4 ms·
Replacing individual drug doses with clean versions at the point of consumption is not “distributing drugs” in any sense except rhetorical, so I should simply r
by fwlr 4y ago
Replacing individual drug doses with clean versions at the point of consumption is not “distributing drugs” in any sense except rhetorical, so I should simply reject that comparison.
But in the spirit of discussion, I will instead say: why compete when you could regulate?
This proposal would essentially introduce a tax on cutting drugs that is exactly proportionate to the amount of cutting done. Further processes could emulate other forms of regulation: if the drug dose contains enough of some adulterant that it would have been acutely lethal (for example, way too much fentanyl accidentally mixed in), you could withhold the dose or otherwise induce the user to give up the dealer to the police - not as hard of a sell as you might think, given that the pharmacist literally just saved the user from dying in the next 30 minutes - and now you have something sort of like safety and QA regulations that impose jail time penalties for improper manufacturing.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> Replacing individual drug doses with clean versions at the point of consumption is not “distributing drugs” in any sense except rhetorical, so I should simply reject that comparison I pay a dealer for a ticket. I take it to the dispensary. They clip the ticket and give me new drugs. Now replace “ticket” with “tainted drugs.” The street-purchase requirement is totally performative. The dispensary is selling drugs with extra steps, with the bonus of sending their revenue to the dealers.
- fwlr 4y agoThe street purchase requirement is not totally performative. It requires dealers to be standing around on the street carrying books of tickets that are highly illegal to possess, thus allowing police intervention. Under the extra step proposal, police can continue to arrest ticket-sellers, hypothetically reducing the ticket availability towards zero. Without the extra steps, there is just the user and the dispensary, there’s nobody for the police to arrest and law enforcement loses their lever for pressuring and reducing the illicit drug trade.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> hypothetically reducing the ticket availability towards zero This is prohibition with extra steps. Granted, you deal with the problem of tainted drugs. But that isn’t the chief issue, and creating a giant hole in the budget aimed exclusively at that harm seems political suicide.
- fwlr 4y agoIn case it’s not clear, I am in favor of prohibition! The exact lesson I draw from the failure of alcohol prohibition is that drug harm isn’t a major factor in drug users’ choices; you can’t (ethically) reduce demand by making drugs more harmful, and more modern evidence seems to show that making drugs less harmful doesn’t increase use by much either. I believe that drug distribution should be illegal, and drug consumption should be as safe as practical. If we’re talking about political feasibility, I think replacing harmful street drugs with their pure versions at the point of consumption is politically much closer to “safe injection sites” than it is to “government agents with the job title of Drug Dealer”.
- qwytw 4y agoBecause there are other reasons extremely valid reasons why we shouldn't drug dealers and organized crime besides that they drugs they sell are ussually adulterated? I mean you couldn't even get these legal/clean drugs directly before buying something from a street dealer under this scheme? Why? IMHO that's just beyond absurd we might just as well provide direct cash subsidies to drug cartels instead if that's your goal.