7 ms·

It's supersad to me that in 2021 this subject is controversial. I think the "war on drugs" charade has gone long enough and it's time to actually do the right t

It's supersad to me that in 2021 this subject is controversial. I think the "war on drugs" charade has gone long enough and it's time to actually do the right thing. Stop targeting minorities with this stupid war and legalize ALL drugs. Period. Offer rehab programs + make sure that whatever is on the market is safe and the effects are well documented and understood.

mynameisash 5y ago
> legalize ALL drugs I'm no expert here, and I hope I'm not misreading your statement, but couldn't this be swinging too far in the other direction? It seems like equating marijuana with, say, heroin and meth -- they're all in the category of 'drugs', and we know pot isn't addictive like opiates. The neural pathways these compounds take are important. I'd certainly argue legalization of pot is overdue, but does that mean nothing should be illegal? Not exactly drawing my line in the sand, as I haven't give this much thought. I'm genuinely interested in perspectives on the legalize everything vs some things.
- pmoriarty 5y ago
  Adults should be allowed to have any mind state they want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. If someone wants to have fun skydiving and risk crashing their head in to the ground, let them. It's their choice. If overindulging in whatever activity interferes with a person's life, that should be a medical issue not a criminal one. The War on Drugs is an abject failure and hurts much more than it helps. People are going to be doing these drugs anyway, only with the War on Drugs they're going to be doing so in much more damaging ways (from playing Russian Roulette with mystery drugs, and from the harm that arrests by police, imprisonment, and destruction of families and these people's futures cause).
  - rantwasp 5y ago
    totally agree. also here's the thing: the war on drugs was never about drugs. It was about controlling the masses and about marginalizing certain categories of people. Rich white people could and can do ANY drug they want with virtually no consequence. Let that sink in for a second. If you want to be really outraged look at how crack and cocaine are treated as far as law goes and as far as punishment goes. https://drugpolicy.org/drug-facts/cocaine/difference-crack https://drugpolicy.org/drug-facts/cocaine/difference-crack > Despite the fact that the chemical structure of powder cocaine and crack cocaine is nearly identical, the punishment for crack possession or sales is far greater than that of cocaine. Until 2010, this sentencing disparity was 100 to 1, which means that while just 5 grams of crack would carry a 5-year mandatory minimum, it would take 500 grams of cocaine to trigger the same 5-year sentence. While the law was changed in 2010, there continues to be a disparity of 18 to 1. This sentencing disparity has had a disproportionate impact on poor people and people of color. Statistics show that Black people are more likely to be convicted of crack cocaine offenses (even though the majority of crack cocaine users are white) and white people are more likely to be convicted of powder cocaine offenses. This means that Black people continue to receive far harsher drug sentences than white people even though powder and crack cocaine are nearly identical substances.
    - unishark 5y ago
      Crack and cocaine were treated differently by the laws because their social effects were seen as different. Crack was seen as destroying inner cities in the 80s and those disproportionate punishments were directed at the dealers in an attempt to protect those communities. The black caucus in congress pushed for those laws.
      - rantwasp 5y ago
        yeah. the black caucus. are you for real?
        unishark 5y ago
        Speaking of reality, it's usually more complicated and nuanced than simple narratives about good versus evil. Here's an interesting profile from the 80s of Charles Rangel, when he was chair of the house narcotics committee and perhaps the strongest proponent of tough sentencing in congress. https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=3NQDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA128&redir_esc=y&hl=uk#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=3NQDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA128&r...
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    > Adults should be allowed to have any mind state they want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. You cannot know in advance what mental state a given drug will put a specific adult in (in general, at least), and thus you cannot predict whether there will be harm to others or not. This is not an argument for prohibition; it is an argument against a "legalize all drugs" position.
    - rantwasp 5y ago
