6 ms·

Yep. Create a safe supply of drugs. It destroys the criminal economy and ends deaths. It's really the only way forward. Everything else within the naïve prohib

Yep. Create a safe supply of drugs. It destroys the criminal economy and ends deaths. It's really the only way forward. Everything else within the naïve prohibition framework has been tried again and again and has continuously failed.

junofan 4y ago
Also reduces a lot of problem behaviors of street addicts like smashing and stealing property and congregating for access to suppliers.
- Tiktaalik 4y ago
  omg yes. Arguably the cycle of police aggressively confiscating drugs from users induces more petty theft as the police confiscations become a new sink to drain drug user wealth. Those chemically addicted to drugs need to replace the confiscated drugs, which creates a new need to find something to sell to get enough money to once again buy drugs on the illegal market. A safe supply of regulated drugs breaks this cycle.
clnq 4y ago
There is no such thing as "a safe supply of drugs". Whether the street drugs are produced in a quality-controlled way or not, it is well-known that use of the substances has negative outcomes in health and occupational functioning. Direct sale of street narcotics would only be another harm reduction practice, similar to "safe use sites". But no harm reduction practice makes the harm "safe". The political double-speak around this is very similar to "clean coal"; it implies a strong position ("coal is clean") while offering an escape hatch if challenged ("coal pollution mitigation, otherwise known as clean coal, reduces greenhouse emissions when coal is used as a fuel"). Similarly as there is no "clean coal" in reality, there is no "safe supply of drugs". When we take deceiving loaded words like "safe" out of the equation, it becomes harder to argue against substance control, even if seen as prohibition. While it is evident that street drug crisis in the US has been mishandled, if restricting the access of these substances (or "prohibition") was done correctly, it would benefit society. Particularly, the prohibition would benefit society more if it was not mainly enforced through criminalization of street drugs, but instead through teaching, rehabilitation, and prevention. In contrast, "safe" drug harm is an oxymoron. And it's very ineffective to even discuss anything on a double-speak premise. We should instead focus on fixing the root problem of drug use, rather than be distracted by harm reduction, especially when it's been politicized so much.
- AstralStorm 4y ago
  In contrast, actual measures taken to legalize (if not make widely available) and focus on safety actually work to reduce issues and use. With many drugs, actually quitting via tapering is a valid approach. How the heck do you propose to do that otherwise than having safe use? By making it legal and say requiring ID to get, you can actually track and find who has a problem and deliver help to them. That also requires the pharmacy and doctors to not be drug pushers, a tough sell in USA. That easy. Worked pretty well in one or two countries.
  - clnq 4y ago
    I do not disagree with medication-assisted treatment (MAT) rehabilitation which involves tapering/dose reduction. I do disagree with the implementation of "safe use" Western countries have now, which is ineffective for rehabilitation. Drug rehab programs regularly go much further to be effective, and include group counselling, individual counselling, substance replacement, medication to reduce withdrawal symptoms, relapse management, and similar. On the other hand, harm reduction is a completely different effort that does not constitute safe use in my opinion, because it facilitates continuous use, which is very harmful, even if the harm is reduced. Even in rehabilitation centres, the use of controlled substances is not considered safe by all medics. It is rather more agreeable to call it safer use. By the way, which are the countries that you mention where legalizing narcotics and selling them in pharmacies yielded positive results, and what were the results? If you are talking about legalizing cannabis in some US states and Canada, it is far too early to see the long-term results, although preliminarily, it seems like the use of cannabis has increased. This might be acceptable as a trade-off, as legalizing cannabis will lead to less social stigma for the users, fewer engagements with law enforcement, and safe access. For the producers and distributors, it will mean safer working conditions and labor protections. All for a 10-15% growth in known cannabis use. And cannabis is a relatively safe narcotic. If you are talking about Portugal's decriminalization of drug possession about 20 years ago, the distribution there is still not facilitated by pharmacies, and those in possession of hard narcotics are required to seek treatment, education, or other interventions as prescribed by drug commissions case-by-case. Portugal has not decriminalized narcotics fully, it was more of a shift from punitive measures to rehabilitation measures for the users. The laws surrounding distribution remain generally in line with Western countries.
avidphantasm 4y ago
It would be great to destroy the criminal economy. However, I fear the drug trade is too useful to the likes of the CIA to ever be abolished. Those with power who seriously try to fix the drug problem would probably be assassinated. This is why no US leaders have actually tried to end the drug war.

junofan 4y ago

Also reduces a lot of problem behaviors of street addicts like smashing and stealing property and congregating for access to suppliers.

