13 ms·

What makes you think that legalisation would mean social acceptance? It doesn't.

nobody9999 5y ago
> What makes you think that legalisation would mean social acceptance? >It doesn't. Absolutely correct. cf. Tobacco smoking.
- OJFord 5y ago
  I'm not so sure about that, it's illegal indoors (publicly) in the UK since 2005 iirc, my impression is that it's less 'socially acceptable', to the extent that can be quantified, now than it was when smokers and non-smokers shared a pub.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >I'm not so sure about that, it's illegal indoors (publicly) in the UK since 2005 iirc, my impression is that it's less 'socially acceptable', to the extent that can be quantified, now than it was when smokers and non-smokers shared a pub. A reasonable point. However, smoking indoors is illegal because smoking is less 'socially acceptable', not the other way around. There has been, over the last 30 years or so, a concerted effort (with warnings on US cigarette packs, more dire ones on UK packs, and disgusting photos on packs elsewhere in Europe), as well as marketing/advertising pushes to make smoking less acceptable. And (in the US, at least, not sure about elsewhere), many fewer people smoke and those who do are often harassed/berated even when they smoke where it's legal to do so. As such, I'd expect similar results (given similar efforts) for other drugs. Before/after photos of meth heads/heroin addicts on packaging, marketing/advertising efforts, etc. would likely have a similar effect. What's more (again, at least in the US, although I'd expect it'd be true wherever such drugs are criminalized), the costs associated with such efforts, as well as treatment programs for those who need them, would be significantly less costly than the monies spent on interdiction, enforcement and incarceration. Perhaps I'm missing something important here?
    - jollybean 5y ago
      "smoking indoors is illegal because smoking is less 'socially acceptable'" No - this is false. It's illegal because it's harmful to others - and - it's generally a nuisance i.e. it really smells quite a lot. Chewing tobacco is completely legal 'indoors' and it has many of the same negative effects. It's not even up for consideration in terms of banning. You can chew it on the Subway, at the Office. "Perhaps I'm missing something important here?" Yes, you're missing the fact that we already do heavy suppression of Meth/Heroin i.e. teaching kids how terrible it is, featuring it in films as extremely negative, positioning it as 'totally socially taboo and unacceptable behaviour'. Selling it in stores legally is both an increase in availability, and a significant reduction in social taboo. This is not even an argument. Widespread availability and lessening of social taboos of an extremely addictive substance, which addicts develop a tolerance for and quickly move onto more powerful substances (Fentanyl) would yield a major public health crisis. We already have on on our hands. 70 000 dead from OD in the USA in 2019 - and rising 32 000 car accident deaths in the USA 2019 - and going down It's growing quite a lot in the Midwest. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/deaths/2013-2017-increase.html https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/deaths/2013-2017-increase.h...
      - nobody9999 5y ago
        >"smoking indoors is illegal because smoking is less 'socially acceptable'" >No - this is false. >It's illegal because it's harmful to others - and - it's generally a nuisance i.e. it really smells quite a lot. And it was less harmful or a nuisance before it became illegal? And it smelled less too? Please. Smoking indoors was banned because of the effort to make it less socially acceptable. If it were otherwise, those bans would have been in place 40 years ago. We knew it was harmful in the 1960s (actually, even before that, but various societies didn't start trying to make it less socially acceptable until the 1970s). It wasn't until the 1990s/2000s when such bans went into effect. Why? Because smoking had become less socially acceptable -- through conscious efforts[0][1] over decades to make it so. >Chewing tobacco is completely legal 'indoors' and it has many of the same negative effects. It's not even up for consideration in terms of banning. You can chew it on the Subway, at the Office. So what? I was (and explicitly said so) talking about smoking, not chew. You are apparently ignorant of history. Which makes it hard to have a conversation that, for obvious reasons, needs to take that history into account. So let's not. [0] https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/tobacco-industry-marketing/what-do-tobacco-advertising-restrictions-look-today https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/tobacco-indus... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nicotine_marketing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nicotine_marketi...
