6 ms·

People should have a right to do with their minds and bodies whatever they want without interference from others. Keeping drugs illegal harms countless users,

People should have a right to do with their minds and bodies whatever they want without interference from others. Keeping drugs illegal harms countless users, who can't be sure the drug they're using isn't cut with something harmful or is what they though they were getting or isn't too pure (all of which are the major causes of overdoses and deaths). Throwing people in jail also harms them and their families (and risks them getting killed or maimed during arrest or while in jail). Jail itself is a training ground for criminals, and many inmates come out more hardened criminals, and they're forced in to committing more crimes because once they've been in jails many legal jobs are closed to them because most companies don't want to hire people with a criminal record. Society also wastes billions of dollars on fighting the War on Drugs, which could be used much more productively, especially as the War on Drugs is so ineffective and actually hurts millions of people world-wide, causes organized crime to thrive, and even destabilizes governments when organized crime gets too powerful and starts corrupting/killing politicians, lawyers, journalists, and judges... etc. Addiction should be treated as a medical issue, not a criminal one.

jimbob45 4y ago
It sounds like you’ve never had to deal with an addict in your close personal circle. I’m glad for you. When addicts cannot find a supply of their chosen drug, they’ll steal from anyone, even those closest to them, to fund their addiction. If they go homeless, you can’t give them money because you can’t trust that they won’t just use it to buy more drugs. This is to ignore the fact that buying most hard drugs directly funds the Mexican drug cartels and the atrocities they commit in many countries. This is also to ignore the terrible and unrecoverable health effects that many drugs have. Have you heard of meth mouth? Meth rots your teeth no matter how much you brush them [0]. It also causes permanent brain damage but I find that the kind of people pushing to legalize meth find losing teeth to be a worse outcome. Jail isn’t the best outcome for inmates, sure, but it’s the cheapest. If you’re a Governor of a US state and your voters see that you took money away from schools, the police, the fire department, or the roads to give to addicts instead, you’re not going to get re-elected. [0] https://www.mouthhealthy.org/en/az-topics/m/meth-mouth https://www.mouthhealthy.org/en/az-topics/m/meth-mouth
- Tenoke 4y ago
  Nobody is arguing that there aren't cases where drugs have negative effects. What's argued it whether banning or allowing them has more negative effects.
- thebean11 4y ago
  Agree with most of your comment, but I think "meth mouth" is pretty much debunked. It's the lifestyle of a meth addict that rots your teeth not the meth itself, nothing in your link claims it rots your teeth "no matter how much you brush them".
- dkjaudyeqooe 4y ago
  Drug addiction is a health issue. I have a close family member who was a fairly typical junkie now he is given a nice opiate substitute by state health system and he's a productive member of society. Most of the harm associated with drug addiction comes from societal demonizing of the addicted.
  - travisathougies 4y ago
    Rabies is also a health issue, yet that doesn't mean we let rabid people out on the streets to terrorize others. The government is also responsible for the reasonable safety of the public, and psychotic people (regardless of the cause) shouldn't be given free passes to be out in public.
    - hydrok9 4y ago
      the opiod substitute given to this person's relative made him no longer psychotic
      - travisathougies 4y ago
        I was responding to the claim that most of the societal harm comes from demonization. No it does not. It comes from the behavior of the addicts.
starkd 4y ago
