10 ms·

I always thought decriminalization was in some ways the worst of both worlds. On one hand, keeping the production and trade side illegal continues to perpetuate

I always thought decriminalization was in some ways the worst of both worlds. On one hand, keeping the production and trade side illegal continues to perpetuate the underground culture and fund international cartels. Meanwhile their market base increases due to fewer people being afraid of being caught, the product quality is still completely unregulated. Users still need to stay embedded in an an unscrupulous underworld in order to maintain the connections necessary to obtain the product, increasing the chances of abuse and reducing their chances of getting help if they need it. Of course, it's nice not to send people to jail for small quantities, but failing to fully legitimize the market in these ways could cause a lot of other issues.

kelnos 3y ago
I'm not sure that's exactly true. I do agree with you that some people will start using because they lose the fear of being caught, though I'm not convinced this is as large a problem as you might think it is. Either way, there are also undoubtedly people with substance abuse problems who are afraid to get help due to the possibility of incarceration. Removing that fear can lead to more people getting into treatment programs.
- Alupis 3y ago
  > though I'm not convinced this is as large a problem as you might think it is Several states have legalized marijuana, and surprise, marijuana usage is at an all-time high (no pun intended). People who would have never tried it before now do so because the stigma is gone, and it's trivial to get. This part is always lost on the "legalize everything" crowd. While marijuana might be relatively benign, other drugs are not. Removing the stigma and making it easy to get harder drugs is going to be a net-negative thing for society as a hole. We can see this in-action already. Places like California have effectively de-criminalized most/all drug use if you are part of the homeless population. Surprise again - there's more drug use within that community than ever before. It's difficult to walk through the down-town area without seeing overt drug use these-days. It would be better to not throw people in prison for drug use - but instead have mandatory rehab or something... while keeping drug use out of reach for the average person.
  - Demotooodo 3y ago
    It's a novelty right now. In Amsterdam when you go to a music festival you will not see a lot of pod heads. I was one of the few and I'm a German! Look at Portugals drug history. Legalization saved that country!
    - TylerE 3y ago
      How do you see wether someone has eaten edibles?
      - Demotooodo 3y ago
        That's not common in Amsterdam
    - Alupis 3y ago
      > In Amsterdam when you go to a music festival you will not see a lot of pod heads I could be wrong, but I don't believe marijuana is as-legal in Amsterdam as it is in California for example. In CA, there's very few enforced restrictions of where you can get it and where you can use it. > Look at Portugals drug history. Legalization saved that country! It doesn't appear so[1]. It appears they are struggling with the same issues - dramatic rise in drug use. It's not really effective to just simply legalize all drugs. I agree with most, we shouldn't throw people in prison for drug use. No, instead we need to throw them into mandatory rehabilitation programs. The goals of a decriminalization program shouldn't be to increase average citizen's drug use. But that's what happens without some sort of rehab/treatment program. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/07/portugal-drugs-decriminalization-heroin-crack/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/07/portugal-dru...
      - Ajay-p 3y ago
        I am not a consumer of marijuana but in my observations of habitual users is nowhere near the same as someone addicted to heroin, and the severe physical and mental impact it has on their bodies. One could say alcohol and nicotine have such harmful effects, but not as dramatic and sudden as harder narcotics.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  > Either way, there are also undoubtedly people with substance abuse problems who are afraid to get help due to the possibility of incarceration. Removing that fear can lead to more people getting into treatment programs. There are also people that only get help due to the threat of incarceration (e.g. the judge says go to drug treatment or go to jail). Removing that fear can lead to more people not getting into treatment programs.
  - akira2501 3y ago
    "We might have to operate in a cruel and unusual fashion, otherwise, some users might not actually be afraid enough of violence from the state to get help." This is an unfortunate binary we've backed ourselves into. I can imagine tons of other methods the state could use to drive compliance other than outright incarceration and the threat of entirely destroying your life.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      > the threat of entirely destroying your life. What do you mean? Since this is fentanyl, they are already destroying their lives, they will be lucky to still be alive a couple of years if something drastic isn't done.
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
