6 ms·

It’s weird as fuck to me that decriminalisation is even considered because one of the (or just the?) largest negative effects of people doing illegal drugs is t

It’s weird as fuck to me that decriminalisation is even considered because one of the (or just the?) largest negative effects of people doing illegal drugs is the large crime organisations built to provide them. As well as the then poor quality control resulting in people overdosing because they didn’t know what they were using, although not really a problem with weed specifically. Decriminalisation keeps the organised crime and dodgy product while removing any sort of demand reducing effect keeping it illegal had.

nine_k 5y ago
At least it decreases the number of people sent to prisons for possession and consumption. This is not a sufficient step, but a likely first step in normalizing the use of weed in the eyes of the public. Abrupt changes scare people (and for a good reason).
- rantwasp 5y ago
  when this is selectively enforced and only people of a certain color or ethnic group have to pay the heavy price of possession I call bullshit on the "war on drugs". this is not and has not been about drugs from day one.
  - nine_k 5y ago
    It was an anti-Left and anti-Black plot from the beginning, according to some. Unfortunately, hard proofs of that are absent. In any case, were it about health and well-being, it likely won't look like a war.
Gustomaximus 5y ago
The idea of decriminalisation is the cops don't focus on end users (and the negative effect of this to them) and the resource goes toward organised crime. I think makes sense for drugs govt won't legalise like Heroin, while they should legalise lower end drugs like pot.
- TylerE 5y ago
  The problem with decrim is that it forces users to interact with criminals to get their fix.
  - efnx 5y ago
    And the interaction can't be monitored - the user has no guide through dosages besides the person directly benefiting from the sale.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    Who where they interacting before decriminalization to get their fix?
    - Jcowell 5y ago
      I don’t get the point of this question. Obviously criminals? The expectation is that regulated avenues will serve to divert.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        Parent (now GP) said: > The problem with decrim is that it forces users to interact with criminals to get their fix.
        cloverich 5y ago
        They just left out that context, i.e. decrim doesn't change the fact that you are forced to go through a criminal to obtain them.
  - Gustomaximus 5y ago
    Sure, but they were doing it already and now they have removed the criminal element of it so the situation has improved. While legalising reduces the criminal element, however potentially adds wider social issues. Illegal/decriminalised/legal all have pros/cons.
rantwasp 5y ago
lol. here is a crazy idea: make them legal. also, decriminalization is usually a step towards legalization. because it's too much to straigh-up legalize them. also, it's beyond me how some people can get on their high horses about what drugs are okay (alcohol? coffee?) and what drugs are not okay. we should have figured this out by now - but seems that we're going to need more time /s
- sharken 5y ago
  Actually not that crazy an idea and the aspect that decriminalization makes interaction with criminals necessary, should be enough to skip this idea. So legalization seems to be the way forward, i do wonder what organized crime will do in response. The most lucrative crimes are Counterfeit goods, drug trafficking and human trafficking according to this source. https://www.occrp.org/en/daily/6240-ngo-transnational-organized-crime-groups-make-us-2-2-trillion-a-year https://www.occrp.org/en/daily/6240-ngo-transnational-organi...
  - rantwasp 5y ago
    anecdotal evidence: in WA state where weed is legal, I have not heard of anyone buying weed on the street. Why would you risk it when you have good quality stuff that you can buy in a safe location? so you decriminalize it first and after that you make it straight up legal. Organized crime is going to move to other things in response. There is a risk/reward curve.
    - sharken 5y ago
      Absolutely, and here the reward for legalizing some drugs seems greater than the risk. I suppose Meth and Crack are not on the list of legalized drugs, which means that half of all drug offenses will not be affected. Still, halving drug offenses is not a bad result. Source: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2021/FY20_Overview_Federal_Criminal_Cases.pdf https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-pu...
- austhrow743 5y ago
IMTDb 5y ago
It's weird as fuck to me that legalization is even considered because one of the (or just the?) largest negative effects of people doing illegal drugs is the added legal consequences on them and our inability to help them because they are considered criminals. Allowing businesses to legally sell, develop, and advertise addictive psychoactive substances seems dangerous to me. History has shown that if they come up with a new compound that is 20% more addictive but 15% more dangereous, you can bet that this will be their next best seller. On top of that, we should welcome their "innovation" for tax dollars and give them a legal shelter ? We already have seen what it leads to with opioids, even when we gate it behind doctors prescriptions: a usage crisis. We need more control, not less. And we need a legal framework that does allow us to help users instead of putting them to prison, that does not pack the courts with addicts, and that allows the police to focus on more pressing issues. That is what decriminalization is about. Extreme repression is as bad as extreme indulgence, there is a middle ground.