The problem with that line of reasoning is that addiction inhibits a person's abitlity to reason about these issues. I'm sympathetic to the freedom of choice argument, but drugs are an exception. If you've ever had to deal with an addict, you know exactly what I mean. Drugs rewire your priorities in a big way. We can treat addiction as a medical issue, but the sad truth is that there really are no effective treatments that can be deployed on a mass scale. The relapse rate of even the best programs is pitifully high. The best treatment is public policy which does not encourage drug use in the first place, or at least, tries to minimize its use.
- nicoburns 4y ago
  I largely agree with the point about addiction, but it's worth noting that a lot of banned substances - notably MDMA, Cannabis, LSD, and Psilocybin - aren't particularly addictive.
  - starkd 4y ago
    True. I'm largely sympathetic to the argument for decriminalization. Just on the grounds there should be limits in using government to protect people from themselves. But it's too often proposed as a quick an easy fix. Society does have an obligation to keep people from falling into a pit with relatively modest measures.
- 52-6F-62 4y ago
  > If you've ever had to deal with an addict, you know exactly what I mean. Drugs rewire your priorities in a big way. Can we do something about money then? I know people who have spent years of their lives arguing over pointless differences in specifications that end up going into the trash bin because it pays them more money than something useful. Lives and years down the tube.
  - travisathougies 4y ago
    I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about, but certain behaviors towards money are discouraged, and in many places... outright banned. For example, the vast majority of states ban gambling outright, except in small sanctioned activities. Nevertheless, gambling takes place anyways, yet you rarely see any push to decriminalize commercial gambling
alldayeveryday 4y ago
- jtr1 4y ago
  I agree with your counterpoints, but I'm still in favor of decriminalization. Heavy drug use does have an effect on families and social institutions like healthcare, and it's short-sighted to think that the effects of drug legalization can be contained to private, individual behavior. That said, we're a half century into the drug war and it's obviously not working. As other commenters have pointed out, Portugal seems to have had success combining decriminalization with policies that actively push drug users toward addiction treatment.
  - travisathougies 4y ago
    > That said, we're a half century into the drug war and it's obviously not working. You know... despite what is commonly claimed, Prohibition worked great. During Prohibition cirrhosis was down, deaths from liver disease were down, and deaths due to drunkeness was down. The only thing not working was people wanted to get drunk. Given that no one here today has lived in a world where drugs available today are legal, how can we honestly claim that what we're doing is 100% ineffective and merits scrapping it? Few people here in favor of decriminalization are contending with the possibility that the situation we have today is better than what it would be were drugs decriminalized. Since no one's ever seen drugs being decriminalized, I don't understand how this claim is made with such confidence. And no.. Switzerland and Portugal are not comparable because what is being proposed here (and implemented in states like Oregon) are nothing like those countries.
    - alldayeveryday 4y ago
      Agreed on these points. I would argue that this whole "war on drugs" is a misrepresentation of the situation. The system does not seem to be wanting to stop drug use - instead it seems to want to ensure that it profits of off drug use (profit can be money, it can also be the desired harm it causes to the population). I see no evidence of the system trying to end illegal drug use - in fact I see the opposite.