Without legal sales, opiate users get trash street drugs that vary anywhere between unsafe and catastrophically dangerous. Furthermore, there's absolutely none of the benefits like being able to encourage them to keep their used needles in sharps containers like you might be able to do, if they had to drop off the full ones before they got their next fix. We don't get the reduction in violence we'd see from legal sales. None of it. Decrim is what you get from cowardly legislators and imbecilic activists worried that Tweaky the Copper Wiring Thief isn't getting a fair shake at life.
- morkalork 3y ago
  Without legal sales, cartels will keep doing cartel things. Also where will money for treatment programs come from? It will always be at risk of being cut by fiscally conservative governments, vs legal sales that can be taxed to fund amelioration efforts.
  - treeman79 3y ago
    Perhaps guard the boarders so not nearly so much is crossing. Would also help stop human trafficking. Just a thought.
    - morkalork 3y ago
      Are they unguarded right now? Your casually sarcastic "just a thought" makes it sound like everyone else is an idiot for not doing something obvious. Or are you suggesting building a magnificant wall?
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
      Thankfully our land and sea borders only total about 312 yards or so, two squads of border control could keep eyes on it at all times, and shut that stuff down. Oops, my bad. Nope, it's 2000 miles or so.
  - minsc_and_boo 3y ago
    Even with legal sales, there are still black markets for drugs, as is evident with marijuana: https://apnews.com/article/business-california-los-angeles-marijuana-congress-c237d1bd1f7cb14faa8d32b930d860ad https://apnews.com/article/business-california-los-angeles-m...
randerson 3y ago
I wonder: would be better or worse if states started giving out medical-grade Heroin to those who seek it? Perhaps with a prescription where one has to pick up a 1 day supply each day (less likely to OD) and the prescription gradually tapers off down to zero. It would put a dent in the illicit markets and reduce deaths of existing addicts, but could be too tempting for new people to try it out.
- tenebrisalietum 3y ago
  To prevent new people from doing heroin, just have them search for "Kensington Philadelphia" on YouTube and watch 1 to 3 videos.
- Herodotus38 3y ago
  If you tried such a method people would probably be opposed to it because of concerns people would be tempted to obtain it and sell. One would probably model it off of methadone clinics. In most clinics the methadone has to be taken by the person on site and witnessed to prevent issues of diversion. However a lot of places allow people to graduate to be able to pick up a multiple day supply after they have shown stability, etc…
- classichasclass 3y ago
  This is basically the methadone approach, but when I was in general practice, just try weaning people off anything they have a dependence on that they're not motivated to stop using. Plus, harm reduction like syringe services (i.e., needle exchange) is already hugely controversial for "encouraging drug use." That sentiment is at best arguable and at worst a reductionist distortion, but it becomes even harder to argue against when you're in the business of handing out better dope.
willi59549879 3y ago
i think the only way it would work is to make it completely legal (also selling and production) with a lot of control on sales. I am not sure what would be best to control sales, guess it would need to be stricter than the control for tobacco and alcohol. But that way the government could at least get taxes from the sales of the drugs. If only possession is legal then more people might try hard drugs that would have been scared away but drugs still have to be smuggled in. This also means that there is no quality control on the substances.
alphazard 3y ago
As you mentioned, decriminalization is not enough. The effort that was spent on enforcement needs to be repurposed on quality control. It's much easier to enforce laws on businesses who want to sell their products openly than on individuals consuming substances in private. The FDA and DEA should be entirely repurposed to randomly testing all food and drug products and ensuring that the ingredients list is accurate to within a certain margin. Having a single arbiter of good and bad substances has proven to be a failure again and again (remember the Food Pyramid?). I would much rather have access to everything, and know that it is labeled correctly, than have some dysfunctional bureaucracy "looking out for me".
anon84873628 3y ago
That's probably true. Decriminalization is an imperfect first step that can be taken unilaterally by the executive branch while the legislative is deadlocked. In time society grows accustomed to decriminalization and the true legalization is more feasible. In California the decriminalization of magic mushrooms has caused lots more people to start growing them, so price, quality, and diversity are better than ever. That probably wouldn't be the case with other drugs that aren't as easy to produce just anywhere. Although opium poppy field or coca greenhouses are definitely possible.
totalconfusion 3y ago
Completely agree, in for a dime in for a dollar. The reality is legalizing drugs is a politically untenable platform to get elected on because economic realities like supply and demand play no role in the deeply entrenched moral prejudice that is so prevalent in the (often older) voting population. I don't mean to be offensive or ageist and I'm sure lots of older people have been touched both directly and indirectly by drug abuse, my experience is those that have been affected in some way have changed their long held views on drugs being a criminal issue as opposed to a medical one.

