4 ms·

I think this might be mostly upside down. The cartels are not making money off of weed, or even relatively non-addictive psychedelics for which there is limite

I think this might be mostly upside down. The cartels are not making money off of weed, or even relatively non-addictive psychedelics for which there is limited demand. The kinds of drugs they distribute, especially since the boom in synthetics are very harmful. We have an opioid epidemic that is growing rapidly, not unrelated to basic prescription use. This is happening even in places like Canada, where prescriptions are more tightly controlled. While some highly conscientious slice of the population can handle some recreational use (i.e. a few burning man friends), even among them there are those that will fall (a highly-paid, professional colleague died of an OD), and among the general population large swaths will be immediately consumed by addiction were drugs to be easily available. Decriminalization may have some positive effect, but if there are any restrictions at all, the Black market will still be enormous, with the 'legal' activity driving demeand for the illegal - probably the worst outcome. The amount gained in 'taxes' would be a pittance next to the massive public health crisis, or even the lost wages and productivity. I suggest some material % of the population, say 4-10% would be tied up in this activity at least to some extent, with a large cohort of that group being very adversely effected, and many simply deal. The social costs of widespread opioids/fentanyl, crack and meth would be disastrous. In the long run I think it would be worse than COVID, while it might entail fewer acute casualties, it would be a severe plague on civility that would be very difficult to unroot. If we increased addiction 20x via legalization, and then had to roll back legalization in order to deal with the crises, the 'cartels' that would appear would have 20x the market. Especially since the advent of much more powerful synthetics which addicts seem to prefer and demand, there's little doubt we have no choice but to keep these things out of the hands of people. It's a game of Supply and Demand and controlling access points, if we really wanted to do it, I think we could.

Nursie 5y ago
> Especially since the advent of much more powerful synthetics which addicts seem to prefer and demand Do we know this? Certainly the driver for the ever more powerful opiods seems to be the ease of smuggling smaller amounts, with users preferring the 'safer' opiates. (FWIW I don't think full, unrestricted legalisation of all drugs is a great plan, but there are various kinds of middle ground which may be better than either the status quo or a free for all)
- jollybean 5y ago
  Yup. Heroin addicts move onto Fentanyl because they develop a tolerance for the organic smack. They want 'the more potent stuff', they don't need the sales pitch, they demand it. This tolerance escalation is just a deadly concept, because it increases risk by that much more.
  - Nursie 5y ago
    I would be interested to know more about this, because I've seen people say (on forums, I've not been involved directly with heroin use or users), that fentanyl is pretty evil stuff, and it's commonly reported by them as something that's sold as heroin to the unsuspecting addict. Dealers pass it off because it's easier and cheaper to get, because suppliers find it easier to move. I've never heard of users deliberately going after it.
thizzbuzz 5y ago
> Especially since the advent of much more powerful synthetics which addicts seem to prefer and demand, there's little doubt we have no choice but to keep these things out of the hands of people. Nobody wants to get fentanyl-spiked heroin, dangerous synthetic cannabinoids, or random phenylethylamines with no history of human use when instead they could be respectively smoking opium, growing their own marijuana, and taking mushrooms as has been done for thousands of years. > While some highly conscientious slice of the population can handle some recreational use (i.e. a few burning man friends) So your asshole Burning Man tech-bro friends can get a pass, but the lower classes must pay for the same transgressions. > If we increased addiction 20x via legalization, and then had to roll back legalization in order to deal with the crises, the 'cartels' that would appear would have 20x the market. It's absolutely absurd to think that addiction would rise 20x. For a lot of drugs and their current rates of usage that's probably not even possible! Actually think about it, if heroin suddenly became legal would you personally just go out and buy it? Because of where I have lived for the last decade it would be easy to get high-quality heroin within 30 minutes, with no risk other than a $5 bribe, but I have never had any urge to go out and buy heroin. Why would I? I have even tried heroin once in the distant past and used other drugs frequently like cocaine, mushrooms, LSD, MDMA, opium, etc... I could still get most of these but have no interest. This comment and the other you've made on this article are so filled with contorted arguments that it's difficult to even start.

Nursie 5y ago

> Especially since the advent of much more powerful synthetics which addicts seem to prefer and demand Do we know this? Certainly the driver for the ever more powerful opiods seems to be the ease of smuggling smaller amounts, with users preferring the 'safer' opiates. (FWIW I don't think full, unrestricted legalisation of all drugs is a great plan, but there are various kinds of middle ground which may be better than either the status quo or a free for all)

jollybean 5y ago
Yup. Heroin addicts move onto Fentanyl because they develop a tolerance for the organic smack. They want 'the more potent stuff', they don't need the sales pitch, they demand it. This tolerance escalation is just a deadly concept, because it increases risk by that much more.
- Nursie 5y ago
  I would be interested to know more about this, because I've seen people say (on forums, I've not been involved directly with heroin use or users), that fentanyl is pretty evil stuff, and it's commonly reported by them as something that's sold as heroin to the unsuspecting addict. Dealers pass it off because it's easier and cheaper to get, because suppliers find it easier to move. I've never heard of users deliberately going after it.

thizzbuzz 5y ago

> Especially since the advent of much more powerful synthetics which addicts seem to prefer and demand, there's little doubt we have no choice but to keep these things out of the hands of people. Nobody wants to get fentanyl-spiked heroin, dangerous synthetic cannabinoids, or random phenylethylamines with no history of human use when instead they could be respectively smoking opium, growing their own marijuana, and taking mushrooms as has been done for thousands of years. > While some highly conscientious slice of the population can handle some recreational use (i.e. a few burning man friends) So your asshole Burning Man tech-bro friends can get a pass, but the lower classes must pay for the same transgressions. > If we increased addiction 20x via legalization, and then had to roll back legalization in order to deal with the crises, the 'cartels' that would appear would have 20x the market. It's absolutely absurd to think that addiction would rise 20x. For a lot of drugs and their current rates of usage that's probably not even possible! Actually think about it, if heroin suddenly became legal would you personally just go out and buy it? Because of where I have lived for the last decade it would be easy to get high-quality heroin within 30 minutes, with no risk other than a $5 bribe, but I have never had any urge to go out and buy heroin. Why would I? I have even tried heroin once in the distant past and used other drugs frequently like cocaine, mushrooms, LSD, MDMA, opium, etc... I could still get most of these but have no interest. This comment and the other you've made on this article are so filled with contorted arguments that it's difficult to even start.