12 ms·

This is just more political gymnastics that only serves to ensure the continued dominance of black markets and all of the violence and death those black markets

This is just more political gymnastics that only serves to ensure the continued dominance of black markets and all of the violence and death those black markets bring. Any substances widely consumed by people should be regulated and tested before they are sold to the public. Even the substances some people don't like other people consuming.

Mashimo 3y ago
> that only serves to ensure the continued dominance of black markets Well, no, not only. It also serves the consumers. > Any substances widely consumed by people should be regulated and tested before they are sold to the public Agreed.
osigurdson 3y ago
I suspect it isn't that they merely "don't like" other people consuming. They also probably think that increased access (supply) may result in increased demand. I'm not sure, but I do feel that if hard drugs were available at every 7-11 for example, there might be more junkies. Every addict is an incredible waste of human potential.
- olejorgenb 3y ago
  > may result in increased demand Likely IMO > there might be more junkies Unlikely, the myth of "one-taste of some drugs = instant addiction" need to die.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- mathieuh 3y ago
  Is anyone suggesting hard drugs be available at 7-11? I believe all drugs should be legal, but that there should of course be checks and regulations on who has access to the harder drugs that research has shown can ruin people's lives. I say this as a formerly-active heroin addict: the hardest part of my time as an active addict was not having heroin. I was almost entirely functional, I had a full-time job the entire time, but if I was unable to get any for a couple of days it sent me completely spiralling. If had a doctor's note showing I was an active heroin addict which would allow me to purchase heroin OTC at a chemist it would have improved my life immeasurably and made it much easier for me to quit. After all, it was only ever a day or two before I could buy more, and I know even now I could buy some heroin illegally online and have it drop through my door in less than 24 hours. Personally I'm unable to consume any psychoactive substance as I've learnt by now it sends me down a path that gets harder to return from every time, but I believe all drugs should be made legal, and all drug problems should be handed over to the health system rather than the justice system.
  - girvo 3y ago
    To add to your point, I’m on the Buvidal once-monthly shot. I get the mood boosting effects (albeit in a much subtler fashion due to buprenorphine being a partial agonist of the mu opioid receptor) of my previous heroin addiction, without all the downsides. Super neat tech too, though the injection stings something fierce.
    - mathieuh 3y ago
      I never even got offered substitutes, I was habitually taking several substances and the addiction help offered where I live basically said they wouldn't give me anything unless I could quit everything except heroin. Ended up doing it Trainspotting style at my mother's house. Glad they work for you though. Is your plan to stay on them indefinitely or to try and get off them entirely?
      - girvo 3y ago
        Ah that’s a shame. The government run addiction clinic here in QLD Australia is brilliant and are even doing a clinical trial right now for mirtazipine as a meth addiction treatment which is super neat. Not sure! I might come off it in the future, but it does have some upsides, costs me nothing, and keeps me on the straight and narrow. Playing it by ear basically, I just bought my first home which is quite exciting :) so maybe in the future I’ll come off it, which is a lot easier to do from the injection than it is the sublingual strips or tablets
  - westmeal 3y ago
    I'm really happy you were able to exert control over your life and kick that habit. Stay strong man.
    - mathieuh 3y ago
      Thanks. Although I have to be honest, at almost four years out I have essentially zero cravings so I'm not finding it too difficult. And after numerous cycles of getting clean and relapsing, I recognise what do cravings I get immediately and they don't bother me anymore.
- omeid2 3y ago
  The notion that legalisation would increase access is one of those things that looks logical on the surface but is completely the opposite in practice.
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    When has legalized sale ever decreased access?
    - omeid2 3y ago
      CFC and Antibiotics are legal with reduced access.
- junon 3y ago
  If other countries are any proof, the opposite happens.
- jterrys 3y ago
  After having the displeasure of visiting Frankfurt and having to spend about a month using the main train station... I have to agree. I didn't really understand why junkies would line up at pharmacies until like the 3rd day... until I realized "oh, they get clean needles here". I used to be fairly libertarian on drugs, but having experienced the state of it in the U.S and Germany, and comparing with Asian countries like Singapore and Taiwan, I prefer the latter. I'd rather not see it. I'd rather the streets be clean. I'd rather feel safe going to the metro and having it not smell like urine and feces. If these are the two paths I have to choose, then ban the damn things.
  - freedomben 3y ago
