4 ms·

Is there any evidence that prohibition reduces harms from drugs? My understanding was that it marginally reduced use, but significantly increased harms (due to

Is there any evidence that prohibition reduces harms from drugs? My understanding was that it marginally reduced use, but significantly increased harms (due to impure drugs, interactions with criminals, treatment budgets being used for incarceration etc.) It's probably drug-specific too. Making alcohol illegal probably caused more harm than making heroin illegal, since alcohol substitutes are often much more toxic than the real deal)

CharlesW 4y ago
> Making alcohol illegal probably caused more harm than making heroin illegal, since alcohol substitutes are often much more toxic than the real deal) The same is apparently true for heroin. For example, unregulated heroin can often be a "scramble" cut with fentanyl. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6114137/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6114137/
abigail95 4y ago
Opiate addiction and associated harms are way higher in countries where it's been easier to access them. The countries that never legalised things like Oxycontin didn't see the same rises in opiate abuse. It seems obvious to conclude that increasing Oxycontin use as a legal alternative to heroin didn't decrease harm overall.
- brutusborn 4y ago
  The opiate epidemic seems to me a US-specific case of deregulation, where doctors are essentially marketing these drugs to people where they won't required and without mechanisms to prevent doctor shopping, which I guess is similar to legalization but a bit more insidious. I would contrast that to Portugal where for all intents Heroin is essentially legal, but legal use is highly regulated and connected to rehabilitation programs. I think highly regulated legalization of drugs > unregulated legalizing of drugs OR prohibition of drugs (which by definition is unregulated). Whether prohibition is better than unregulated legalization depends on how effective your law enforcement is. In the US, the large number of illegal drug addicts is evidence that enforcement is ineffective. If we lived in an effective authoritarian state then prohibition would probably minimize harm, but even authoritarian states fail to stop drug use.

CharlesW 4y ago

> Making alcohol illegal probably caused more harm than making heroin illegal, since alcohol substitutes are often much more toxic than the real deal) The same is apparently true for heroin. For example, unregulated heroin can often be a "scramble" cut with fentanyl. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6114137/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6114137/

abigail95 4y ago

Opiate addiction and associated harms are way higher in countries where it's been easier to access them. The countries that never legalised things like Oxycontin didn't see the same rises in opiate abuse. It seems obvious to conclude that increasing Oxycontin use as a legal alternative to heroin didn't decrease harm overall.

brutusborn 4y ago
The opiate epidemic seems to me a US-specific case of deregulation, where doctors are essentially marketing these drugs to people where they won't required and without mechanisms to prevent doctor shopping, which I guess is similar to legalization but a bit more insidious. I would contrast that to Portugal where for all intents Heroin is essentially legal, but legal use is highly regulated and connected to rehabilitation programs. I think highly regulated legalization of drugs > unregulated legalizing of drugs OR prohibition of drugs (which by definition is unregulated). Whether prohibition is better than unregulated legalization depends on how effective your law enforcement is. In the US, the large number of illegal drug addicts is evidence that enforcement is ineffective. If we lived in an effective authoritarian state then prohibition would probably minimize harm, but even authoritarian states fail to stop drug use.