      you can. it's called research. it can be done (if it hasn't already been done) on virtually any drug. education + choice are key when it comes to deciding if you want to try drug X. this should be a personal choice not something big brother decides.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        You think you can predict someone's response to major hallucinogens? Even with cannabis, among my friends and family who use it, there's a wide variation in response, particularly in levels of reported paranoia. Research will clarify the statistical level, but isn't necessarily of much help with predicting individual results.
        pmoriarty 5y ago
        Psychedelics ("hallucinogens" is a pejorative, inaccurate, and outdated term) are some of the most unpredictable of drugs, but there's been a lot of research that has shown the chances of a constructive experience can be maximized with the right dose, set and setting, especially if trained support and integration is available. Many of the people who suffer from paranoia and other adverse effects from psychedelics probably take them in the wrong setting, with the wrong setting, and in too high a dose for their experience level.. and often unsupervised too. Education will help here, but ultimately less than ideal use can't be completely eliminated as some people won't care, won't listen, won't believe, etc... But even that kind of use will be way, way, way safer if the substances they take are legal, since they can at least be certain they'll be taking what they thought they bought and they can be sure of the substance's purity and dosage. On the black market it's all a crapshoot, and lots of people have died that way (even if they don't get shot by a cop in a raid or get murdered in jail if they get arrested and imprisoned).
  - notsureaboutpg 5y ago
    >Adults should be allowed to have any mind state they want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. I mean, exactly the issue here is that if you allow all adults to take as much meth as they want, they will start hurting someone else indirectly.
- rantwasp 5y ago
  ALL drugs. ALL of them. It works. It has been done before and it was wildly successful. https://time.com/longform/portugal-drug-use-decriminalization/ https://time.com/longform/portugal-drug-use-decriminalizatio...
- zwkrt 5y ago
  I work at a shelter, let me give my on-the-ground opinion. People who get hooked on drugs normally do so because their life is awful. Opioids, amphetamines, and barbiturates (not common b/c of cost) are all different ways to escape reality. This checks out if you think of the main demographics of users: the homeless, the unemployed, the lonely elderly, poor rural workers, “problem” students, cooped up housewives. People with things going for them and/or who have a sense of purpose tend not to take these drugs, because the negative side effects are too great, mainly that no one wants to hang out with you if you are strung out. And the drugs are not in scarce supply. They are not hard to find. What they /are/ though is incredibly dangerous. Most people taking them are very short on cash because they are hooked on drugs, so the drug is getting in the way of paying for food, housing, and family. And drugs are almost always cut with cheaper additives. Opioids are often cut with wildly addictive chemicals that are 100s or 1000s of times stronger than what users are paying for. Needles are expensive and controlled so they get reused. Uppers are cut with many kinds of other amphetamines with awful downsides and agitation that lasts for days on end. Alcohol is so cheap and available we don’t even consider it a dangerous drug, but those dependent on it will die of incredibly painful seizures if they stop taking it. So put this all together and what we have is a nationwide mental health crisis being compounded by the fact that the easily available medicine people are using to self medicate is illegal, and that makes it dangerous. Making all drugs legal is only one small part in solving the problem, but if it was legal we wouldn’t be dealing with homemade meth, fentanyl, relapse overdoses, and death by involuntary withdrawal (i.e., running out of money for the drug you are physically dependent on). Legalized drugs won’t cause your children or loved ones to start doing drugs, a lack of opportunity will.
  - rantwasp 5y ago
    this person get it. my theory is that poverty and social inequality in general (as a precursor of poverty) are at a root of a lot of things. It's very easy to pay lip service to X, Y and Z and ignore the elephant in the room.
  - pmoriarty 5y ago
    "Making all drugs legal is only the first step to solving the problem, but if it was legal we wouldn't be dealing with homemade meth, fentanyl, overdoses, and death by involuntary withdrawal..." I'm 110% for legalization, but we need to set realistic expectations. Legalization will make drug use way, way, way safer and lots less people will die and have their lives ruined (both from safer drugs and because they're not getting arrested, separated from their families, imprisoned, or killed by the police, etc..). But overdoses will still happen because some people will still: 1 - intentionally overdose to kill themselves 2 - mix drugs, which is usually way more dangerous than using a single drug, and (depending on the drugs) how they interact might not even be known, so no safe dosage can be ascertained even if both were perfectly legal.. incidentally, mixing any of a large variety of drugs with alcohol is one of the deadliest combinations 3 - while on drugs people tend not to make the most carefully considered decisions, including whether to take more Of course, all of this is still possible and still done even when drugs are illegal, and making drugs legal will improve almost all of these outcomes (except intentional suicide), since at least the drugs in question will be of known purity and dosage.. but there will still be overdoses (just a lot less of them).
