6 ms·

The war on drugs (and prohibition at large) has caused externalities in the form of weird, experimental drug cocktails being marketed in this legal grey area si

The war on drugs (and prohibition at large) has caused externalities in the form of weird, experimental drug cocktails being marketed in this legal grey area since they aren't on the naughty list yet. Instead of treating the root cause (that prohibition has largely failed everyone except pharmaceutical drug companies and the companies that sell military gear to the police and DEA), we're going to expand the naughty list to include everything that hasn't been whitelisted by regulators and the pharma companies?

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
I am really not sure how you look at this story about drugs which are just subject to no prohibition at all (those you can literally buy at a gas station) and the trouble they're causing for people, but your take-away is "the war on drugs is bad".
- eindiran 4y ago
  How much have you followed along with the progression of grey area drugs over the last 30 years? Who was it that started the opioid epidemic again? Yeah, I'm thinking the solution is ban more stuff and then hand the reigns back to the regulators who have definitely not been subject to regulatory capture by the companies that started the opioid epidemic.
  - whatshisface 4y ago
    Why should the companies that pushed opioids be allowed to push anything else? All those doctors who knew they were overperscribing opioids to addicts knew what they were doing, and they would do it with any other drug too.
    - eindiran 4y ago
      I love how nuanced the thinkers of HN are. Given the responses here, evidently the options are to either (a) let Purdue market heroin to kids or (b) ban all non-pharmaceutical drugs and give no-knock warrants to FULLY TACTICAL® DEA AGENTS so that they can smash in the doors of non compliers. EDIT: this was in response to the pre-edit version of the comment. I think the current version of your comment is much more reasonable. I broadly agree with your point: when people have bad incentives they will do bad things. So my response to that is to try to give doctors better incentives, and limit the extent to which pharmaceutical companies like Purdue can inject perverse incentives back into the system.
    - pigeons 4y ago
      I totally thought it was sarcasm
  - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
    I really am confused here - are you say there should be regulation, but it should be done better, or that there should not?
    - eindiran 4y ago
      "Yeah, I'm thinking the solution is ban more stuff and then hand the reigns back to the regulators who have definitely not been subject to regulatory capture by the companies that started the opioid epidemic." That is sarcasm. Prohibition has failed and the growth of grey area drugs ("designer" drugs) is one of the direct consequences. I am not arguing against regulation, I am arguing against prohibition. As JumpCrisscross brought up, they are very different things.
      - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
        None of e.g. fentanyl, methamphetamine or cocaine are "prohibited" since they're Schedule II drugs.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > no prohibition at all Prohibition is black and white. You can’t have a little prohibition, that’s on par with ending a ten-day detox with a mouthful of pills. The war on drugs enforced a prohibition. Most of this thread advocates for regulation. I suspect you and the comment you’re responding to do as well.
  - kube-system 4y ago
    Sure you can have a little prohibition. Many prohibitions have exceptions. Between drug scheduling and various scopes of jurisdiction and enforcement, prohibition can be shades of gray.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > Between drug scheduling and various scopes of jurisdiction and enforcement, prohibition can be shades of gray You’re describing enforcement. Prohibition is the legal action that precedes its enforcement. That semantic nuance is derailing this discussion.
      - kube-system 4y ago
        Ok, pretend I didn’t mention enforcement. The written law for almost every prohibition the US has ever had, has explicit exceptions. Even the Volstead Act itself.
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > pretend I didn’t mention enforcement. The written law for almost every prohibition the US has ever had, has explicit exceptions Fair enough. Within a drug policy discussion, I think a lot of toes get snubbed by people disagreeing on the definition of prohibition. Exemptions to a blanket ban is quite different from e.g. requiring safety studies.
      - str34m1ng 4y ago
        Prohibition can exist for the most dangerous drugs while sensible regulation can steer people toward the safest possible use of safer alternative substances. As in, opium can be legal while carfentanyl is not, or marijuana instead of the synthetic compounds that mimic it but are more dangerous, etc.
- Clent 4y ago
  The Drug War operates on a list of banned drugs. There is more evidence against banning drugs than there is against when the goal is stopping drug abuse. Adding this drug or a class of drugs to the ban list is not going to stop drug abuse. The only way to stop the war on drugs is to stop fighting drug abuse and accept it as an inevitability of the human condition.
- citrin_ru 4y ago
  People addicted to substance do suffer and can produce negative externalities but spending money on militarised police which puts in jail anyone who possess a banned substance IMHO is not the best way to allocate (always) limited funds. What would actually help is not clear but I hate when politicians follow the algorithm: we need to do something about the problem, here is something so let’s do it (even if it doesn’t work or cost is too high for provided benefit).
Spooky23 4y ago
Totally different issue. To sell a drug, you need to demonstrate therapeutic effectiveness. Someone demonstrated that beta blockers lower blood pressure, for example. But I can sell a jar of bone meal mixed some ramen chicken flavor, and say that cavemen ate soup made with bone broth, and some people have reported developing caveman strength by consuming bone broth. The loophole is that products have dual use or traditional use. For example, isopropyl alcohol isn’t a regulated “pesticide” for disinfecting surfaces because it predates the regulatory process. Or honey can help with a cough, but you can’t label honey as a cough suppressant. Scammers abuse that loophole.
- floren 4y ago
  Or you import "herbal supplements" from China; when the FDA figures out that your particular supplement also has amphetamines and/or viagra in it, you start importing one with a different name. Here's a bunch of notifications from the FDA about various gas station sexual enhancement pills which have "hidden drug ingredients": https://www.fda.gov/drugs/medication-health-fraud/tainted-sexual-enhancement-products https://www.fda.gov/drugs/medication-health-fraud/tainted-se...

