6 ms·

It's been the opposite experience for me, but where I lived doctors just give the addicts drugs that are similar to their drugs of choice. Man has to eat, addic

It's been the opposite experience for me, but where I lived doctors just give the addicts drugs that are similar to their drugs of choice. Man has to eat, addicts has to use. When you ruin the market economy around drugs by making them essentially free the criminal aspects seem to disappear.

Manu40 4y ago
Fair enough, as far as opposite experience goes. Up here, doctors are notoriously difficult to get any kind of opiate from now unless you REALLY need it. Which in turn I would say has led to people relying on the grey market more and more, which has in turn led to our fentanyl crisis. So I don't entirely disagree with you here, but I still don't want government being able to tax these things. We need a better solution.
- afiori 4y ago
  You might find this post interesting: > https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/16/against-against-pseudoaddiction/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/16/against-against-pseudo... It is about what can go wrong when "doctors are notoriously difficult to get any kind of opiate from now unless you REALLY need it". It is been a while since I read it, I don't remember whether it touches on homelessness.
- f38zf5vdt 4y ago
  The government doesn't tax them here. They're free, because the cost of the drugs is less than the cost of the crime prevented by just giving them out.
PM_me_your_math 4y ago
"When you ruin the market economy around drugs by making them essentially free the criminal aspects seem to disappear." California has legalized marijuana for many years and there's still a strong cartel presence in marijuana trafficking. Cartels still find a way to profit from marijuana, other drugs, and immigration. I find the notion that making fentanyl available at no cost being good for society by removing cartel involvement to be completely nonsensical. The end result is still the same. You still have a substance on the street that is fatal in incredibly small doses, and being used as fillers in party- and counterfeit drugs. Legalizing fentanyl isn't going to alter that dynamic nor change the drug's lethality. So no, the criminal aspects just don't disappear. They merely adapt.
- thomastjeffery 4y ago
  Legalized with high taxes and inconvenient supply. If people already have a tax-free source, then they will continue to use that, especially if the business hours and location are more convenient. And it's worth pointing out that cannabis culture and opiate culture are not one and the same: cannabis is far less addictive and far more commonly used, even in areas where it is still criminalized. It also costs significantly less - on the order of beer money or fast food - to afford a cannabis supply, than it costs to afford an illegal opiate supply. On top of that, you can often get the cost of prescriptions (alternative to illegal opiates) significantly lowered, especially outside the US. So switching your cannabis supply from illegal to legal costs you more, but switching your opiate supply to a legal prescription can save you money. It's a totally different dynamic. If opiate users have a reliable and affordable source, then they will not be motivated to commit crime to fund their addictions. If they are getting their drugs from a pharmaceutical source, with regular visits to a prescribing physician, then they can significantly lower the risk of overdose. So yes, criminal aspects will be affected. So will mortality.
- f38zf5vdt 4y ago
  Legal state level, illegal federal and global means that there is a high incentive for diversion to both other states and other countries. There's a difference between going to a medical facility every day to get a 1-3 day supply and a free-for-all with drugs being handed out for $5 on every corner.

Manu40 4y ago

Fair enough, as far as opposite experience goes. Up here, doctors are notoriously difficult to get any kind of opiate from now unless you REALLY need it. Which in turn I would say has led to people relying on the grey market more and more, which has in turn led to our fentanyl crisis. So I don't entirely disagree with you here, but I still don't want government being able to tax these things. We need a better solution.

afiori 4y ago
You might find this post interesting: > https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/16/against-against-pseudoaddiction/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/16/against-against-pseudo... It is about what can go wrong when "doctors are notoriously difficult to get any kind of opiate from now unless you REALLY need it". It is been a while since I read it, I don't remember whether it touches on homelessness.
f38zf5vdt 4y ago
The government doesn't tax them here. They're free, because the cost of the drugs is less than the cost of the crime prevented by just giving them out.

PM_me_your_math 4y ago

"When you ruin the market economy around drugs by making them essentially free the criminal aspects seem to disappear." California has legalized marijuana for many years and there's still a strong cartel presence in marijuana trafficking. Cartels still find a way to profit from marijuana, other drugs, and immigration. I find the notion that making fentanyl available at no cost being good for society by removing cartel involvement to be completely nonsensical. The end result is still the same. You still have a substance on the street that is fatal in incredibly small doses, and being used as fillers in party- and counterfeit drugs. Legalizing fentanyl isn't going to alter that dynamic nor change the drug's lethality. So no, the criminal aspects just don't disappear. They merely adapt.

thomastjeffery 4y ago
Legalized with high taxes and inconvenient supply. If people already have a tax-free source, then they will continue to use that, especially if the business hours and location are more convenient. And it's worth pointing out that cannabis culture and opiate culture are not one and the same: cannabis is far less addictive and far more commonly used, even in areas where it is still criminalized. It also costs significantly less - on the order of beer money or fast food - to afford a cannabis supply, than it costs to afford an illegal opiate supply. On top of that, you can often get the cost of prescriptions (alternative to illegal opiates) significantly lowered, especially outside the US. So switching your cannabis supply from illegal to legal costs you more, but switching your opiate supply to a legal prescription can save you money. It's a totally different dynamic. If opiate users have a reliable and affordable source, then they will not be motivated to commit crime to fund their addictions. If they are getting their drugs from a pharmaceutical source, with regular visits to a prescribing physician, then they can significantly lower the risk of overdose. So yes, criminal aspects will be affected. So will mortality.
f38zf5vdt 4y ago
Legal state level, illegal federal and global means that there is a high incentive for diversion to both other states and other countries. There's a difference between going to a medical facility every day to get a 1-3 day supply and a free-for-all with drugs being handed out for $5 on every corner.