- jollybean 5y ago
  "Absolutely correct. cf. Tobacco smoking. " ??? Tobacco indicates to us that the answer is 'absolutely false', not 'absolutely correct' Smoking is absolutely a socially accepted behaviour. We ban it in certain areas largely because it's intrusive to others. It's not fully condoned obviously we don't put it in film or advertise it - but it is a widely consumed product. If Opiates ever reached the penetration of smoking, we'd have a situation as bad as COVID. We already have a public health crisis with Opiods, and they are very aggressively suppressed and controlled. True legalization (i.e. more than decriminalization) would wield some pretty scary problems. I don't even understand how this is not just a rhetorical argument.
jollybean 5y ago
Sure it does. Something that is illegal, is by definition a social taboo. The removal of that taboo implies more acceptance. The fact that more people use it will only increase acceptance by word of mouth etc. and that's at minimum. The only question is by how much will usage increase? Already, with severe legal restrictions and controls, opioid use is rapidly increasing the US, which is what we call 'extreme product market fit' (i.e. the drugs 'fits' our dopamine pathways) see [1] The other major factors are 1) addiction / tolerance and 2) self-medication 3) money, i.e. capitalism. As for 1) "Roughly 21 to 29 percent of patients prescribed Opioids for chronic pain misuse them" "An estimated 4 to 6 percent who misuse prescription Opioids transition to heroin." [2] Those are just simple, top line numbers, and very potent at that. Even with limited marketing and 'soft non-acceptance / promotion' - I believe it's something that vast numbers of people will seek it out 'just to party' or for 'the Vegas' trip etc. and especially for 2) i.e. as an easy painkiller/mood moderator which will leave a lot of people addicted. As for 3) If it's legal and profits can be made, they will be made. Investors at large may be 'moral' but there is always plenty of 'highly amoral' capital to do whatever, and in this case, it'd be producing the product with the most 'product market fit' in existence. Increased use of opiods etc. will have no upside, only downside. It has to be regulated and controlled, it's best to keep it at a minimum. In Canada they prescribe them by the pill, not the 1/2 bottle, i.e. you get a single pill for toot surgery because its just so addictive. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_epidemic_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Timeline._Overdose_deaths_involving_opioids,_United_States.gif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_epidemic_in_the_United_... [2] https://www.drugabuse.gov/drug-topics/opioids/opioid-overdose-crisis https://www.drugabuse.gov/drug-topics/opioids/opioid-overdos...
- arcticbull 5y ago
  > Something that is illegal, is by definition a social taboo. The removal of that taboo implies more acceptance. They're correlated, but it's not a causative relationship. It's not illegal for a dominatrix to step on your genitals and make you call her mommy. That's taboo, and legal. On the other hand, jaywalking is illegal - and not a taboo. > The only question is by how much will usage increase? That is the question, but I think we should be open to the answer being zero or even negative - just as we are open to the answer being positive. How much drug addiction and usage is furthered by throwing addicts into prison where the only escape is more drugs? How about the folks who make it out of prison but cannot get jobs because of their felony possession charges, who then lose their friends and family, and once again escape into drugs? This is a multifaceted challenge.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