- lm28469 5y ago
  Decriminalising the use, even of hard drugs, seems to be a net negative for society (see Portugal's case [0]) They're not going to sell meth at walmart if that's what you're worried about. People addicted to hard drugs are not going to stop because it's illegal, and people who aren't already addicted won't start shooting heroin all of a sudden because it's decriminalised [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal#Observations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal#Observ...
godelski 5y ago
What's crazy to me is almost 70% of Americans are in favor[0], with about 50% of Republicans being on board (48% Republicans, 72% Independents, 83% Democrats). It is insane to me that the Democrats are not pushing this forward. It is an easy win. It creates more jobs. It is the only think you can say "we're going to put a 30% tax on the sale of" and people will rejoice. I just don't get it. It's roughly the same as support for gay marriage is _today_[1] (I 'm not trying to use the comparison as a human rights issue but because it is another controversial topic where people can guesstimate how controversial the opinion is) I can understand how they are more hesitant with other drugs and possession (though I'm with you on full decriminalization like Oregon did), but I at least understand this one. I _do not_ understand how weed isn't legal yet. It's very popular, profitable, and will help reduce issues in South America. Edit: I think there even is a double win strategy. First you reschedule the drug. Second you legalize it. So even if you want to play political games there's advantage. The numbers above were for full legalization but they just rise when you include medicinal (less people are ready for full legalization but in favor of medical and rescheduling). [0] https://news.gallup.com/poll/323582/support-legal-marijuana-inches-new-high.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/323582/support-legal-marijuana-... [1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same-sex-marriage.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same...
- dabfiend19 5y ago
  if the taxes are too high, the market will fail and the majority of people will still use the black market. they'll get a lower tax yield and less safety for users.
  - rtpg 5y ago
    yeah but "lower the tax rate" is a lot easier of an incremental policy change than "litigate the tax rate on cannabis before legalization even happens".
  - godelski 5y ago
    I'm just saying, in Washington there's a 37% tax rate... so clearly you can get it pretty high. Probably because weed is cheaper even with the tax than it was on the black market.
tolbish 5y ago
Not to pull the "think of the children" card, but if it were as easy for kids to obtain heroin as it is for them to obtain alcohol...
- rantwasp 5y ago
  it's not easy for kids to obtain alcohol. Also, if your safety net is that big brother is going to prevent your kid from doing heroin... well... you're gonna have a bad time. Education is key. Having a good and nurturing relationship with your kid is key. Anecdotally: there are places in the world where kids can have alcohol even as young as 10-12. Not legally, but within the family and it's not taboo for a kid to try it out if they're curios. I'm going to let you guess which places have more trouble with alcohol abuse: places where it's treated like any other thing and kids can try it or places where it's illegal to drink it until you're 18 or 21.
  - tolbish 5y ago
    Your anecdote demonstrates how easy it is for kids obtain alcohol.
    - rantwasp 5y ago
      was talking us vs other places in the world.
- onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
  Most people aren't going to stick a needle into their arm to get high unless they've tried many other drugs already. And given alternatives, most people probably wouldn't try it - especially given it's reputation.
  - tolbish 5y ago
    Heroin can be smoked, from what I hear.
- cloverich 5y ago
29athrowaway 5y ago
Legalization of alcohol, marijuana, psylocibin, etc. is not the same as the legalization of opioids and other more destructive drugs. IMO, dealers should be punished harshly and addicts should be treated as patients rather than criminals.
- rantwasp 5y ago
  the point is people 1) should be educated 2) should make up their own damn minds.
qwerty456127 5y ago
> legalize ALL drugs It's worth mentioning that legalization doesn't mean unregulated availability to everybody. Ironically, getting even non-narcotic prescription meds often is harder than it is to get illegal substances.