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago

I am really not sure how you look at this story about drugs which are just subject to no prohibition at all (those you can literally buy at a gas station) and the trouble they're causing for people, but your take-away is "the war on drugs is bad".

eindiran 4y ago
How much have you followed along with the progression of grey area drugs over the last 30 years? Who was it that started the opioid epidemic again? Yeah, I'm thinking the solution is ban more stuff and then hand the reigns back to the regulators who have definitely not been subject to regulatory capture by the companies that started the opioid epidemic.
- whatshisface 4y ago
  Why should the companies that pushed opioids be allowed to push anything else? All those doctors who knew they were overperscribing opioids to addicts knew what they were doing, and they would do it with any other drug too.
  - eindiran 4y ago
    I love how nuanced the thinkers of HN are. Given the responses here, evidently the options are to either (a) let Purdue market heroin to kids or (b) ban all non-pharmaceutical drugs and give no-knock warrants to FULLY TACTICAL® DEA AGENTS so that they can smash in the doors of non compliers. EDIT: this was in response to the pre-edit version of the comment. I think the current version of your comment is much more reasonable. I broadly agree with your point: when people have bad incentives they will do bad things. So my response to that is to try to give doctors better incentives, and limit the extent to which pharmaceutical companies like Purdue can inject perverse incentives back into the system.
  - pigeons 4y ago
    I totally thought it was sarcasm
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  I really am confused here - are you say there should be regulation, but it should be done better, or that there should not?
  - eindiran 4y ago
    "Yeah, I'm thinking the solution is ban more stuff and then hand the reigns back to the regulators who have definitely not been subject to regulatory capture by the companies that started the opioid epidemic." That is sarcasm. Prohibition has failed and the growth of grey area drugs ("designer" drugs) is one of the direct consequences. I am not arguing against regulation, I am arguing against prohibition. As JumpCrisscross brought up, they are very different things.
    - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
      None of e.g. fentanyl, methamphetamine or cocaine are "prohibited" since they're Schedule II drugs.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> no prohibition at all Prohibition is black and white. You can’t have a little prohibition, that’s on par with ending a ten-day detox with a mouthful of pills. The war on drugs enforced a prohibition. Most of this thread advocates for regulation. I suspect you and the comment you’re responding to do as well.
- kube-system 4y ago
  Sure you can have a little prohibition. Many prohibitions have exceptions. Between drug scheduling and various scopes of jurisdiction and enforcement, prohibition can be shades of gray.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > Between drug scheduling and various scopes of jurisdiction and enforcement, prohibition can be shades of gray You’re describing enforcement. Prohibition is the legal action that precedes its enforcement. That semantic nuance is derailing this discussion.
    - kube-system 4y ago
      Ok, pretend I didn’t mention enforcement. The written law for almost every prohibition the US has ever had, has explicit exceptions. Even the Volstead Act itself.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > pretend I didn’t mention enforcement. The written law for almost every prohibition the US has ever had, has explicit exceptions Fair enough. Within a drug policy discussion, I think a lot of toes get snubbed by people disagreeing on the definition of prohibition. Exemptions to a blanket ban is quite different from e.g. requiring safety studies.
    - str34m1ng 4y ago
      Prohibition can exist for the most dangerous drugs while sensible regulation can steer people toward the safest possible use of safer alternative substances. As in, opium can be legal while carfentanyl is not, or marijuana instead of the synthetic compounds that mimic it but are more dangerous, etc.
Clent 4y ago
The Drug War operates on a list of banned drugs. There is more evidence against banning drugs than there is against when the goal is stopping drug abuse. Adding this drug or a class of drugs to the ban list is not going to stop drug abuse. The only way to stop the war on drugs is to stop fighting drug abuse and accept it as an inevitability of the human condition.
citrin_ru 4y ago
People addicted to substance do suffer and can produce negative externalities but spending money on militarised police which puts in jail anyone who possess a banned substance IMHO is not the best way to allocate (always) limited funds. What would actually help is not clear but I hate when politicians follow the algorithm: we need to do something about the problem, here is something so let’s do it (even if it doesn’t work or cost is too high for provided benefit).

Spooky23 4y ago

Totally different issue. To sell a drug, you need to demonstrate therapeutic effectiveness. Someone demonstrated that beta blockers lower blood pressure, for example. But I can sell a jar of bone meal mixed some ramen chicken flavor, and say that cavemen ate soup made with bone broth, and some people have reported developing caveman strength by consuming bone broth. The loophole is that products have dual use or traditional use. For example, isopropyl alcohol isn’t a regulated “pesticide” for disinfecting surfaces because it predates the regulatory process. Or honey can help with a cough, but you can’t label honey as a cough suppressant. Scammers abuse that loophole.

floren 4y ago
Or you import "herbal supplements" from China; when the FDA figures out that your particular supplement also has amphetamines and/or viagra in it, you start importing one with a different name. Here's a bunch of notifications from the FDA about various gas station sexual enhancement pills which have "hidden drug ingredients": https://www.fda.gov/drugs/medication-health-fraud/tainted-sexual-enhancement-products https://www.fda.gov/drugs/medication-health-fraud/tainted-se...