    This is the fallacy that the majority of people suffer from: if I don't see it, it doesn't happen. There are tons of functional, contributing people using drugs, but you don't know about it. All you saw are the people who have hit rock bottom and developed serious issues with them, and you've assumed they must be the only ones using dreugs and that drugs inevitably lead to that. It's a common error, but a big one nonetheless that leads to wildly unscientific conclusions. To then make or support policy based on those conclusions is extremely irresponsible.
    - yadaeno 3y ago
      So you’re saying it’s a fallacy because Singapore and Taiwan are filled with high functioning heroin users? Draw a line on a bellcurve, the people on the right can use drugs safely without destroying their lives the people on the left cannot. GP is saying that for hard drugs, that line is a little to far to the right to sustain a clean and safe society so we should ban them all together. That might not be a reasonable option for western countries but lets not act like acknowledging that is a fallacy.
      - freedomben 3y ago
        > So you’re saying it’s a fallacy because Singapore and Taiwan are filled with high functioning heroin users? No, I'm not saying that at all. I have no idea the makeup of Singapore and Taiwan. I am saying that you can't take a heavily biased sample and make conclusions about the entire population. This is a well accepted reality in statistics. It's deeply unscientific and can lead to horrendously incorrect conclusions. Then making policies on those conclusions that can lead to death and/or imprisonment of people is at best grossly irresponsible.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
whimsicalism 3y ago
How can they regulate a substance if they can't block it from being distributed?
- standardUser 3y ago
  If they can't block a substance from being distributed, they should regulate it instead.
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    How can you regulate a substance without blocking the substance if it doesn't meet your standards?
    - freedomben 3y ago
      They don't need to block it, people will block it themselves if you give them the information they need. Virtually nobody wants to overdose and die because they thought they were taking oxycodone but got fentanyl instead. These things happen because the user has no way of knowing what they were sold, and because of the ddrug war the only people left selling are the most ruthless.
    - manarth 3y ago
      People sell bootleg alcohol which may be adulterated with methanol, and it's usually bought on the basis of price. The majority of alcohol is bought from reputable, quality-controlled sources, such as bottle-shops, supermarkets, and bars. Similarly with drugs: if they're available from reputable, accessible, legal sources, the number of consumers ready to buy from black-market sources will be significantly reduced.
    - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
      When was the last time you bought moonshine / self made alcohol to save money? Its not blocked, its cheaper than store-bought beer.
- DrThunder 3y ago
PurpleRamen 3y ago
Can it be, that you don't understand the concept of a black market? The whole purpose is that sells things outside the laws and regulations.
asdajksah2123 3y ago
I'm completely in favor of regulating "illegal" drugs instead of prohibiting them outright. But I think it's also pretty clear that is a significant political leap that may even be at least a couple of generations away. In the meanwhile this sounds like a pretty good way to save lives which may even be possible within the current political environment.
gwbas1c 3y ago
> Any substances widely consumed by people should be regulated and tested before they are sold to the public. Even the substances some people don't like other people consuming. I suspect this is the beginning of reform. Politics moves slowly. At least my translation of the article implied that further steps towards decriminalization will come in the future. In the US, states often pass laws that undermine federal laws. I'm less familiar with EU and German politics. I always wonder how we as a society could legalize "hard" drugs. Do we sell them like alcohol / tobacco, with minimal restrictions? (Just age limits.) Or, do we require obtaining a license, or only allow taking hard drugs in a controlled setting? I don't have the answer; but it's an important discussion to have as drugs are decriminalized and legalized.
- tastyfreeze 3y ago
  On the scale of drug hardness, alcohol is near the top. I don't see why any other drug should have stricter laws. Alcohol is addictive, physical dependence forming and can be overdosed with no medical use. Are these not attributes of Schedule 1 drugs?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - meepmorp 3y ago
    At very least, it makes sense to regulate it more in line with other drugs that have significant effects on GABAA receptors, like barbiturates and benzodiazepines. Not only does alcohol cause physical dependence, like other GABAA targeting drugs, chronic use lowers the seizure threshold making them physically dangerous to discontinue without tapering or medication.
  - californical 3y ago
    It’s also widely understood how to dose and consume it — the commonality of it makes it less dangerous on a micro level. And also much harder to convince people to ban it when the majority of people consume it. Alcohol has existed and been consumed since before humans existed. It’s also trivially easy to produce alcohol yourself, naturally manifesting out of a sugary liquid, meaning that prohibition is ~impossible. If you mean just from an effects standpoint than yeah alcohol is absolutely top tier dangerous. But unfortunately/luckily, society operates on more than just statistics. And trying to take the human emotion element out of decisions is hopeless.
