4 ms·

So-called conservative drug policy has been an abject failure. It walked us into an opioid addiction crisis that has cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Those l

by spyda 4y ago

So-called conservative drug policy has been an abject failure. It walked us into an opioid addiction crisis that has cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Those laws are neither followed or enforced effectively. I'd rather have liberty than a failing drug policy.

anon291 4y ago
Arguing that the enforcement is not effective is not the same thing as arguing it's bad policy. In particular, the data show that prohibition works in general, whether it be drugs or alcohol. There is no evidence to substantiate the belief that legalizing drugs will lead to lower rates of addiction. In particular, the so-called Portuguese model advocates in Oregon ignore the fact that Portugal has way more drug enforcement with its system than Oregon has.
- aqme28 4y ago
  > the data show that prohibition works in general, whether it be drugs or alcohol. This is interesting. I've only seen data that says the exact opposite of this. Can you cite anything?
  - anon291 4y ago
    Cirrhosis and alcohol deaths and domestic violence decreased drastically during prohibition. Prohibition is the best example of a full scale nationwide 'war' on a drug, IMO. The data on alcohol prohibition are extremely clear... wars on drugs work. No they don't eliminate consumption or erase all problems... nothing can do that. However, they lead to fewer consumers; and thus fewer problems due to consumption. EDIT: Source (and good reading): https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibition-alcohol-public-health-crime-benefits https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibit... > Prohibition meant to address these problems by reducing drinking. On that metric alone, it succeeded. > > This is not controversial among experts. When I asked Courtwright, a drug historian at the University of North Florida, whether Prohibition led to more drinking, he responded, “No well-informed historian has believed that for 50 years.” Did prohibition have problems? yes. But the problem was not that people consumed more. That is a common misconception.
    - aqme28 4y ago
      Got it. We just have different metrics for what makes a successful prohibition.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - anon291 4y ago
        What's your metric? I thought the purpose of these laws is to reduce consumption-related harms
        aqme28 4y ago
        That is the metric I use, but is not the one you said above, leaving me a little confused.
        anon291 4y ago
        I said: > Cirrhosis and alcohol deaths and domestic violence decreased drastically during prohibition. Prohibition is the best example of a full scale nationwide 'war' on a drug, IMO. The data on alcohol prohibition are extremely clear... wars on drugs work. No they don't eliminate consumption or erase all problems... nothing can do that. However, they lead to fewer consumers; and thus fewer problems due to consumption. Reduced cirrhosis, alcohol deaths, and domestic violence don't count as consumption-related harms? Very confused right now. I'm not a fan of alcohol prohibition, but rationality requires us to consider the data, especially the data we don't like.
    - vidarh 4y ago
      Most criticism of prohibition / the war on drugs focuses on total harm, not just the harm of consumption. Some may well believe prohibition increased use, but personally I can't recall ever having seen that argument. With the war on drugs you have to e.g. add in the huge amount of violence and other crimes caused by illegal production and distribution and high prices of various hard drugs, as well as the severe impact on people imprisoned as a result. It would take a massive increase in harm from the drugs themselves to outweigh that harm. That's before considering what investing the same resources in other mitigation might achieve.
- spyda 4y ago
  >In particular, the data show that prohibition works in general, whether it be drugs or alcohol. Opioid overdoses are at an all time high, despite prohibition. Even US alcohol Prohibition wasn't an effective solution to America's drinking problem. A much more effective solution was what followed Prohibition; *regulation*.

by spyda 4y ago

anon291 4y ago

Arguing that the enforcement is not effective is not the same thing as arguing it's bad policy. In particular, the data show that prohibition works in general, whether it be drugs or alcohol. There is no evidence to substantiate the belief that legalizing drugs will lead to lower rates of addiction. In particular, the so-called Portuguese model advocates in Oregon ignore the fact that Portugal has way more drug enforcement with its system than Oregon has.

aqme28 4y ago
> the data show that prohibition works in general, whether it be drugs or alcohol. This is interesting. I've only seen data that says the exact opposite of this. Can you cite anything?
- anon291 4y ago
  Cirrhosis and alcohol deaths and domestic violence decreased drastically during prohibition. Prohibition is the best example of a full scale nationwide 'war' on a drug, IMO. The data on alcohol prohibition are extremely clear... wars on drugs work. No they don't eliminate consumption or erase all problems... nothing can do that. However, they lead to fewer consumers; and thus fewer problems due to consumption. EDIT: Source (and good reading): https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibition-alcohol-public-health-crime-benefits https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibit... > Prohibition meant to address these problems by reducing drinking. On that metric alone, it succeeded. > > This is not controversial among experts. When I asked Courtwright, a drug historian at the University of North Florida, whether Prohibition led to more drinking, he responded, “No well-informed historian has believed that for 50 years.” Did prohibition have problems? yes. But the problem was not that people consumed more. That is a common misconception.
  - aqme28 4y ago
    Got it. We just have different metrics for what makes a successful prohibition.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - anon291 4y ago
      What's your metric? I thought the purpose of these laws is to reduce consumption-related harms
      - aqme28 4y ago
        That is the metric I use, but is not the one you said above, leaving me a little confused.
        anon291 4y ago
        I said: > Cirrhosis and alcohol deaths and domestic violence decreased drastically during prohibition. Prohibition is the best example of a full scale nationwide 'war' on a drug, IMO. The data on alcohol prohibition are extremely clear... wars on drugs work. No they don't eliminate consumption or erase all problems... nothing can do that. However, they lead to fewer consumers; and thus fewer problems due to consumption. Reduced cirrhosis, alcohol deaths, and domestic violence don't count as consumption-related harms? Very confused right now. I'm not a fan of alcohol prohibition, but rationality requires us to consider the data, especially the data we don't like.
  - vidarh 4y ago
    Most criticism of prohibition / the war on drugs focuses on total harm, not just the harm of consumption. Some may well believe prohibition increased use, but personally I can't recall ever having seen that argument. With the war on drugs you have to e.g. add in the huge amount of violence and other crimes caused by illegal production and distribution and high prices of various hard drugs, as well as the severe impact on people imprisoned as a result. It would take a massive increase in harm from the drugs themselves to outweigh that harm. That's before considering what investing the same resources in other mitigation might achieve.
spyda 4y ago
>In particular, the data show that prohibition works in general, whether it be drugs or alcohol. Opioid overdoses are at an all time high, despite prohibition. Even US alcohol Prohibition wasn't an effective solution to America's drinking problem. A much more effective solution was what followed Prohibition; *regulation*.