mynameisash 5y ago

> legalize ALL drugs I'm no expert here, and I hope I'm not misreading your statement, but couldn't this be swinging too far in the other direction? It seems like equating marijuana with, say, heroin and meth -- they're all in the category of 'drugs', and we know pot isn't addictive like opiates. The neural pathways these compounds take are important. I'd certainly argue legalization of pot is overdue, but does that mean nothing should be illegal? Not exactly drawing my line in the sand, as I haven't give this much thought. I'm genuinely interested in perspectives on the legalize everything vs some things.

pmoriarty 5y ago
Adults should be allowed to have any mind state they want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. If someone wants to have fun skydiving and risk crashing their head in to the ground, let them. It's their choice. If overindulging in whatever activity interferes with a person's life, that should be a medical issue not a criminal one. The War on Drugs is an abject failure and hurts much more than it helps. People are going to be doing these drugs anyway, only with the War on Drugs they're going to be doing so in much more damaging ways (from playing Russian Roulette with mystery drugs, and from the harm that arrests by police, imprisonment, and destruction of families and these people's futures cause).
- rantwasp 5y ago
  totally agree. also here's the thing: the war on drugs was never about drugs. It was about controlling the masses and about marginalizing certain categories of people. Rich white people could and can do ANY drug they want with virtually no consequence. Let that sink in for a second. If you want to be really outraged look at how crack and cocaine are treated as far as law goes and as far as punishment goes. https://drugpolicy.org/drug-facts/cocaine/difference-crack https://drugpolicy.org/drug-facts/cocaine/difference-crack > Despite the fact that the chemical structure of powder cocaine and crack cocaine is nearly identical, the punishment for crack possession or sales is far greater than that of cocaine. Until 2010, this sentencing disparity was 100 to 1, which means that while just 5 grams of crack would carry a 5-year mandatory minimum, it would take 500 grams of cocaine to trigger the same 5-year sentence. While the law was changed in 2010, there continues to be a disparity of 18 to 1. This sentencing disparity has had a disproportionate impact on poor people and people of color. Statistics show that Black people are more likely to be convicted of crack cocaine offenses (even though the majority of crack cocaine users are white) and white people are more likely to be convicted of powder cocaine offenses. This means that Black people continue to receive far harsher drug sentences than white people even though powder and crack cocaine are nearly identical substances.
  - unishark 5y ago
    Crack and cocaine were treated differently by the laws because their social effects were seen as different. Crack was seen as destroying inner cities in the 80s and those disproportionate punishments were directed at the dealers in an attempt to protect those communities. The black caucus in congress pushed for those laws.
    - rantwasp 5y ago
      yeah. the black caucus. are you for real?
      - unishark 5y ago
        Speaking of reality, it's usually more complicated and nuanced than simple narratives about good versus evil. Here's an interesting profile from the 80s of Charles Rangel, when he was chair of the house narcotics committee and perhaps the strongest proponent of tough sentencing in congress. https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=3NQDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA128&redir_esc=y&hl=uk#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=3NQDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA128&r...
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  > Adults should be allowed to have any mind state they want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. You cannot know in advance what mental state a given drug will put a specific adult in (in general, at least), and thus you cannot predict whether there will be harm to others or not. This is not an argument for prohibition; it is an argument against a "legalize all drugs" position.
  - rantwasp 5y ago
    you can. it's called research. it can be done (if it hasn't already been done) on virtually any drug. education + choice are key when it comes to deciding if you want to try drug X. this should be a personal choice not something big brother decides.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      You think you can predict someone's response to major hallucinogens? Even with cannabis, among my friends and family who use it, there's a wide variation in response, particularly in levels of reported paranoia. Research will clarify the statistical level, but isn't necessarily of much help with predicting individual results.
      - pmoriarty 5y ago