kelnos 3y ago

I'm not sure that's exactly true. I do agree with you that some people will start using because they lose the fear of being caught, though I'm not convinced this is as large a problem as you might think it is. Either way, there are also undoubtedly people with substance abuse problems who are afraid to get help due to the possibility of incarceration. Removing that fear can lead to more people getting into treatment programs.

Alupis 3y ago
> though I'm not convinced this is as large a problem as you might think it is Several states have legalized marijuana, and surprise, marijuana usage is at an all-time high (no pun intended). People who would have never tried it before now do so because the stigma is gone, and it's trivial to get. This part is always lost on the "legalize everything" crowd. While marijuana might be relatively benign, other drugs are not. Removing the stigma and making it easy to get harder drugs is going to be a net-negative thing for society as a hole. We can see this in-action already. Places like California have effectively de-criminalized most/all drug use if you are part of the homeless population. Surprise again - there's more drug use within that community than ever before. It's difficult to walk through the down-town area without seeing overt drug use these-days. It would be better to not throw people in prison for drug use - but instead have mandatory rehab or something... while keeping drug use out of reach for the average person.
- Demotooodo 3y ago
  It's a novelty right now. In Amsterdam when you go to a music festival you will not see a lot of pod heads. I was one of the few and I'm a German! Look at Portugals drug history. Legalization saved that country!
  - TylerE 3y ago
    How do you see wether someone has eaten edibles?
    - Demotooodo 3y ago
      That's not common in Amsterdam
  - Alupis 3y ago
    > In Amsterdam when you go to a music festival you will not see a lot of pod heads I could be wrong, but I don't believe marijuana is as-legal in Amsterdam as it is in California for example. In CA, there's very few enforced restrictions of where you can get it and where you can use it. > Look at Portugals drug history. Legalization saved that country! It doesn't appear so[1]. It appears they are struggling with the same issues - dramatic rise in drug use. It's not really effective to just simply legalize all drugs. I agree with most, we shouldn't throw people in prison for drug use. No, instead we need to throw them into mandatory rehabilitation programs. The goals of a decriminalization program shouldn't be to increase average citizen's drug use. But that's what happens without some sort of rehab/treatment program. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/07/portugal-drugs-decriminalization-heroin-crack/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/07/portugal-dru...
    - Ajay-p 3y ago
      I am not a consumer of marijuana but in my observations of habitual users is nowhere near the same as someone addicted to heroin, and the severe physical and mental impact it has on their bodies. One could say alcohol and nicotine have such harmful effects, but not as dramatic and sudden as harder narcotics.
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
> Either way, there are also undoubtedly people with substance abuse problems who are afraid to get help due to the possibility of incarceration. Removing that fear can lead to more people getting into treatment programs. There are also people that only get help due to the threat of incarceration (e.g. the judge says go to drug treatment or go to jail). Removing that fear can lead to more people not getting into treatment programs.
- akira2501 3y ago
  "We might have to operate in a cruel and unusual fashion, otherwise, some users might not actually be afraid enough of violence from the state to get help." This is an unfortunate binary we've backed ourselves into. I can imagine tons of other methods the state could use to drive compliance other than outright incarceration and the threat of entirely destroying your life.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    > the threat of entirely destroying your life. What do you mean? Since this is fentanyl, they are already destroying their lives, they will be lucky to still be alive a couple of years if something drastic isn't done.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

Without legal sales, opiate users get trash street drugs that vary anywhere between unsafe and catastrophically dangerous. Furthermore, there's absolutely none of the benefits like being able to encourage them to keep their used needles in sharps containers like you might be able to do, if they had to drop off the full ones before they got their next fix. We don't get the reduction in violence we'd see from legal sales. None of it. Decrim is what you get from cowardly legislators and imbecilic activists worried that Tweaky the Copper Wiring Thief isn't getting a fair shake at life.

