6 ms·

> only that making something illegal reduces its use I'm not sure how that flies with this: "An article published in The Journal of the American Medical Associ

• vlunkr 3y ago
  I'm not sure uncle-smearing is necessary.
• jacooper 3y ago
  Well yeah, because enforcement was a joke.
  • serf 3y ago
    given that addictions still exist even for the most illicit drugs, I don't see that correlation. enforcement is significantly less 'a joke' for heroin and cocaine, yet addicts still exist for the products. also : is incarceration/penal-justice really the desired outcome here? Is the punchline here : "Would you rather be surrounded by ex-convicts or addicts?"
    • ufmace 3y ago
      Anecdotally, enforcement is a joke for cocaine too. I know several people who use it recreationally, sometimes to slightly disturbing excess, and none have ever been in any legal trouble for it.
  • ethanbond 3y ago
    Not if you were poor or black or Hispanic it wasn't (and obviously there's huge variation locale-to-locale)
    • vunderba 3y ago
      Exactly, OP very clearly didn't live through the Reagan administration and DARE.
      • jacooper 3y ago
        I never lived in the U.S., but enforcement is a joke in the west in general. Countries like The UAE or Saudi Arabia don't seem to have any problems with high/drugged people on the streets for some reason, mainly because they actually enforce the rules, you take drugs, even just for personal use, you will go to jail, it's not a joke.
        • ethanbond 3y ago
          I've lived in parts of the US where "they actually enforce the rules, you take drugs, even just for personal use, you will go to jail, it's not a joke" and yet there are widespread drug abuse problems. Curious ain't it
          • jacooper 3y ago
            And how do you know they are widespread? Is it because people just casually say I take drugs? If that's it, then it still falls short. In those countries they actively hunt for drug users, they don't wait for you to get caught high at some kind of street checkpoint. And the population having an active moral compass helps for sure.
            • ethanbond 3y ago
              lmfao. UAE and Saudi Arabia have active moral compasses. Sure is active and pointing in some direction. Would you send your daughter, wife, or mother to live there as a local does -- i.e. without all the special privileges that Westerners get outside of the culture's standard "active moral compass"?
              • 3y ago
  • mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
    Ok, tell me, how would you enforce it?
    • jacooper 3y ago
      Ask the UAE about that. They don't seem to have any drugged idiots on the streets for some reason.
• zdragnar 3y ago
  One could say the same things about tobacco and minors, yet somehow nobody is suggesting that we should let kids buy cigarettes.
  • metamet 3y ago
    That's an argument for regulation vs illegalization, though.
    • collegeburner 3y ago
      no, the same public health "experts" say cigarettes should be outright banned for people under a certain age. new zealand recently banned ever selling them to anyone born after 2009, at any age
      • rvnx 3y ago
        and if you check this article and the charts (from Germany): https://www.dw.com/en/new-zealands-smoking-ban-a-precedent-for-others/a-64115904 https://www.dw.com/en/new-zealands-smoking-ban-a-precedent-f... It is very very obvious that restricting the product works in such case (from 30%+ of active smokers to almost 5%)
        • jliptzin 3y ago
          Maybe if you're going to go down the road of buying illegal substances you're not going to pick the one that is highly addictive, gives you lung cancer and makes you smell like a chimney in exchange for almost no discernable difference in how you feel? Maybe there are better trade-offs at that point, such as cocaine, mdma, ketamine, lsd, etc?
        • tmpX7dMeXU 3y ago
          Yes. Supply reduction works in aggregate in almost all cases. Anyone that says otherwise only came to harm reduction via it being a liberal / progressive political talking point. I say this as someone that’s very left-wing and an overall believer in harm reduction. It’s just the way it’s espoused by Joe Citizen is dumbed down to the point where it’s just plain wrong. If we legalised heroin, more people would do heroin. Gateway drugs are real. Decades of fighting against stupid Reagan-era drug policy have trained so many people to completely throw the baby out with the bathwater and brush the nuances of addiction under the rug in support of their cause, on both sides. The argument in reality tends to be more that decriminalisation presents a net benefit literally by virtue of mitigating the criminal aspect. I’d use drugs more than I do now if there was less of a legal disincentive. People that think they understand the tenants of harm reduction often hate to hear that, which I find absurd. It’s just…the truth. Usually I’m told “but you’re not the one we’re worried about” as if those with ‘serious’ drug addictions are somehow ‘other’. A ridiculously narrow view. There but for the grace of God go I. I live in an area that saw drastically lower drug importations during COVID travel restrictions. We also had social policy that loaded loads of people up with money that kept everyone paid. We got to see first-hand the effects that supply reduction had on drug use, across the aggregate. There was an inarguable correlation. The issue is usually that policing action is just never that effective.
• mcpackieh 3y ago
  Sample size of one: I never bought weed when it was illegal because I don't associate with the sort of people who'd sell it. Sometimes it would be offered to me and I would try it, but I never had or wanted to have "a dealer". But now that I can just pop into a local store whenever I want, it's no big deal.
  • mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
    Sure, but people like you smoking slightly more often is not actually a real problem. Addiction is a problem, and for people like me who are heavily predisposed to addiction, bans have done nothing to prevent addiction from developing, and done lots to make the lives of those who suffer from it worse, and indeed the drugs themselves more dangerous, even for casual users(it only takes one bad ecstacy pill to kill you...)
    • mcpackieh 3y ago
      > people like you smoking slightly more often Heh, well.. you give me a bit too much credit. I went from one or two bong rips a year to most days of the week. To be honest I think my point of view is more common than you may think because admitting to it is tantamount to admitting I'm some sort of uncool uptight square, but also that I now use. Saying it won't win me friends with either side of the issue, so people like me are generally disinclined share our experiences.
• tqi 3y ago
  I'm confused by the article/headline, which also states: Washington state and Colorado became the first states to legalize recreational marijuana in 2012, after which marijuana use saw a slight increase among Hispanic and white participants, researchers said.
  • schwartzworld 3y ago
    Makes sense. All the old people in my family are buying gummies now.
• dcormier 3y ago
  > You sound like my uncle. Your comment was so much better before that point.
• dionidium 3y ago
  > I'm not sure how that flies with this: "An article published in The Journal of the American Medical Association found there was no increase in cannabis use among the general population or among previous users after their states legalized marijuana." Simple: there is no possible way that's true. It fails every imaginable sniff test. Anecdotally, I never purchased marijuana when it was illegal and I do now. I know many people for whom the same is true. If marijuana were made illegal again tomorrow I would stop using it. I'm a normie middle-aged dad. The only way I'm buying and consuming marijuana is if I can walk into a shop and buy it legally. There must be millions of people like me. This doesn't require any deep insight. It would be very surprising if ease of access had no effect on consumption.