wongarsu 3y ago
It's political gymnastics because getting a majority for legalization is much harder than getting a majority for quality control. Germany is now legalizing cannabis, but that's still very far from legalizing heroin or cocaine. Remember that about 60% of German voters are over 50, and may be less open to radical changes. In principle I agree that many drugs should be legal, and we should instead spend more resources on mental health and support for addicted people. But if all we can get a majority for is the latter part that's still an improvement.
davidguetta 3y ago
That's actually you doing a lot of mental gymnastics to promote full legalization of everything. Most people think you HAVE to forbid stuff sometimes. If it's forbidded it's because it's dangerous and it kill people. What you are advocating is a bit like saying "oh it's forbidden to stab people in the streets but if you do it we should teach you to do it the proper way to minimize pain". This makes 0 sense. And I do take drugs recreationally.. People are getting into dangerous territory, let them be responsible of their actions. It's not like you can't test your stuff first or do risk reduction anyway if you make half an effort to inform yourself. Now saying the gov should organize or sponsor while he decided to forbid it is nonsense of the highest level. If they had more money to do that they would use it to actually fight more the cartels
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- standardUser 3y ago
  The mental gymnastics come when we pretend illegal drugs aren't widely available today to anyone who wants them, with no quality control and via markets governed by violence. We already legally sell all manner of drugs up to an including various types of speed and opioids. The only difference is that for certain drugs, you have to go to an illegal dealer instead of a pharmacy.
  - davidguetta 3y ago
    The fact there are problems in the american Pharma Industry (which is a legalized cartel thanks to lobbying) doesn't mean you have to legalize everything.
    - standardUser 3y ago
      The fact that we waste endless billions failing to stop the drug trade, while simultaneously enriching violent gangs and ensuring overdose deaths IS a good reason to legalize widely used drugs that we have proven we can't ban.
PragmaticPulp 3y ago
> Any substances widely consumed by people should be regulated and tested before they are sold to the public Even after marijuana legalization, many states still have thriving underground marijuana markets. Many people who consume a lot of a substance over time will inevitably seek out cheaper sources. The sources complying with regulation and testing requirements, however light, will be more expensive than someone growing some plants in the back of a spare building somewhere. The problem is exacerbated for more expensive and addictive drugs. The few people I’ve known who became addicted to opioids were spending significant amounts of money to maintain their habit and traveling to increasing dangerous situations to get better prices. It’s optimistic to declare that everyone should have access to well tested drugs, but the reality is that it’s not a magic bullet. I also have some serious doubts about the narrative that increasing availability of drugs won’t contribute to more widespread addiction problems.
- cmh89 3y ago
  A lot of states have made legal marijuana prohibitively expensive. The only black markets for weed in Oregon are for minors, because you can buy an ounce of pretty good quality stuff for $70. Politicians who lost the war to keep a harmless drug illegal try and price out people from consuming it.
  - tristor 3y ago
    As a resident of Colorado, I can confirm this. In Colorado, medical marijuana is taxed differently from recreational marijuana sales. Even generally recreational users are always trying to figure out a way to get a medical card, because the taxes are extremely high. Colorado charges a 15% excise tax for sales from cultivator to retailer, and then an additional 15% tax at point of sale. Additionally, for various reasons, recreational shops tend to charge more as a base rate than medical shops. The outcome is that on average recreational products are actually 50-60% higher in cost by the time the customer pays vs medical products, for identical underlying goods (e.g. same strain, weight, quality, producer). The flip side is that taxation of recreational usage in Colorado has been very good for the state budget. I remember several years where the taxes collected were high enough that the state increased income tax refunds, and in one case to 100%, because Colorado has tax income caps and must return tax income overages. The reality though is, if you're dependent on a drug and there's a cheaper way to get it, you'll do that. And in fact, a lot of people in Colorado still home-grow and trade/sell with friends, because purchasing the product through a dispensary is too expensive. The average price in Colorado for an ounce of high quality marijuana is about $100 /before tax/, which makes it around $115 after tax vs Oregon's $70 at point of sale, that's a significant difference in pricing.
this_user 3y ago
> This is just more political gymnastics that only serves to ensure the continued dominance of black markets and all of the violence and death those black markets bring. It's progress and it's pragmatism, because it's either this or nothing. There is no meaningful amount of political support for what you describe.