> What makes you think that legalisation would mean social acceptance? >It doesn't. Absolutely correct. cf. Tobacco smoking.

OJFord 5y ago
I'm not so sure about that, it's illegal indoors (publicly) in the UK since 2005 iirc, my impression is that it's less 'socially acceptable', to the extent that can be quantified, now than it was when smokers and non-smokers shared a pub.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >I'm not so sure about that, it's illegal indoors (publicly) in the UK since 2005 iirc, my impression is that it's less 'socially acceptable', to the extent that can be quantified, now than it was when smokers and non-smokers shared a pub. A reasonable point. However, smoking indoors is illegal because smoking is less 'socially acceptable', not the other way around. There has been, over the last 30 years or so, a concerted effort (with warnings on US cigarette packs, more dire ones on UK packs, and disgusting photos on packs elsewhere in Europe), as well as marketing/advertising pushes to make smoking less acceptable. And (in the US, at least, not sure about elsewhere), many fewer people smoke and those who do are often harassed/berated even when they smoke where it's legal to do so. As such, I'd expect similar results (given similar efforts) for other drugs. Before/after photos of meth heads/heroin addicts on packaging, marketing/advertising efforts, etc. would likely have a similar effect. What's more (again, at least in the US, although I'd expect it'd be true wherever such drugs are criminalized), the costs associated with such efforts, as well as treatment programs for those who need them, would be significantly less costly than the monies spent on interdiction, enforcement and incarceration. Perhaps I'm missing something important here?
  - jollybean 5y ago
    "smoking indoors is illegal because smoking is less 'socially acceptable'" No - this is false. It's illegal because it's harmful to others - and - it's generally a nuisance i.e. it really smells quite a lot. Chewing tobacco is completely legal 'indoors' and it has many of the same negative effects. It's not even up for consideration in terms of banning. You can chew it on the Subway, at the Office. "Perhaps I'm missing something important here?" Yes, you're missing the fact that we already do heavy suppression of Meth/Heroin i.e. teaching kids how terrible it is, featuring it in films as extremely negative, positioning it as 'totally socially taboo and unacceptable behaviour'. Selling it in stores legally is both an increase in availability, and a significant reduction in social taboo. This is not even an argument. Widespread availability and lessening of social taboos of an extremely addictive substance, which addicts develop a tolerance for and quickly move onto more powerful substances (Fentanyl) would yield a major public health crisis. We already have on on our hands. 70 000 dead from OD in the USA in 2019 - and rising 32 000 car accident deaths in the USA 2019 - and going down It's growing quite a lot in the Midwest. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/deaths/2013-2017-increase.html https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/deaths/2013-2017-increase.h...
    - nobody9999 5y ago
      >"smoking indoors is illegal because smoking is less 'socially acceptable'" >No - this is false. >It's illegal because it's harmful to others - and - it's generally a nuisance i.e. it really smells quite a lot. And it was less harmful or a nuisance before it became illegal? And it smelled less too? Please. Smoking indoors was banned because of the effort to make it less socially acceptable. If it were otherwise, those bans would have been in place 40 years ago. We knew it was harmful in the 1960s (actually, even before that, but various societies didn't start trying to make it less socially acceptable until the 1970s). It wasn't until the 1990s/2000s when such bans went into effect. Why? Because smoking had become less socially acceptable -- through conscious efforts[0][1] over decades to make it so. >Chewing tobacco is completely legal 'indoors' and it has many of the same negative effects. It's not even up for consideration in terms of banning. You can chew it on the Subway, at the Office. So what? I was (and explicitly said so) talking about smoking, not chew. You are apparently ignorant of history. Which makes it hard to have a conversation that, for obvious reasons, needs to take that history into account. So let's not. [0] https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/tobacco-industry-marketing/what-do-tobacco-advertising-restrictions-look-today https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/tobacco-indus... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nicotine_marketing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nicotine_marketi...
jollybean 5y ago
"Absolutely correct. cf. Tobacco smoking. " ??? Tobacco indicates to us that the answer is 'absolutely false', not 'absolutely correct' Smoking is absolutely a socially accepted behaviour. We ban it in certain areas largely because it's intrusive to others. It's not fully condoned obviously we don't put it in film or advertise it - but it is a widely consumed product. If Opiates ever reached the penetration of smoking, we'd have a situation as bad as COVID. We already have a public health crisis with Opiods, and they are very aggressively suppressed and controlled. True legalization (i.e. more than decriminalization) would wield some pretty scary problems. I don't even understand how this is not just a rhetorical argument.

jollybean 5y ago

Sure it does. Something that is illegal, is by definition a social taboo. The removal of that taboo implies more acceptance. The fact that more people use it will only increase acceptance by word of mouth etc. and that's at minimum. The only question is by how much will usage increase? Already, with severe legal restrictions and controls, opioid use is rapidly increasing the US, which is what we call 'extreme product market fit' (i.e. the drugs 'fits' our dopamine pathways) see [1] The other major factors are 1) addiction / tolerance and 2) self-medication 3) money, i.e. capitalism. As for 1) "Roughly 21 to 29 percent of patients prescribed Opioids for chronic pain misuse them" "An estimated 4 to 6 percent who misuse prescription Opioids transition to heroin." [2] Those are just simple, top line numbers, and very potent at that. Even with limited marketing and 'soft non-acceptance / promotion' - I believe it's something that vast numbers of people will seek it out 'just to party' or for 'the Vegas' trip etc. and especially for 2) i.e. as an easy painkiller/mood moderator which will leave a lot of people addicted. As for 3) If it's legal and profits can be made, they will be made. Investors at large may be 'moral' but there is always plenty of 'highly amoral' capital to do whatever, and in this case, it'd be producing the product with the most 'product market fit' in existence. Increased use of opiods etc. will have no upside, only downside. It has to be regulated and controlled, it's best to keep it at a minimum. In Canada they prescribe them by the pill, not the 1/2 bottle, i.e. you get a single pill for toot surgery because its just so addictive. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_epidemic_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Timeline._Overdose_deaths_involving_opioids,_United_States.gif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_epidemic_in_the_United_... [2] https://www.drugabuse.gov/drug-topics/opioids/opioid-overdose-crisis https://www.drugabuse.gov/drug-topics/opioids/opioid-overdos...

arcticbull 5y ago
> Something that is illegal, is by definition a social taboo. The removal of that taboo implies more acceptance. They're correlated, but it's not a causative relationship. It's not illegal for a dominatrix to step on your genitals and make you call her mommy. That's taboo, and legal. On the other hand, jaywalking is illegal - and not a taboo. > The only question is by how much will usage increase? That is the question, but I think we should be open to the answer being zero or even negative - just as we are open to the answer being positive. How much drug addiction and usage is furthered by throwing addicts into prison where the only escape is more drugs? How about the folks who make it out of prison but cannot get jobs because of their felony possession charges, who then lose their friends and family, and once again escape into drugs? This is a multifaceted challenge.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]