Tiktaalik 4y ago
omg yes. Arguably the cycle of police aggressively confiscating drugs from users induces more petty theft as the police confiscations become a new sink to drain drug user wealth. Those chemically addicted to drugs need to replace the confiscated drugs, which creates a new need to find something to sell to get enough money to once again buy drugs on the illegal market. A safe supply of regulated drugs breaks this cycle.

clnq 4y ago

There is no such thing as "a safe supply of drugs". Whether the street drugs are produced in a quality-controlled way or not, it is well-known that use of the substances has negative outcomes in health and occupational functioning. Direct sale of street narcotics would only be another harm reduction practice, similar to "safe use sites". But no harm reduction practice makes the harm "safe". The political double-speak around this is very similar to "clean coal"; it implies a strong position ("coal is clean") while offering an escape hatch if challenged ("coal pollution mitigation, otherwise known as clean coal, reduces greenhouse emissions when coal is used as a fuel"). Similarly as there is no "clean coal" in reality, there is no "safe supply of drugs". When we take deceiving loaded words like "safe" out of the equation, it becomes harder to argue against substance control, even if seen as prohibition. While it is evident that street drug crisis in the US has been mishandled, if restricting the access of these substances (or "prohibition") was done correctly, it would benefit society. Particularly, the prohibition would benefit society more if it was not mainly enforced through criminalization of street drugs, but instead through teaching, rehabilitation, and prevention. In contrast, "safe" drug harm is an oxymoron. And it's very ineffective to even discuss anything on a double-speak premise. We should instead focus on fixing the root problem of drug use, rather than be distracted by harm reduction, especially when it's been politicized so much.

AstralStorm 4y ago
In contrast, actual measures taken to legalize (if not make widely available) and focus on safety actually work to reduce issues and use. With many drugs, actually quitting via tapering is a valid approach. How the heck do you propose to do that otherwise than having safe use? By making it legal and say requiring ID to get, you can actually track and find who has a problem and deliver help to them. That also requires the pharmacy and doctors to not be drug pushers, a tough sell in USA. That easy. Worked pretty well in one or two countries.
- clnq 4y ago
  I do not disagree with medication-assisted treatment (MAT) rehabilitation which involves tapering/dose reduction. I do disagree with the implementation of "safe use" Western countries have now, which is ineffective for rehabilitation. Drug rehab programs regularly go much further to be effective, and include group counselling, individual counselling, substance replacement, medication to reduce withdrawal symptoms, relapse management, and similar. On the other hand, harm reduction is a completely different effort that does not constitute safe use in my opinion, because it facilitates continuous use, which is very harmful, even if the harm is reduced. Even in rehabilitation centres, the use of controlled substances is not considered safe by all medics. It is rather more agreeable to call it safer use. By the way, which are the countries that you mention where legalizing narcotics and selling them in pharmacies yielded positive results, and what were the results? If you are talking about legalizing cannabis in some US states and Canada, it is far too early to see the long-term results, although preliminarily, it seems like the use of cannabis has increased. This might be acceptable as a trade-off, as legalizing cannabis will lead to less social stigma for the users, fewer engagements with law enforcement, and safe access. For the producers and distributors, it will mean safer working conditions and labor protections. All for a 10-15% growth in known cannabis use. And cannabis is a relatively safe narcotic. If you are talking about Portugal's decriminalization of drug possession about 20 years ago, the distribution there is still not facilitated by pharmacies, and those in possession of hard narcotics are required to seek treatment, education, or other interventions as prescribed by drug commissions case-by-case. Portugal has not decriminalized narcotics fully, it was more of a shift from punitive measures to rehabilitation measures for the users. The laws surrounding distribution remain generally in line with Western countries.

avidphantasm 4y ago

It would be great to destroy the criminal economy. However, I fear the drug trade is too useful to the likes of the CIA to ever be abolished. Those with power who seriously try to fix the drug problem would probably be assassinated. This is why no US leaders have actually tried to end the drug war.