Mashimo 3y ago

> that only serves to ensure the continued dominance of black markets Well, no, not only. It also serves the consumers. > Any substances widely consumed by people should be regulated and tested before they are sold to the public Agreed.

osigurdson 3y ago

I suspect it isn't that they merely "don't like" other people consuming. They also probably think that increased access (supply) may result in increased demand. I'm not sure, but I do feel that if hard drugs were available at every 7-11 for example, there might be more junkies. Every addict is an incredible waste of human potential.

olejorgenb 3y ago
> may result in increased demand Likely IMO > there might be more junkies Unlikely, the myth of "one-taste of some drugs = instant addiction" need to die.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
mathieuh 3y ago
Is anyone suggesting hard drugs be available at 7-11? I believe all drugs should be legal, but that there should of course be checks and regulations on who has access to the harder drugs that research has shown can ruin people's lives. I say this as a formerly-active heroin addict: the hardest part of my time as an active addict was not having heroin. I was almost entirely functional, I had a full-time job the entire time, but if I was unable to get any for a couple of days it sent me completely spiralling. If had a doctor's note showing I was an active heroin addict which would allow me to purchase heroin OTC at a chemist it would have improved my life immeasurably and made it much easier for me to quit. After all, it was only ever a day or two before I could buy more, and I know even now I could buy some heroin illegally online and have it drop through my door in less than 24 hours. Personally I'm unable to consume any psychoactive substance as I've learnt by now it sends me down a path that gets harder to return from every time, but I believe all drugs should be made legal, and all drug problems should be handed over to the health system rather than the justice system.
- girvo 3y ago
  To add to your point, I’m on the Buvidal once-monthly shot. I get the mood boosting effects (albeit in a much subtler fashion due to buprenorphine being a partial agonist of the mu opioid receptor) of my previous heroin addiction, without all the downsides. Super neat tech too, though the injection stings something fierce.
  - mathieuh 3y ago
    I never even got offered substitutes, I was habitually taking several substances and the addiction help offered where I live basically said they wouldn't give me anything unless I could quit everything except heroin. Ended up doing it Trainspotting style at my mother's house. Glad they work for you though. Is your plan to stay on them indefinitely or to try and get off them entirely?
    - girvo 3y ago
      Ah that’s a shame. The government run addiction clinic here in QLD Australia is brilliant and are even doing a clinical trial right now for mirtazipine as a meth addiction treatment which is super neat. Not sure! I might come off it in the future, but it does have some upsides, costs me nothing, and keeps me on the straight and narrow. Playing it by ear basically, I just bought my first home which is quite exciting :) so maybe in the future I’ll come off it, which is a lot easier to do from the injection than it is the sublingual strips or tablets
- westmeal 3y ago
  I'm really happy you were able to exert control over your life and kick that habit. Stay strong man.
  - mathieuh 3y ago
    Thanks. Although I have to be honest, at almost four years out I have essentially zero cravings so I'm not finding it too difficult. And after numerous cycles of getting clean and relapsing, I recognise what do cravings I get immediately and they don't bother me anymore.
omeid2 3y ago
The notion that legalisation would increase access is one of those things that looks logical on the surface but is completely the opposite in practice.
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  When has legalized sale ever decreased access?
  - omeid2 3y ago
    CFC and Antibiotics are legal with reduced access.
junon 3y ago
If other countries are any proof, the opposite happens.
jterrys 3y ago
After having the displeasure of visiting Frankfurt and having to spend about a month using the main train station... I have to agree. I didn't really understand why junkies would line up at pharmacies until like the 3rd day... until I realized "oh, they get clean needles here". I used to be fairly libertarian on drugs, but having experienced the state of it in the U.S and Germany, and comparing with Asian countries like Singapore and Taiwan, I prefer the latter. I'd rather not see it. I'd rather the streets be clean. I'd rather feel safe going to the metro and having it not smell like urine and feces. If these are the two paths I have to choose, then ban the damn things.
- freedomben 3y ago
  This is the fallacy that the majority of people suffer from: if I don't see it, it doesn't happen. There are tons of functional, contributing people using drugs, but you don't know about it. All you saw are the people who have hit rock bottom and developed serious issues with them, and you've assumed they must be the only ones using dreugs and that drugs inevitably lead to that. It's a common error, but a big one nonetheless that leads to wildly unscientific conclusions. To then make or support policy based on those conclusions is extremely irresponsible.
  - yadaeno 3y ago
    So you’re saying it’s a fallacy because Singapore and Taiwan are filled with high functioning heroin users? Draw a line on a bellcurve, the people on the right can use drugs safely without destroying their lives the people on the left cannot. GP is saying that for hard drugs, that line is a little to far to the right to sustain a clean and safe society so we should ban them all together. That might not be a reasonable option for western countries but lets not act like acknowledging that is a fallacy.
    - freedomben 3y ago
      > So you’re saying it’s a fallacy because Singapore and Taiwan are filled with high functioning heroin users? No, I'm not saying that at all. I have no idea the makeup of Singapore and Taiwan. I am saying that you can't take a heavily biased sample and make conclusions about the entire population. This is a well accepted reality in statistics. It's deeply unscientific and can lead to horrendously incorrect conclusions. Then making policies on those conclusions that can lead to death and/or imprisonment of people is at best grossly irresponsible.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