        Psychedelics ("hallucinogens" is a pejorative, inaccurate, and outdated term) are some of the most unpredictable of drugs, but there's been a lot of research that has shown the chances of a constructive experience can be maximized with the right dose, set and setting, especially if trained support and integration is available. Many of the people who suffer from paranoia and other adverse effects from psychedelics probably take them in the wrong setting, with the wrong setting, and in too high a dose for their experience level.. and often unsupervised too. Education will help here, but ultimately less than ideal use can't be completely eliminated as some people won't care, won't listen, won't believe, etc... But even that kind of use will be way, way, way safer if the substances they take are legal, since they can at least be certain they'll be taking what they thought they bought and they can be sure of the substance's purity and dosage. On the black market it's all a crapshoot, and lots of people have died that way (even if they don't get shot by a cop in a raid or get murdered in jail if they get arrested and imprisoned).
- notsureaboutpg 5y ago
  >Adults should be allowed to have any mind state they want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. I mean, exactly the issue here is that if you allow all adults to take as much meth as they want, they will start hurting someone else indirectly.
rantwasp 5y ago
ALL drugs. ALL of them. It works. It has been done before and it was wildly successful. https://time.com/longform/portugal-drug-use-decriminalization/ https://time.com/longform/portugal-drug-use-decriminalizatio...
zwkrt 5y ago
I work at a shelter, let me give my on-the-ground opinion. People who get hooked on drugs normally do so because their life is awful. Opioids, amphetamines, and barbiturates (not common b/c of cost) are all different ways to escape reality. This checks out if you think of the main demographics of users: the homeless, the unemployed, the lonely elderly, poor rural workers, “problem” students, cooped up housewives. People with things going for them and/or who have a sense of purpose tend not to take these drugs, because the negative side effects are too great, mainly that no one wants to hang out with you if you are strung out. And the drugs are not in scarce supply. They are not hard to find. What they /are/ though is incredibly dangerous. Most people taking them are very short on cash because they are hooked on drugs, so the drug is getting in the way of paying for food, housing, and family. And drugs are almost always cut with cheaper additives. Opioids are often cut with wildly addictive chemicals that are 100s or 1000s of times stronger than what users are paying for. Needles are expensive and controlled so they get reused. Uppers are cut with many kinds of other amphetamines with awful downsides and agitation that lasts for days on end. Alcohol is so cheap and available we don’t even consider it a dangerous drug, but those dependent on it will die of incredibly painful seizures if they stop taking it. So put this all together and what we have is a nationwide mental health crisis being compounded by the fact that the easily available medicine people are using to self medicate is illegal, and that makes it dangerous. Making all drugs legal is only one small part in solving the problem, but if it was legal we wouldn’t be dealing with homemade meth, fentanyl, relapse overdoses, and death by involuntary withdrawal (i.e., running out of money for the drug you are physically dependent on). Legalized drugs won’t cause your children or loved ones to start doing drugs, a lack of opportunity will.
- rantwasp 5y ago
  this person get it. my theory is that poverty and social inequality in general (as a precursor of poverty) are at a root of a lot of things. It's very easy to pay lip service to X, Y and Z and ignore the elephant in the room.
- pmoriarty 5y ago
  "Making all drugs legal is only the first step to solving the problem, but if it was legal we wouldn't be dealing with homemade meth, fentanyl, overdoses, and death by involuntary withdrawal..." I'm 110% for legalization, but we need to set realistic expectations. Legalization will make drug use way, way, way safer and lots less people will die and have their lives ruined (both from safer drugs and because they're not getting arrested, separated from their families, imprisoned, or killed by the police, etc..). But overdoses will still happen because some people will still: 1 - intentionally overdose to kill themselves 2 - mix drugs, which is usually way more dangerous than using a single drug, and (depending on the drugs) how they interact might not even be known, so no safe dosage can be ascertained even if both were perfectly legal.. incidentally, mixing any of a large variety of drugs with alcohol is one of the deadliest combinations 3 - while on drugs people tend not to make the most carefully considered decisions, including whether to take more Of course, all of this is still possible and still done even when drugs are illegal, and making drugs legal will improve almost all of these outcomes (except intentional suicide), since at least the drugs in question will be of known purity and dosage.. but there will still be overdoses (just a lot less of them).
lm28469 5y ago
Decriminalising the use, even of hard drugs, seems to be a net negative for society (see Portugal's case [0]) They're not going to sell meth at walmart if that's what you're worried about. People addicted to hard drugs are not going to stop because it's illegal, and people who aren't already addicted won't start shooting heroin all of a sudden because it's decriminalised [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal#Observations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal#Observ...

