3 ms·

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 th

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

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