whimsicalism 3y ago

How can they regulate a substance if they can't block it from being distributed?

standardUser 3y ago
If they can't block a substance from being distributed, they should regulate it instead.
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  How can you regulate a substance without blocking the substance if it doesn't meet your standards?
  - freedomben 3y ago
    They don't need to block it, people will block it themselves if you give them the information they need. Virtually nobody wants to overdose and die because they thought they were taking oxycodone but got fentanyl instead. These things happen because the user has no way of knowing what they were sold, and because of the ddrug war the only people left selling are the most ruthless.
  - manarth 3y ago
    People sell bootleg alcohol which may be adulterated with methanol, and it's usually bought on the basis of price. The majority of alcohol is bought from reputable, quality-controlled sources, such as bottle-shops, supermarkets, and bars. Similarly with drugs: if they're available from reputable, accessible, legal sources, the number of consumers ready to buy from black-market sources will be significantly reduced.
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    When was the last time you bought moonshine / self made alcohol to save money? Its not blocked, its cheaper than store-bought beer.
DrThunder 3y ago

PurpleRamen 3y ago

Can it be, that you don't understand the concept of a black market? The whole purpose is that sells things outside the laws and regulations.

asdajksah2123 3y ago

I'm completely in favor of regulating "illegal" drugs instead of prohibiting them outright. But I think it's also pretty clear that is a significant political leap that may even be at least a couple of generations away. In the meanwhile this sounds like a pretty good way to save lives which may even be possible within the current political environment.

gwbas1c 3y ago

> Any substances widely consumed by people should be regulated and tested before they are sold to the public. Even the substances some people don't like other people consuming. I suspect this is the beginning of reform. Politics moves slowly. At least my translation of the article implied that further steps towards decriminalization will come in the future. In the US, states often pass laws that undermine federal laws. I'm less familiar with EU and German politics. I always wonder how we as a society could legalize "hard" drugs. Do we sell them like alcohol / tobacco, with minimal restrictions? (Just age limits.) Or, do we require obtaining a license, or only allow taking hard drugs in a controlled setting? I don't have the answer; but it's an important discussion to have as drugs are decriminalized and legalized.

tastyfreeze 3y ago
On the scale of drug hardness, alcohol is near the top. I don't see why any other drug should have stricter laws. Alcohol is addictive, physical dependence forming and can be overdosed with no medical use. Are these not attributes of Schedule 1 drugs?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- meepmorp 3y ago
  At very least, it makes sense to regulate it more in line with other drugs that have significant effects on GABAA receptors, like barbiturates and benzodiazepines. Not only does alcohol cause physical dependence, like other GABAA targeting drugs, chronic use lowers the seizure threshold making them physically dangerous to discontinue without tapering or medication.
- californical 3y ago
  It’s also widely understood how to dose and consume it — the commonality of it makes it less dangerous on a micro level. And also much harder to convince people to ban it when the majority of people consume it. Alcohol has existed and been consumed since before humans existed. It’s also trivially easy to produce alcohol yourself, naturally manifesting out of a sugary liquid, meaning that prohibition is ~impossible. If you mean just from an effects standpoint than yeah alcohol is absolutely top tier dangerous. But unfortunately/luckily, society operates on more than just statistics. And trying to take the human emotion element out of decisions is hopeless.

