4 ms·

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.
- ipaddr 3y ago
  New Zealand health officials locked down the island earlier and for much longer than anywhere else during covid aside from China and they have increased social problems from it. I'm not sure the world should be following advice from that source.

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.
ipaddr 3y ago
New Zealand health officials locked down the island earlier and for much longer than anywhere else during covid aside from China and they have increased social problems from it. I'm not sure the world should be following advice from that source.