5 ms·

With the welfare state that exists, a common argument is that people that destroy their bodies or brains are a burden on "society".

heap_perms 4y ago
I sincerely think that even if all drugs were legal, the rate of consumption wouldn't necessarily increase much. "People who take drugs "don't give a damn if they're legal, generally speaking.
- tastyfreeze 4y ago
  I agree. I don't think there should be a prohibition on any drugs as it is a personal choice and humans have been drug consumers for millennia. Drug use isn't something that can be legislated away.
  - PragmaticPulp 4y ago
    > humans have been drug consumers for millennia I don’t find this argument convincing at all in the modern era. Synthetic drugs and even commercialized organic drugs are significantly more potent than anything that could be found a century ago. Synthetic cannabinoids are vastly more addictive and dangerous than cannabis ever could be, for example. Synthetic drugs like MPDV are known to produce compulsive redosing even in people who could moderate their intake of traditional drugs like cocaine. You can’t compare what’s available now to historic drugs.
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    At a minimum, regulation is still needed, with criminals penalties for violating the regulations. Civil suits can only reach so far. Make the really hard stuff only available by prescription.
- PragmaticPulp 4y ago
  I don’t know about that. For another perspective, if alcohol and nicotine became illegal then the amount of alcohol and nicotine consumed would go down. Not to zero, but it wouldn’t stay the same. We’ve already seen evidence of this during prohibition and in areas where the legal age to buy nicotine has been raised. Prohibition has become known as a failure because there was still a vibrant underground alcohol trade, but it didn’t mean that everyone continued drinking at the same rate. It really did reduce alcohol consumption.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Prohibition has become known as a failure because there was still a vibrant underground alcohol trade, but it didn’t mean that everyone continued drinking at the same rate. It really did reduce alcohol consumption. Mostly, after the brief sharp drop to around 30% of pre-Prohibition levels, just the much smaller (consumption at around 60-70% of pre-Prohibition levels) effects of the de facto tax collected by organized crime that prohibition imposed (“Changes in consumption were modest given the change in price. This suggests that legal deterrents had little effect on limiting consumption outside of their effect on price. Social pressure and respect for the law did not go far in reducing consumption during prohibition”.) [0] And, both nicotine and alcohol have substantial regular taxes now, which serve the same purpose without fuelling organized crime, so prohibition would just redirect funds from the public coffers to criminal enterprise. [0] https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w3675/w3675.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w3675/w3675... , p. 8
kevviiinn 4y ago
People who drink too much do even more damage to their bodies and brains than any other drug so that argument is nonsense
- PragmaticPulp 4y ago
  > People who drink too much do even more damage to their bodies and brains than any other drug It’s possible to do a lot of damage with heavy drinking, yes, but it’s not true at all to suggest alcohol is the most damaging drug. There are numerous synthetic drugs that can produce long lasting damage or even death even in experienced drug users who believe themselves to be consuming responsibly.
  - kevviiinn 4y ago
    Can you name which ones? Being in the field of pharmacology, this is interesting to me. I'd love to read about it I'd you have sources
    - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
      Desomorphine seems kind of bad, even without the other nasty effects when it is homemade by people who can't afford the real thing (i.e. Krokodil). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desomorphine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desomorphine > While desomorphine was found to be faster acting and more effective than morphine for the rapid relief of severe pain, its shorter duration of action and the relatively more severe respiratory depression produced at equianalgesic doses, as well as a high incidence of other side effects such as hypotension and urinary retention, were felt to outweigh any potential advantages.[15][16] From [15] we have: short duration which is independent of dose, tolerance, persistent decrease in respiratory rate, <when used to treat severe chronic pain> less sleep compared to morphine, possible greater withdrawal symptoms than morphine. For medical uses [15] cites some good uses where it is preferable to morphine, but this is a drug that's even more worthy of regulation than morphine itself.
      - kevviiinn 4y ago
autoexec 4y ago
With the prison state that exists, I imagine the burden on society would be much higher by locking people up and criminalizing drugs and alcohol than the costs we'd face dealing with addicts and overdoses, the numbers of which both go down following legalization
- tastyfreeze 4y ago
  Has anybody ever done such a comparison? That would be interesting to see.