morkalork 3y ago
Without legal sales, cartels will keep doing cartel things. Also where will money for treatment programs come from? It will always be at risk of being cut by fiscally conservative governments, vs legal sales that can be taxed to fund amelioration efforts.
- treeman79 3y ago
  Perhaps guard the boarders so not nearly so much is crossing. Would also help stop human trafficking. Just a thought.
  - morkalork 3y ago
    Are they unguarded right now? Your casually sarcastic "just a thought" makes it sound like everyone else is an idiot for not doing something obvious. Or are you suggesting building a magnificant wall?
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    Thankfully our land and sea borders only total about 312 yards or so, two squads of border control could keep eyes on it at all times, and shut that stuff down. Oops, my bad. Nope, it's 2000 miles or so.
- minsc_and_boo 3y ago
  Even with legal sales, there are still black markets for drugs, as is evident with marijuana: https://apnews.com/article/business-california-los-angeles-marijuana-congress-c237d1bd1f7cb14faa8d32b930d860ad https://apnews.com/article/business-california-los-angeles-m...

randerson 3y ago

I wonder: would be better or worse if states started giving out medical-grade Heroin to those who seek it? Perhaps with a prescription where one has to pick up a 1 day supply each day (less likely to OD) and the prescription gradually tapers off down to zero. It would put a dent in the illicit markets and reduce deaths of existing addicts, but could be too tempting for new people to try it out.

tenebrisalietum 3y ago
To prevent new people from doing heroin, just have them search for "Kensington Philadelphia" on YouTube and watch 1 to 3 videos.
Herodotus38 3y ago
If you tried such a method people would probably be opposed to it because of concerns people would be tempted to obtain it and sell. One would probably model it off of methadone clinics. In most clinics the methadone has to be taken by the person on site and witnessed to prevent issues of diversion. However a lot of places allow people to graduate to be able to pick up a multiple day supply after they have shown stability, etc…
classichasclass 3y ago
This is basically the methadone approach, but when I was in general practice, just try weaning people off anything they have a dependence on that they're not motivated to stop using. Plus, harm reduction like syringe services (i.e., needle exchange) is already hugely controversial for "encouraging drug use." That sentiment is at best arguable and at worst a reductionist distortion, but it becomes even harder to argue against when you're in the business of handing out better dope.

willi59549879 3y ago

i think the only way it would work is to make it completely legal (also selling and production) with a lot of control on sales. I am not sure what would be best to control sales, guess it would need to be stricter than the control for tobacco and alcohol. But that way the government could at least get taxes from the sales of the drugs. If only possession is legal then more people might try hard drugs that would have been scared away but drugs still have to be smuggled in. This also means that there is no quality control on the substances.

alphazard 3y ago

As you mentioned, decriminalization is not enough. The effort that was spent on enforcement needs to be repurposed on quality control. It's much easier to enforce laws on businesses who want to sell their products openly than on individuals consuming substances in private. The FDA and DEA should be entirely repurposed to randomly testing all food and drug products and ensuring that the ingredients list is accurate to within a certain margin. Having a single arbiter of good and bad substances has proven to be a failure again and again (remember the Food Pyramid?). I would much rather have access to everything, and know that it is labeled correctly, than have some dysfunctional bureaucracy "looking out for me".

anon84873628 3y ago

That's probably true. Decriminalization is an imperfect first step that can be taken unilaterally by the executive branch while the legislative is deadlocked. In time society grows accustomed to decriminalization and the true legalization is more feasible. In California the decriminalization of magic mushrooms has caused lots more people to start growing them, so price, quality, and diversity are better than ever. That probably wouldn't be the case with other drugs that aren't as easy to produce just anywhere. Although opium poppy field or coca greenhouses are definitely possible.

totalconfusion 3y ago

Completely agree, in for a dime in for a dollar. The reality is legalizing drugs is a politically untenable platform to get elected on because economic realities like supply and demand play no role in the deeply entrenched moral prejudice that is so prevalent in the (often older) voting population. I don't mean to be offensive or ageist and I'm sure lots of older people have been touched both directly and indirectly by drug abuse, my experience is those that have been affected in some way have changed their long held views on drugs being a criminal issue as opposed to a medical one.