wongarsu 3y ago

It's political gymnastics because getting a majority for legalization is much harder than getting a majority for quality control. Germany is now legalizing cannabis, but that's still very far from legalizing heroin or cocaine. Remember that about 60% of German voters are over 50, and may be less open to radical changes. In principle I agree that many drugs should be legal, and we should instead spend more resources on mental health and support for addicted people. But if all we can get a majority for is the latter part that's still an improvement.

davidguetta 3y ago

That's actually you doing a lot of mental gymnastics to promote full legalization of everything. Most people think you HAVE to forbid stuff sometimes. If it's forbidded it's because it's dangerous and it kill people. What you are advocating is a bit like saying "oh it's forbidden to stab people in the streets but if you do it we should teach you to do it the proper way to minimize pain". This makes 0 sense. And I do take drugs recreationally.. People are getting into dangerous territory, let them be responsible of their actions. It's not like you can't test your stuff first or do risk reduction anyway if you make half an effort to inform yourself. Now saying the gov should organize or sponsor while he decided to forbid it is nonsense of the highest level. If they had more money to do that they would use it to actually fight more the cartels

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
standardUser 3y ago
The mental gymnastics come when we pretend illegal drugs aren't widely available today to anyone who wants them, with no quality control and via markets governed by violence. We already legally sell all manner of drugs up to an including various types of speed and opioids. The only difference is that for certain drugs, you have to go to an illegal dealer instead of a pharmacy.
- davidguetta 3y ago
  The fact there are problems in the american Pharma Industry (which is a legalized cartel thanks to lobbying) doesn't mean you have to legalize everything.
  - standardUser 3y ago
    The fact that we waste endless billions failing to stop the drug trade, while simultaneously enriching violent gangs and ensuring overdose deaths IS a good reason to legalize widely used drugs that we have proven we can't ban.

PragmaticPulp 3y ago

> Any substances widely consumed by people should be regulated and tested before they are sold to the public Even after marijuana legalization, many states still have thriving underground marijuana markets. Many people who consume a lot of a substance over time will inevitably seek out cheaper sources. The sources complying with regulation and testing requirements, however light, will be more expensive than someone growing some plants in the back of a spare building somewhere. The problem is exacerbated for more expensive and addictive drugs. The few people I’ve known who became addicted to opioids were spending significant amounts of money to maintain their habit and traveling to increasing dangerous situations to get better prices. It’s optimistic to declare that everyone should have access to well tested drugs, but the reality is that it’s not a magic bullet. I also have some serious doubts about the narrative that increasing availability of drugs won’t contribute to more widespread addiction problems.

cmh89 3y ago
A lot of states have made legal marijuana prohibitively expensive. The only black markets for weed in Oregon are for minors, because you can buy an ounce of pretty good quality stuff for $70. Politicians who lost the war to keep a harmless drug illegal try and price out people from consuming it.
- tristor 3y ago
  As a resident of Colorado, I can confirm this. In Colorado, medical marijuana is taxed differently from recreational marijuana sales. Even generally recreational users are always trying to figure out a way to get a medical card, because the taxes are extremely high. Colorado charges a 15% excise tax for sales from cultivator to retailer, and then an additional 15% tax at point of sale. Additionally, for various reasons, recreational shops tend to charge more as a base rate than medical shops. The outcome is that on average recreational products are actually 50-60% higher in cost by the time the customer pays vs medical products, for identical underlying goods (e.g. same strain, weight, quality, producer). The flip side is that taxation of recreational usage in Colorado has been very good for the state budget. I remember several years where the taxes collected were high enough that the state increased income tax refunds, and in one case to 100%, because Colorado has tax income caps and must return tax income overages. The reality though is, if you're dependent on a drug and there's a cheaper way to get it, you'll do that. And in fact, a lot of people in Colorado still home-grow and trade/sell with friends, because purchasing the product through a dispensary is too expensive. The average price in Colorado for an ounce of high quality marijuana is about $100 /before tax/, which makes it around $115 after tax vs Oregon's $70 at point of sale, that's a significant difference in pricing.

this_user 3y ago

> This is just more political gymnastics that only serves to ensure the continued dominance of black markets and all of the violence and death those black markets bring. It's progress and it's pragmatism, because it's either this or nothing. There is no meaningful amount of political support for what you describe.