are illegal--such as risk of arrest, poor and uncertain quality, hard to find. Legalizing them would vastly increase usage.