nine_k 5y ago

At least it decreases the number of people sent to prisons for possession and consumption. This is not a sufficient step, but a likely first step in normalizing the use of weed in the eyes of the public. Abrupt changes scare people (and for a good reason).

rantwasp 5y ago
when this is selectively enforced and only people of a certain color or ethnic group have to pay the heavy price of possession I call bullshit on the "war on drugs". this is not and has not been about drugs from day one.
- nine_k 5y ago
  It was an anti-Left and anti-Black plot from the beginning, according to some. Unfortunately, hard proofs of that are absent. In any case, were it about health and well-being, it likely won't look like a war.

Gustomaximus 5y ago

The idea of decriminalisation is the cops don't focus on end users (and the negative effect of this to them) and the resource goes toward organised crime. I think makes sense for drugs govt won't legalise like Heroin, while they should legalise lower end drugs like pot.

TylerE 5y ago
The problem with decrim is that it forces users to interact with criminals to get their fix.
- efnx 5y ago
  And the interaction can't be monitored - the user has no guide through dosages besides the person directly benefiting from the sale.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  Who where they interacting before decriminalization to get their fix?
  - Jcowell 5y ago
    I don’t get the point of this question. Obviously criminals? The expectation is that regulated avenues will serve to divert.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      Parent (now GP) said: > The problem with decrim is that it forces users to interact with criminals to get their fix.
      - cloverich 5y ago
        They just left out that context, i.e. decrim doesn't change the fact that you are forced to go through a criminal to obtain them.
- Gustomaximus 5y ago
  Sure, but they were doing it already and now they have removed the criminal element of it so the situation has improved. While legalising reduces the criminal element, however potentially adds wider social issues. Illegal/decriminalised/legal all have pros/cons.

rantwasp 5y ago

lol. here is a crazy idea: make them legal. also, decriminalization is usually a step towards legalization. because it's too much to straigh-up legalize them. also, it's beyond me how some people can get on their high horses about what drugs are okay (alcohol? coffee?) and what drugs are not okay. we should have figured this out by now - but seems that we're going to need more time /s

sharken 5y ago
Actually not that crazy an idea and the aspect that decriminalization makes interaction with criminals necessary, should be enough to skip this idea. So legalization seems to be the way forward, i do wonder what organized crime will do in response. The most lucrative crimes are Counterfeit goods, drug trafficking and human trafficking according to this source. https://www.occrp.org/en/daily/6240-ngo-transnational-organized-crime-groups-make-us-2-2-trillion-a-year https://www.occrp.org/en/daily/6240-ngo-transnational-organi...
- rantwasp 5y ago
  anecdotal evidence: in WA state where weed is legal, I have not heard of anyone buying weed on the street. Why would you risk it when you have good quality stuff that you can buy in a safe location? so you decriminalize it first and after that you make it straight up legal. Organized crime is going to move to other things in response. There is a risk/reward curve.
  - sharken 5y ago
    Absolutely, and here the reward for legalizing some drugs seems greater than the risk. I suppose Meth and Crack are not on the list of legalized drugs, which means that half of all drug offenses will not be affected. Still, halving drug offenses is not a bad result. Source: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2021/FY20_Overview_Federal_Criminal_Cases.pdf https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-pu...
austhrow743 5y ago

IMTDb 5y ago

It's weird as fuck to me that legalization is even considered because one of the (or just the?) largest negative effects of people doing illegal drugs is the added legal consequences on them and our inability to help them because they are considered criminals. Allowing businesses to legally sell, develop, and advertise addictive psychoactive substances seems dangerous to me. History has shown that if they come up with a new compound that is 20% more addictive but 15% more dangereous, you can bet that this will be their next best seller. On top of that, we should welcome their "innovation" for tax dollars and give them a legal shelter ? We already have seen what it leads to with opioids, even when we gate it behind doctors prescriptions: a usage crisis. We need more control, not less. And we need a legal framework that does allow us to help users instead of putting them to prison, that does not pack the courts with addicts, and that allows the police to focus on more pressing issues. That is what decriminalization is about. Extreme repression is as bad as extreme indulgence, there is a middle ground.