13 ms·

I think drugs should be legal (or decriminalized) but probably with at least two categories, which no doubt causes it's own set of problems: 1. Recreational, l

I think drugs should be legal (or decriminalized) but probably with at least two categories, which no doubt causes it's own set of problems: 1. Recreational, like marijuana and alcohol and many hallucinogens, where regulating and taxing is the best solution, to deter organized crime and make sure people are getting the product they want to get 2. Harmful (and the definition is tough here) like meth and heroin, where the goal is something closer to medically supervised use, and breaking the habit where appropriate, but also making sure people are getting real drugs and not resorting to more dangerous alternatives or those of unknown origin. The point isn't that drugs are good, it's that people will do them anyway, so how do you remove the criminal element and keep people safer under the circumstances. I agree that they shouldn't sell meth at convenience stores, but someone addicted should be able to talk to a doctor and get it, and not have to buy some dangerous unknown thing off the street. I imagine if this happened, the next fight would be social control advocate groups pushing for currently legal drugs (alcohol) to me moved to my category 2. People's own puritan values and a hatred of the idea that someone else may be enjoying themselves in a way they don't endorse are a (the) main root cause of all the societal problems with drugs imo

rectang 5y ago
The main question is not about the freedom of users, but about the freedom of the sort of entrepreneurs who read Hacker News to market legal drugs to heavy users as aggressively as possible. Addicts are where the money is. If you want to make bank on drugs, it's all about speeding up the downward spiral of addiction and extracting maximum value from addicts while they're spiraling.
cgh 5y ago
Yeah, I agree on all points (I’m a proponent of legalization and live in a country with legal pot). I’ve witnessed first-hand the effects of prolonged meth addiction and it is not pretty. Your point of making it available by prescription is the good and obvious path. But will still be available as a party drug via illegal means of production and distribution.
- pas 5y ago
  Make it legal as a party drog in a form that makes it very hard to overdose. (Also there should be delayed and extended release version, which lowers the chance of addiction forming.) Also there's no reason to not regulate some stuff like sportcars. Go to a speedway go fast there, not where kids play on the street.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    Addicts with the "normal" meth vs "delayed" meth would still seek out the "normal" version.
    - pas 5y ago
      Current addicts need treatment anyway. If they can't find meth they will use bath salts or whatever their dealer can get them. The important question is about harm reduction. People trying drugs without support. The current system already produces addicts. Can a different system lead to better results, plus as a side-quest defunds the cartels?
      - dylan604 5y ago
        What addicts need and what addicts want are totally different concepts. You're looking at this like legalizing drugs will make addicts all suddenly see the light and seek treatment. That's just living in lalaland. Sure, some might, but that's not going to be a large percentage. I'm looking at this like I've been around too many addicts and know that legalization social programs will not solve addiction at all.
- Bellend 5y ago
  It's such a difficult topic. In the very very end, the person has to decide to make an effort to come off the drug. Their pathways are either become a mess (I got nothing to live for) or OD. If that is the option, is some kind of local drug room the only solution? Get everything free here consumed on the premises and we will keep an eye on you over the X days/months/years and try to help you, sectioned upstairs for 3 months if needed?
eptcyka 5y ago
But meth already is being sold to the public. At pharmacies and with a prescription, not to the general public in convenience stores. I don't think that people hate seeing others having fun, but rather its the demonization of drugs in the post war era to quell social movements that has now entrenched a deep hatered to substances not blessed back then that is the bigger issue.
- xyzzyz 5y ago
  Prescription meth use is much different than recreational use. Dosages are way larger, and so is method of administration. This makes enormous difference. Consider dextrometorphan. This is a common over the counter cough medication. It can also be used recreationally - but the recreational dose is 30 times the therapeutic dose. Amphetamine is similar: methheads are not swallowing a single pill of Adderall, like medical users are.
- asxd 5y ago
  Maybe you mean Adderall? I've read methamphetamine is sometimes prescribed, but my understanding is it's extremely rare. There is a real problem with some drugs that become physically addictive. A person can fairly easily drink alcohol or take adderall regularly without suffering physical withdrawals. I'm not so sure this would be the case with heroin, for instance. I don't think in those instances the drugs were demonized to quell social movements, but because they were substances that too easily consumed people's lives.
  - gavinray 5y ago
    No, they mean "Desoxyn", literal D-Methamphetamine. GoodRx hilariously has great meth coupons: https://m.goodrx.com/desoxyn https://m.goodrx.com/desoxyn
    - asxd 5y ago
      Oh my, that's hilarious, in a twisted sort of way. I was aware that meth was prescribed, but I guess I had no reference point for how prevalent it might be.
dillondoyle 5y ago