godelski 5y ago

What's crazy to me is almost 70% of Americans are in favor[0], with about 50% of Republicans being on board (48% Republicans, 72% Independents, 83% Democrats). It is insane to me that the Democrats are not pushing this forward. It is an easy win. It creates more jobs. It is the only think you can say "we're going to put a 30% tax on the sale of" and people will rejoice. I just don't get it. It's roughly the same as support for gay marriage is _today_[1] (I 'm not trying to use the comparison as a human rights issue but because it is another controversial topic where people can guesstimate how controversial the opinion is) I can understand how they are more hesitant with other drugs and possession (though I'm with you on full decriminalization like Oregon did), but I at least understand this one. I _do not_ understand how weed isn't legal yet. It's very popular, profitable, and will help reduce issues in South America. Edit: I think there even is a double win strategy. First you reschedule the drug. Second you legalize it. So even if you want to play political games there's advantage. The numbers above were for full legalization but they just rise when you include medicinal (less people are ready for full legalization but in favor of medical and rescheduling). [0] https://news.gallup.com/poll/323582/support-legal-marijuana-inches-new-high.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/323582/support-legal-marijuana-... [1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same-sex-marriage.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same...

dabfiend19 5y ago
if the taxes are too high, the market will fail and the majority of people will still use the black market. they'll get a lower tax yield and less safety for users.
- rtpg 5y ago
  yeah but "lower the tax rate" is a lot easier of an incremental policy change than "litigate the tax rate on cannabis before legalization even happens".
- godelski 5y ago
  I'm just saying, in Washington there's a 37% tax rate... so clearly you can get it pretty high. Probably because weed is cheaper even with the tax than it was on the black market.

tolbish 5y ago

Not to pull the "think of the children" card, but if it were as easy for kids to obtain heroin as it is for them to obtain alcohol...

rantwasp 5y ago
it's not easy for kids to obtain alcohol. Also, if your safety net is that big brother is going to prevent your kid from doing heroin... well... you're gonna have a bad time. Education is key. Having a good and nurturing relationship with your kid is key. Anecdotally: there are places in the world where kids can have alcohol even as young as 10-12. Not legally, but within the family and it's not taboo for a kid to try it out if they're curios. I'm going to let you guess which places have more trouble with alcohol abuse: places where it's treated like any other thing and kids can try it or places where it's illegal to drink it until you're 18 or 21.
- tolbish 5y ago
  Your anecdote demonstrates how easy it is for kids obtain alcohol.
  - rantwasp 5y ago
    was talking us vs other places in the world.
onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
Most people aren't going to stick a needle into their arm to get high unless they've tried many other drugs already. And given alternatives, most people probably wouldn't try it - especially given it's reputation.
- tolbish 5y ago
  Heroin can be smoked, from what I hear.
cloverich 5y ago

29athrowaway 5y ago

Legalization of alcohol, marijuana, psylocibin, etc. is not the same as the legalization of opioids and other more destructive drugs. IMO, dealers should be punished harshly and addicts should be treated as patients rather than criminals.

rantwasp 5y ago
the point is people 1) should be educated 2) should make up their own damn minds.

qwerty456127 5y ago

> legalize ALL drugs It's worth mentioning that legalization doesn't mean unregulated availability to everybody. Ironically, getting even non-narcotic prescription meds often is harder than it is to get illegal substances.