jimbob45 4y ago

It sounds like you’ve never had to deal with an addict in your close personal circle. I’m glad for you. When addicts cannot find a supply of their chosen drug, they’ll steal from anyone, even those closest to them, to fund their addiction. If they go homeless, you can’t give them money because you can’t trust that they won’t just use it to buy more drugs. This is to ignore the fact that buying most hard drugs directly funds the Mexican drug cartels and the atrocities they commit in many countries. This is also to ignore the terrible and unrecoverable health effects that many drugs have. Have you heard of meth mouth? Meth rots your teeth no matter how much you brush them [0]. It also causes permanent brain damage but I find that the kind of people pushing to legalize meth find losing teeth to be a worse outcome. Jail isn’t the best outcome for inmates, sure, but it’s the cheapest. If you’re a Governor of a US state and your voters see that you took money away from schools, the police, the fire department, or the roads to give to addicts instead, you’re not going to get re-elected. [0] https://www.mouthhealthy.org/en/az-topics/m/meth-mouth https://www.mouthhealthy.org/en/az-topics/m/meth-mouth

Tenoke 4y ago
Nobody is arguing that there aren't cases where drugs have negative effects. What's argued it whether banning or allowing them has more negative effects.
thebean11 4y ago
Agree with most of your comment, but I think "meth mouth" is pretty much debunked. It's the lifestyle of a meth addict that rots your teeth not the meth itself, nothing in your link claims it rots your teeth "no matter how much you brush them".
dkjaudyeqooe 4y ago
Drug addiction is a health issue. I have a close family member who was a fairly typical junkie now he is given a nice opiate substitute by state health system and he's a productive member of society. Most of the harm associated with drug addiction comes from societal demonizing of the addicted.
- travisathougies 4y ago
  Rabies is also a health issue, yet that doesn't mean we let rabid people out on the streets to terrorize others. The government is also responsible for the reasonable safety of the public, and psychotic people (regardless of the cause) shouldn't be given free passes to be out in public.
  - hydrok9 4y ago
    the opiod substitute given to this person's relative made him no longer psychotic
    - travisathougies 4y ago
      I was responding to the claim that most of the societal harm comes from demonization. No it does not. It comes from the behavior of the addicts.

starkd 4y ago

The problem with that line of reasoning is that addiction inhibits a person's abitlity to reason about these issues. I'm sympathetic to the freedom of choice argument, but drugs are an exception. If you've ever had to deal with an addict, you know exactly what I mean. Drugs rewire your priorities in a big way. We can treat addiction as a medical issue, but the sad truth is that there really are no effective treatments that can be deployed on a mass scale. The relapse rate of even the best programs is pitifully high. The best treatment is public policy which does not encourage drug use in the first place, or at least, tries to minimize its use.

nicoburns 4y ago
I largely agree with the point about addiction, but it's worth noting that a lot of banned substances - notably MDMA, Cannabis, LSD, and Psilocybin - aren't particularly addictive.
- starkd 4y ago
  True. I'm largely sympathetic to the argument for decriminalization. Just on the grounds there should be limits in using government to protect people from themselves. But it's too often proposed as a quick an easy fix. Society does have an obligation to keep people from falling into a pit with relatively modest measures.
52-6F-62 4y ago
> If you've ever had to deal with an addict, you know exactly what I mean. Drugs rewire your priorities in a big way. Can we do something about money then? I know people who have spent years of their lives arguing over pointless differences in specifications that end up going into the trash bin because it pays them more money than something useful. Lives and years down the tube.
- travisathougies 4y ago
  I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about, but certain behaviors towards money are discouraged, and in many places... outright banned. For example, the vast majority of states ban gambling outright, except in small sanctioned activities. Nevertheless, gambling takes place anyways, yet you rarely see any push to decriminalize commercial gambling

alldayeveryday 4y ago

jtr1 4y ago
I agree with your counterpoints, but I'm still in favor of decriminalization. Heavy drug use does have an effect on families and social institutions like healthcare, and it's short-sighted to think that the effects of drug legalization can be contained to private, individual behavior. That said, we're a half century into the drug war and it's obviously not working. As other commenters have pointed out, Portugal seems to have had success combining decriminalization with policies that actively push drug users toward addiction treatment.
- travisathougies 4y ago
  > That said, we're a half century into the drug war and it's obviously not working. You know... despite what is commonly claimed, Prohibition worked great. During Prohibition cirrhosis was down, deaths from liver disease were down, and deaths due to drunkeness was down. The only thing not working was people wanted to get drunk. Given that no one here today has lived in a world where drugs available today are legal, how can we honestly claim that what we're doing is 100% ineffective and merits scrapping it? Few people here in favor of decriminalization are contending with the possibility that the situation we have today is better than what it would be were drugs decriminalized. Since no one's ever seen drugs being decriminalized, I don't understand how this claim is made with such confidence. And no.. Switzerland and Portugal are not comparable because what is being proposed here (and implemented in states like Oregon) are nothing like those countries.
  - alldayeveryday 4y ago
    Agreed on these points. I would argue that this whole "war on drugs" is a misrepresentation of the situation. The system does not seem to be wanting to stop drug use - instead it seems to want to ensure that it profits of off drug use (profit can be money, it can also be the desired harm it causes to the population). I see no evidence of the system trying to end illegal drug use - in fact I see the opposite.