It's very easy to make an argument alcohol is more dangerous than heroin. especially in a regulated market with clean well dosed drugs. Alcohol already kills more people than heroin. Sure you could argue maybe perhaps more people will do heroin if it's legal, but I highly doubt that. I 100% agree on the puritan social preaching being a hinderance to support. People don't want to "support someones addiction" which means basically no resources. I'm for full legalization personally.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  Here's an Economist article which breaks down drug harm, and ranks drugs accordingly. The chart shows that in totality, alcohol does more harm than heroin. [1] [1] https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/06/25/what-is-the-most-dangerous-drug https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/06/25/what-is-...
  - version_five 5y ago
    Any study like this takes a very narrow view of good vs bad. Can we even begin to quantify how much good alcohol has done? The amount of fun and sociability it contributes to is staggering. Same with marijuana and no doubt other drugs (i have basically no knowledge of the upside of hard drugs so can't speak to it, but if you google Benzidrine there is an Atlantic article that mentions amphetamine and some upside). I don't disagree that there are vary bad sides to drug use, same as for driving, soda pop, cheese, whatever. But we shouldn't pretend in a vacuum that there are not also positives, and short of severe societal consequences (like with some hard drugs, perhaps) people should generally be able to choose for themselves
    - belval 5y ago
      Those studies also often disregard the fact that alcohol consumption is not always (even often) for intoxication, people drink wine and cocktails for the enjoyment of the drink itself, not so much for the effect it has on their behaviour.
ocdtrekkie 5y ago
The problem with this is simple: A lot of people have agreed marijuana and hallucinogens are harmful, and only alcohol classed in recreation. Prohibition was obviously when alcohol was also considered harmful, and arguably it only crossed the bar back into recreational because enforcement failed so spectacularly. Which is to say, your idea only makes sense as long as everyone agrees with your classification, which has generally not been the case.
forrestthewoods 5y ago
I don’t understand how anyone can walk around downtown Seattle or San Francisco and say “yes I think legalized OTC heroin and meth is a great idea”.
- TylerE 5y ago
  Do you think it being illegal is stoping people form using those drugs?
  - forrestthewoods 5y ago
    Obviously not. Do I think making those drugs legal and purchasable over the counter would make the situation better or worse? Worse, much worse.
    - TylerE 5y ago
      Really? From where I'm sitting, the major negative externalities are overdose deaths' (which are mostly for spiked doses/things not not being what they claimed) and gang activity. Legalization makes both of those go away.
- version_five 5y ago
  Because the situation in these cities is largely from the criminalization of drugs?
- vkou 5y ago
  Living in one, and visting the other, I would say that both cities would be better off if addicts could get it at a dispensary, instead of the dealer on 2nd and Pine. But it's true, there are some people who think that having an addict cause $5000 worth of damage to steal a $500 item that they'll pawn for $50 is preferable to just giving him a goddamn prescription. [1] At least with the status quo, nobody's conscience is troubled... If your goal is to stop people from being high, criminalization isn't doing it. If your goal is to stop people from taking more and more drugs until they eventually overdose, it's not doing that either. If your goal is to stop functional addicts from going down the drain into non-functional addiction, you're not even hitting the same ball park. [1] With an optional bonus level of spending $50,000 to prosecute and incarcerate and dump right back onto the street, if your town is into that sort of thing.
servytor 5y ago
This documentary on Seattle's homeless problem[0] says that homelessness and drug addiction are the same thing. It claims that almost every homeless person is addicted, and that society as a whole is ignoring the connection for some reason. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpAi70WWBlw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpAi70WWBlw
- version_five 5y ago
  I watched the first few minutes, I think I understand the angle. Do you think there is a causal relationship? I have no doubt that homeless people use drugs in a bad way, and I think homeless problems as described are disgusting and wouldn't want to live somewhere like that. But I think the homelessness and drug use are symptoms of the same problem, untreated mental illness, western society generally... people who think that more criminalization of drugs will make this better are living in a dream world. Do they have these problems in Norway and Portugal? I don't believe it's anywhere near like this, and I don't thinks it's because they are tougher on drugs (I'm open to bein told differently though). Drugs are not some evil waiting to corrupt weak people, they are recreation for most people, and a dangerous escape for a few. Pretending they are a cause instead of a symptom doesnt help anyone
tjs8rj 5y ago
While I agree with most of what you said, the idea that people are only against drugs because of backwardness or selfishness seems off. Is there any society that didn’t ban most drugs? My preference to ban drugs mainly comes from the harm and way they hack the brain to lower the barrier of that harm. And because they are so powerful, not only do I think it’s immoral to have that harm done to another person, I also think it makes society worse when significant chunks of the population are incapacitated (and hampered from a better life) due to an addictive substance. Another example of this is gambling, or social media to a lesser degree. We all agree they have harmful effects to the individual, and have strong capacity to make society worse for everyone - even if you don’t participate. So we’re better off in the long term if we contain their addictive powers. As far as I can tell that’s a pretty progressive and empathetic opinion.
mam4 5y ago
Despite the insane propaganda these days i'm not sure weed is "not harmful" when i look at my friends who turned to it in times of sadness. It's wayy worse than alchool in terms of damage. And i do all kind of hard drugs

