9 ms·

Drug “trafficking” should absolutely be legal. While Decriminalization is laudatory and beneficial, it solves far fewer problems than outright legalization. Wi

Drug “trafficking” should absolutely be legal. While Decriminalization is laudatory and beneficial, it solves far fewer problems than outright legalization. With decriminalization: 1) drug users will still not know what they are actually consuming. They can very easily invest drugs heavily mixed with other drugs, or dangerous chemicals. This will lead to far higher levels of accidental overdoses and is a path to more addictive substances. 2) Drug sellers will still be subject to lengthy prison terms. This directly creates to massive amounts of drug violence. If you are a dealer, you will commonly hold large amounts of cash and valuable drugs, making you a prime target for robbery including home invasions. Since you cannot rely on banks to deposit your sales, nor police to protect your property, you will need to be heavily armed. And if you suspect a partner or customer to actually be an informant who can net you a sentence nearly as long as murder, there is almost no downside to killing them. How many innocent kids have been buried in fields because of the paranoia of their dealer? 3) Our individual rights have been reduced significantly because of drug sales prohibition. Because of the war on drugs, police can get no knock warrants to burst in your house, kill your dogs, maybe even you, and not even apologize when it turns out their “tip” was wrong. If you are driving or flying with a large amount of cash, police can simply take it from you without showing it was linked to any crime, and force you to spend thousands on a lawyer to even have a chance of seeing it returned. Then there are zero tolerance laws that allowed police to seize your property because anyone on it was using drugs. We all pay the price for the drug prohibition, whether we use drugs or not. Time to end it completely.

ogre_codes 6y ago
I'm not going to argue this because I agree in many (most?) cases. But I do think there is value in taking a measured approach to the problem as opposed to opening the flood gates.
- briffle 6y ago
  I agree, I see this in many forms: (From IT projects, to dealing with huge homeless problems, to drug crime) We shouldn't do this, because this doesn't 'solve' the problem in 100% of cases. That is how nothing ever gets done. I think we should absolutely hit the low hanging fruit. I mean, a few years ago, Oregon legalized Weed. This last election, they legalized shrooms (in certain clinical settings). Once people see progress being made, they are much more likely to go with the next step.
- valuearb 6y ago
  The measured approach is a problem too. You see it in marijuana legalization, where some state’s are so restrictive about licensing sakes outlets that legal weed costs more than illegal. How can that kill off a dangerous black market? Someone who is going to try heroin is going to try heroin. They can live a mostly long, healthy, productive life if they get clean drugs and needles. Where are they going to get that from decriminalization? An idea I’ve noodled around with is adding drug (and alcohol) consumption as a badge to your drivers license. Every time you go to a drug dispensary you have to show your license. If you get out of line, driving intoxicated, or commit any crimes while drunk or high they take your license until you complete rehab. And if you go too far off the deep end, maybe they keep your badges off your license for a very long time. At least that way we can eliminate all the other crimes the war on drugs helps create.
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    > The measured approach is a problem too. You see it in marijuana legalization, where some state’s are so restrictive about licensing sakes outlets that legal weed costs more than illegal. I don't think this is as big a problem as people make it out to be. In NYC, there is a black market for smuggled cigarettes because of the large taxes on them. Most people buy them from legit places regardless because it's much more convenient. There are high alcohol taxes in Oregon and Washington, yet very little modern bootlegging. People prefer to buy legal alcohol in spite of the fact that moonshine is cheaper. The risks of dealing with illegally manufactured substances are worse than the increased cost of buying from legitimate sources.
  - bruckie 6y ago
    > Someone who is going to try heroin is going to try heroin. Tautologically correct, but I think the implication here is that availability doesn't affect whether someone will try heroin. I have a hard time believing that: it seems obvious that on the margin, there are some people who would try heroin if it were easier to get (and wouldn't if it were harder). We can argue about how big that margin is, but it seems hard to argue that it doesn't exist. (Apologies if that's not actually what you were implying.)
umvi 6y ago
Whenever I see these discussions I only ever see the drawbacks of restricting drug manufacturing and distribution and never the drawbacks of legalization. An honest analysis would acknowledge the drawbacks of legalization too. It's difficult to tell exactly what the long term consequences of complete drug legalization are, and I guarantee there are some negative consequences. For example, legalization might reduce the scale of drug trafficking, but I doubt it would eliminate it completely. Tobacco is completely legal yet due to high taxes there is still a large multi-billion dollar bootlegging business to smuggle cigarettes across tax gradients. Also, highly taxed drugs will likely result in an increase in related crimes like theft. I had a friend from high school who was addicted to heroin. When he ran out of money he was willing to mug old ladies to come up with the cash for more. If heroin were instead legal... why wouldn't he just steal directly from the legal distribution source now that the threat of violence is no longer there? You don't steal from the dealer because you might be killed, but stealing from Walmart or CVS or whoever is carrying it? Why not? Corporate policy probably says not to do anything. Lastly, unless marketing is highly restricted, legalization of drugs will absolutely lead to an increase in usage across all demographics. And a net increase in usage will cause some % increase in DWI rates, overdose rates, health care impact, etc. We will pay some price for legalization as well, it's just TBD and nebulous at this point.
- triceratops 6y ago
  > If heroin were instead legal... It would be so cheap your friend from high school could afford it with a standard burger flipping job. He'd have no need to resort to violent crimes to afford heroin.
  - umvi 6y ago
    How much are we talking? Is this pre or post taxes? Cigarettes are super cheap pre-taxes, but post-taxes they can be extremely expensive, especially in places like NYC.
    - triceratops 6y ago
      Are there a lot of armed robberies committed by smokers in NYC because they can't afford cigarettes? They might buy from bootleggers if they can't afford the fully-taxed cigs. That's a crime too, obviously, but somewhat less serious than armed robbery.