heap_perms 4y ago

I sincerely think that even if all drugs were legal, the rate of consumption wouldn't necessarily increase much. "People who take drugs "don't give a damn if they're legal, generally speaking.

tastyfreeze 4y ago
I agree. I don't think there should be a prohibition on any drugs as it is a personal choice and humans have been drug consumers for millennia. Drug use isn't something that can be legislated away.
- PragmaticPulp 4y ago
  > humans have been drug consumers for millennia I don’t find this argument convincing at all in the modern era. Synthetic drugs and even commercialized organic drugs are significantly more potent than anything that could be found a century ago. Synthetic cannabinoids are vastly more addictive and dangerous than cannabis ever could be, for example. Synthetic drugs like MPDV are known to produce compulsive redosing even in people who could moderate their intake of traditional drugs like cocaine. You can’t compare what’s available now to historic drugs.
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  At a minimum, regulation is still needed, with criminals penalties for violating the regulations. Civil suits can only reach so far. Make the really hard stuff only available by prescription.
PragmaticPulp 4y ago
I don’t know about that. For another perspective, if alcohol and nicotine became illegal then the amount of alcohol and nicotine consumed would go down. Not to zero, but it wouldn’t stay the same. We’ve already seen evidence of this during prohibition and in areas where the legal age to buy nicotine has been raised. Prohibition has become known as a failure because there was still a vibrant underground alcohol trade, but it didn’t mean that everyone continued drinking at the same rate. It really did reduce alcohol consumption.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Prohibition has become known as a failure because there was still a vibrant underground alcohol trade, but it didn’t mean that everyone continued drinking at the same rate. It really did reduce alcohol consumption. Mostly, after the brief sharp drop to around 30% of pre-Prohibition levels, just the much smaller (consumption at around 60-70% of pre-Prohibition levels) effects of the de facto tax collected by organized crime that prohibition imposed (“Changes in consumption were modest given the change in price. This suggests that legal deterrents had little effect on limiting consumption outside of their effect on price. Social pressure and respect for the law did not go far in reducing consumption during prohibition”.) [0] And, both nicotine and alcohol have substantial regular taxes now, which serve the same purpose without fuelling organized crime, so prohibition would just redirect funds from the public coffers to criminal enterprise. [0] https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w3675/w3675.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w3675/w3675... , p. 8

kevviiinn 4y ago

People who drink too much do even more damage to their bodies and brains than any other drug so that argument is nonsense

PragmaticPulp 4y ago
> People who drink too much do even more damage to their bodies and brains than any other drug It’s possible to do a lot of damage with heavy drinking, yes, but it’s not true at all to suggest alcohol is the most damaging drug. There are numerous synthetic drugs that can produce long lasting damage or even death even in experienced drug users who believe themselves to be consuming responsibly.
- kevviiinn 4y ago
  Can you name which ones? Being in the field of pharmacology, this is interesting to me. I'd love to read about it I'd you have sources
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    Desomorphine seems kind of bad, even without the other nasty effects when it is homemade by people who can't afford the real thing (i.e. Krokodil). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desomorphine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desomorphine > While desomorphine was found to be faster acting and more effective than morphine for the rapid relief of severe pain, its shorter duration of action and the relatively more severe respiratory depression produced at equianalgesic doses, as well as a high incidence of other side effects such as hypotension and urinary retention, were felt to outweigh any potential advantages.[15][16] From [15] we have: short duration which is independent of dose, tolerance, persistent decrease in respiratory rate, <when used to treat severe chronic pain> less sleep compared to morphine, possible greater withdrawal symptoms than morphine. For medical uses [15] cites some good uses where it is preferable to morphine, but this is a drug that's even more worthy of regulation than morphine itself.
    - kevviiinn 4y ago

autoexec 4y ago

With the prison state that exists, I imagine the burden on society would be much higher by locking people up and criminalizing drugs and alcohol than the costs we'd face dealing with addicts and overdoses, the numbers of which both go down following legalization

tastyfreeze 4y ago
Has anybody ever done such a comparison? That would be interesting to see.