rectang 5y ago

The main question is not about the freedom of users, but about the freedom of the sort of entrepreneurs who read Hacker News to market legal drugs to heavy users as aggressively as possible. Addicts are where the money is. If you want to make bank on drugs, it's all about speeding up the downward spiral of addiction and extracting maximum value from addicts while they're spiraling.

cgh 5y ago

Yeah, I agree on all points (I’m a proponent of legalization and live in a country with legal pot). I’ve witnessed first-hand the effects of prolonged meth addiction and it is not pretty. Your point of making it available by prescription is the good and obvious path. But will still be available as a party drug via illegal means of production and distribution.

pas 5y ago
Make it legal as a party drog in a form that makes it very hard to overdose. (Also there should be delayed and extended release version, which lowers the chance of addiction forming.) Also there's no reason to not regulate some stuff like sportcars. Go to a speedway go fast there, not where kids play on the street.
- dylan604 5y ago
  Addicts with the "normal" meth vs "delayed" meth would still seek out the "normal" version.
  - pas 5y ago
    Current addicts need treatment anyway. If they can't find meth they will use bath salts or whatever their dealer can get them. The important question is about harm reduction. People trying drugs without support. The current system already produces addicts. Can a different system lead to better results, plus as a side-quest defunds the cartels?
    - dylan604 5y ago
      What addicts need and what addicts want are totally different concepts. You're looking at this like legalizing drugs will make addicts all suddenly see the light and seek treatment. That's just living in lalaland. Sure, some might, but that's not going to be a large percentage. I'm looking at this like I've been around too many addicts and know that legalization social programs will not solve addiction at all.
Bellend 5y ago
It's such a difficult topic. In the very very end, the person has to decide to make an effort to come off the drug. Their pathways are either become a mess (I got nothing to live for) or OD. If that is the option, is some kind of local drug room the only solution? Get everything free here consumed on the premises and we will keep an eye on you over the X days/months/years and try to help you, sectioned upstairs for 3 months if needed?

eptcyka 5y ago

But meth already is being sold to the public. At pharmacies and with a prescription, not to the general public in convenience stores. I don't think that people hate seeing others having fun, but rather its the demonization of drugs in the post war era to quell social movements that has now entrenched a deep hatered to substances not blessed back then that is the bigger issue.

xyzzyz 5y ago
Prescription meth use is much different than recreational use. Dosages are way larger, and so is method of administration. This makes enormous difference. Consider dextrometorphan. This is a common over the counter cough medication. It can also be used recreationally - but the recreational dose is 30 times the therapeutic dose. Amphetamine is similar: methheads are not swallowing a single pill of Adderall, like medical users are.
asxd 5y ago
Maybe you mean Adderall? I've read methamphetamine is sometimes prescribed, but my understanding is it's extremely rare. There is a real problem with some drugs that become physically addictive. A person can fairly easily drink alcohol or take adderall regularly without suffering physical withdrawals. I'm not so sure this would be the case with heroin, for instance. I don't think in those instances the drugs were demonized to quell social movements, but because they were substances that too easily consumed people's lives.
- gavinray 5y ago
  No, they mean "Desoxyn", literal D-Methamphetamine. GoodRx hilariously has great meth coupons: https://m.goodrx.com/desoxyn https://m.goodrx.com/desoxyn
  - asxd 5y ago
    Oh my, that's hilarious, in a twisted sort of way. I was aware that meth was prescribed, but I guess I had no reference point for how prevalent it might be.

dillondoyle 5y ago

It's very easy to make an argument alcohol is more dangerous than heroin. especially in a regulated market with clean well dosed drugs. Alcohol already kills more people than heroin. Sure you could argue maybe perhaps more people will do heroin if it's legal, but I highly doubt that. I 100% agree on the puritan social preaching being a hinderance to support. People don't want to "support someones addiction" which means basically no resources. I'm for full legalization personally.