ogre_codes 6y ago

I'm not going to argue this because I agree in many (most?) cases. But I do think there is value in taking a measured approach to the problem as opposed to opening the flood gates.

briffle 6y ago
I agree, I see this in many forms: (From IT projects, to dealing with huge homeless problems, to drug crime) We shouldn't do this, because this doesn't 'solve' the problem in 100% of cases. That is how nothing ever gets done. I think we should absolutely hit the low hanging fruit. I mean, a few years ago, Oregon legalized Weed. This last election, they legalized shrooms (in certain clinical settings). Once people see progress being made, they are much more likely to go with the next step.
valuearb 6y ago
The measured approach is a problem too. You see it in marijuana legalization, where some state’s are so restrictive about licensing sakes outlets that legal weed costs more than illegal. How can that kill off a dangerous black market? Someone who is going to try heroin is going to try heroin. They can live a mostly long, healthy, productive life if they get clean drugs and needles. Where are they going to get that from decriminalization? An idea I’ve noodled around with is adding drug (and alcohol) consumption as a badge to your drivers license. Every time you go to a drug dispensary you have to show your license. If you get out of line, driving intoxicated, or commit any crimes while drunk or high they take your license until you complete rehab. And if you go too far off the deep end, maybe they keep your badges off your license for a very long time. At least that way we can eliminate all the other crimes the war on drugs helps create.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  > The measured approach is a problem too. You see it in marijuana legalization, where some state’s are so restrictive about licensing sakes outlets that legal weed costs more than illegal. I don't think this is as big a problem as people make it out to be. In NYC, there is a black market for smuggled cigarettes because of the large taxes on them. Most people buy them from legit places regardless because it's much more convenient. There are high alcohol taxes in Oregon and Washington, yet very little modern bootlegging. People prefer to buy legal alcohol in spite of the fact that moonshine is cheaper. The risks of dealing with illegally manufactured substances are worse than the increased cost of buying from legitimate sources.
- bruckie 6y ago
  > Someone who is going to try heroin is going to try heroin. Tautologically correct, but I think the implication here is that availability doesn't affect whether someone will try heroin. I have a hard time believing that: it seems obvious that on the margin, there are some people who would try heroin if it were easier to get (and wouldn't if it were harder). We can argue about how big that margin is, but it seems hard to argue that it doesn't exist. (Apologies if that's not actually what you were implying.)

umvi 6y ago

Whenever I see these discussions I only ever see the drawbacks of restricting drug manufacturing and distribution and never the drawbacks of legalization. An honest analysis would acknowledge the drawbacks of legalization too. It's difficult to tell exactly what the long term consequences of complete drug legalization are, and I guarantee there are some negative consequences. For example, legalization might reduce the scale of drug trafficking, but I doubt it would eliminate it completely. Tobacco is completely legal yet due to high taxes there is still a large multi-billion dollar bootlegging business to smuggle cigarettes across tax gradients. Also, highly taxed drugs will likely result in an increase in related crimes like theft. I had a friend from high school who was addicted to heroin. When he ran out of money he was willing to mug old ladies to come up with the cash for more. If heroin were instead legal... why wouldn't he just steal directly from the legal distribution source now that the threat of violence is no longer there? You don't steal from the dealer because you might be killed, but stealing from Walmart or CVS or whoever is carrying it? Why not? Corporate policy probably says not to do anything. Lastly, unless marketing is highly restricted, legalization of drugs will absolutely lead to an increase in usage across all demographics. And a net increase in usage will cause some % increase in DWI rates, overdose rates, health care impact, etc. We will pay some price for legalization as well, it's just TBD and nebulous at this point.

triceratops 6y ago
> If heroin were instead legal... It would be so cheap your friend from high school could afford it with a standard burger flipping job. He'd have no need to resort to violent crimes to afford heroin.
- umvi 6y ago
  How much are we talking? Is this pre or post taxes? Cigarettes are super cheap pre-taxes, but post-taxes they can be extremely expensive, especially in places like NYC.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    Are there a lot of armed robberies committed by smokers in NYC because they can't afford cigarettes? They might buy from bootleggers if they can't afford the fully-taxed cigs. That's a crime too, obviously, but somewhat less serious than armed robbery.