arcticbull 5y ago
Here's an Economist article which breaks down drug harm, and ranks drugs accordingly. The chart shows that in totality, alcohol does more harm than heroin. [1] [1] https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/06/25/what-is-the-most-dangerous-drug https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/06/25/what-is-...
- version_five 5y ago
  Any study like this takes a very narrow view of good vs bad. Can we even begin to quantify how much good alcohol has done? The amount of fun and sociability it contributes to is staggering. Same with marijuana and no doubt other drugs (i have basically no knowledge of the upside of hard drugs so can't speak to it, but if you google Benzidrine there is an Atlantic article that mentions amphetamine and some upside). I don't disagree that there are vary bad sides to drug use, same as for driving, soda pop, cheese, whatever. But we shouldn't pretend in a vacuum that there are not also positives, and short of severe societal consequences (like with some hard drugs, perhaps) people should generally be able to choose for themselves
  - belval 5y ago
    Those studies also often disregard the fact that alcohol consumption is not always (even often) for intoxication, people drink wine and cocktails for the enjoyment of the drink itself, not so much for the effect it has on their behaviour.

ocdtrekkie 5y ago

The problem with this is simple: A lot of people have agreed marijuana and hallucinogens are harmful, and only alcohol classed in recreation. Prohibition was obviously when alcohol was also considered harmful, and arguably it only crossed the bar back into recreational because enforcement failed so spectacularly. Which is to say, your idea only makes sense as long as everyone agrees with your classification, which has generally not been the case.

forrestthewoods 5y ago

I don’t understand how anyone can walk around downtown Seattle or San Francisco and say “yes I think legalized OTC heroin and meth is a great idea”.

TylerE 5y ago
Do you think it being illegal is stoping people form using those drugs?
- forrestthewoods 5y ago
  Obviously not. Do I think making those drugs legal and purchasable over the counter would make the situation better or worse? Worse, much worse.
  - TylerE 5y ago
    Really? From where I'm sitting, the major negative externalities are overdose deaths' (which are mostly for spiked doses/things not not being what they claimed) and gang activity. Legalization makes both of those go away.
version_five 5y ago
Because the situation in these cities is largely from the criminalization of drugs?
vkou 5y ago
Living in one, and visting the other, I would say that both cities would be better off if addicts could get it at a dispensary, instead of the dealer on 2nd and Pine. But it's true, there are some people who think that having an addict cause $5000 worth of damage to steal a $500 item that they'll pawn for $50 is preferable to just giving him a goddamn prescription. [1] At least with the status quo, nobody's conscience is troubled... If your goal is to stop people from being high, criminalization isn't doing it. If your goal is to stop people from taking more and more drugs until they eventually overdose, it's not doing that either. If your goal is to stop functional addicts from going down the drain into non-functional addiction, you're not even hitting the same ball park. [1] With an optional bonus level of spending $50,000 to prosecute and incarcerate and dump right back onto the street, if your town is into that sort of thing.

servytor 5y ago

This documentary on Seattle's homeless problem[0] says that homelessness and drug addiction are the same thing. It claims that almost every homeless person is addicted, and that society as a whole is ignoring the connection for some reason. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpAi70WWBlw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpAi70WWBlw

version_five 5y ago
I watched the first few minutes, I think I understand the angle. Do you think there is a causal relationship? I have no doubt that homeless people use drugs in a bad way, and I think homeless problems as described are disgusting and wouldn't want to live somewhere like that. But I think the homelessness and drug use are symptoms of the same problem, untreated mental illness, western society generally... people who think that more criminalization of drugs will make this better are living in a dream world. Do they have these problems in Norway and Portugal? I don't believe it's anywhere near like this, and I don't thinks it's because they are tougher on drugs (I'm open to bein told differently though). Drugs are not some evil waiting to corrupt weak people, they are recreation for most people, and a dangerous escape for a few. Pretending they are a cause instead of a symptom doesnt help anyone

tjs8rj 5y ago

While I agree with most of what you said, the idea that people are only against drugs because of backwardness or selfishness seems off. Is there any society that didn’t ban most drugs? My preference to ban drugs mainly comes from the harm and way they hack the brain to lower the barrier of that harm. And because they are so powerful, not only do I think it’s immoral to have that harm done to another person, I also think it makes society worse when significant chunks of the population are incapacitated (and hampered from a better life) due to an addictive substance. Another example of this is gambling, or social media to a lesser degree. We all agree they have harmful effects to the individual, and have strong capacity to make society worse for everyone - even if you don’t participate. So we’re better off in the long term if we contain their addictive powers. As far as I can tell that’s a pretty progressive and empathetic opinion.

mam4 5y ago

Despite the insane propaganda these days i'm not sure weed is "not harmful" when i look at my friends who turned to it in times of sadness. It's wayy worse than alchool in terms of damage. And i do all kind of hard drugs