3 ms·

How about legalizing drugs? Somehow people believe that it is going to magically work.

dools 3y ago
A regulated drug market such as cigarettes can do more to reduce harmful consumption than an unregulated drug market. It also eliminates criminalisation for what is essentially a health issue.
mr_toad 3y ago
Well we could make Tobacco illegal too, at the cost of creating a black market and increasing crime. Would we start locking people up for smoking? Would workplaces include nicotine in their mandatory drug testing?
- objektif 3y ago
  I just think it is better for things like fentanyl to stay illegal than freely available in streets. I would be interested to see an alternative universe where tobacco was illegal. You do not necessarily lock people up but just reduce the supply as much as you can.
  - GuB-42 3y ago
    The big problem with fentanyl is that it is an extremely potent drug with a low therapeutic index, which, with the poor quality control of street drugs, is a perfect recipe for overdoses. I am not saying the fentanyl should be made legal, but its criminalization is a big part of the problem. It is also why it is used so much over other, less risky opioids. Because it is so potent, only small quantities are needed, which makes trafficking easier.
    - objektif 3y ago
      This is the part I also do not understand. Why is criminalization the issue? Do you think having such drugs makes the world better in any way? We are not talking about buying eggs. These are super addictive substances.
      - amanaplanacanal 3y ago
        Criminalization doesn’t make drugs go away. It just means you can throw addicts in jail. Is that a better world? Maybe. There are certainly downsides, which is where the discussion should be.
      - aeturnum 3y ago
        I would say that criminalization is "an" issue - when the drugs go through black markets quality suffers, it's harder to drive out bad suppliers, keep markets open, etc. This decreases the quality of the product overall, but also lowers the availability somewhat. On the other hand, look at cigarettes - everyone agrees they are very bad for you, the packages say it, and you pay an extremely high premium for them over their costs. But no one dies from fentanyl (or whatever) in them because they're a regulated industry. We used to know less about it and let people smoke as much as they want. Now that we have good data on that we raise the social and financial cost of cigarettes to keep them as unpopular as possible. I'd encourage you to think about this less like eggs and more like the weather. On some level, drugs exist "out there" and people will use them "sometimes." We can't change that. What we can change are the systems that make the already difficult problem of addiction worse by introducing lethal surprises.
  - BobaFloutist 3y ago
    Yeah when people have no legal pain management you get the current opioid crisis (as opposed to the previous version where people were aggressively given highly addictive substances without sufficient support or oversight).
- Scoundreller 3y ago
  > Would workplaces include nicotine in their mandatory drug testing? That's already happening in USA. https://www.reliasmedia.com/articles/13807-cleveland-clinic-new-hires-must-be-nonsmokers https://www.reliasmedia.com/articles/13807-cleveland-clinic-... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5788708/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5788708/ And perhaps baselessly, not just testing for tobacco, but any form of nicotine.
depereo 3y ago
Legalized, regulated, taxed substances with guarantees, legal vendor liability and consumer protections are safer and better for everyone than unregulated markets with no guarantees or consumer protections and with zero vendor liability. There's no magic involved.
nwiswell 3y ago
Legal drugs may actually be more expensive and less available than their illegal counterparts. It's worked out that way in a lot of US states for weed -- the illegal stuff is still around and still cheaper. I read recently that in California, illegal weed is still 75% of the market.
- objektif 3y ago
  I think you are speaking way too soon on this. We are just getting started. Plus price is not the only determinant in how widespread usage for certain drugs are.
  - nwiswell 3y ago
    Maybe so, but it was legalized in CA for recreational use way back in 2016, and the scheme came into force in 2018. Part of the issue is that nobody wants to permit a dispensary in their neighborhood, so coverage is poor. Another problem is that it's simply much more expensive. If you're already happy with your friendly neighborhood plug, why change? I found the the article I mentioned: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-05-22/legal-weed-cannabis-marijuana-rules https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-05-22/legal-weed-...
    - foogazi 3y ago
      > Under Proposition 64, legal-weed businesses must first obtain approval from local authorities, which is impossible in many parts of California. Not exactly encouraging new businesses, but to still go from 0 to 25% that’s not too bad
amanaplanacanal 3y ago
It magically kept people from going to prison for possession of not legal drugs.
Pxtl 3y ago
How many times have people smoking cigarettes been killed because somebody dosed their smokes with fentanyl?

A regulated drug market such as cigarettes can do more to reduce harmful consumption than an unregulated drug market. It also eliminates criminalisation for what is essentially a health issue.

mr_toad 3y ago

Well we could make Tobacco illegal too, at the cost of creating a black market and increasing crime. Would we start locking people up for smoking? Would workplaces include nicotine in their mandatory drug testing?

objektif 3y ago
I just think it is better for things like fentanyl to stay illegal than freely available in streets. I would be interested to see an alternative universe where tobacco was illegal. You do not necessarily lock people up but just reduce the supply as much as you can.
- GuB-42 3y ago
  The big problem with fentanyl is that it is an extremely potent drug with a low therapeutic index, which, with the poor quality control of street drugs, is a perfect recipe for overdoses. I am not saying the fentanyl should be made legal, but its criminalization is a big part of the problem. It is also why it is used so much over other, less risky opioids. Because it is so potent, only small quantities are needed, which makes trafficking easier.
  - objektif 3y ago
    This is the part I also do not understand. Why is criminalization the issue? Do you think having such drugs makes the world better in any way? We are not talking about buying eggs. These are super addictive substances.
    - amanaplanacanal 3y ago
      Criminalization doesn’t make drugs go away. It just means you can throw addicts in jail. Is that a better world? Maybe. There are certainly downsides, which is where the discussion should be.
    - aeturnum 3y ago
      I would say that criminalization is "an" issue - when the drugs go through black markets quality suffers, it's harder to drive out bad suppliers, keep markets open, etc. This decreases the quality of the product overall, but also lowers the availability somewhat. On the other hand, look at cigarettes - everyone agrees they are very bad for you, the packages say it, and you pay an extremely high premium for them over their costs. But no one dies from fentanyl (or whatever) in them because they're a regulated industry. We used to know less about it and let people smoke as much as they want. Now that we have good data on that we raise the social and financial cost of cigarettes to keep them as unpopular as possible. I'd encourage you to think about this less like eggs and more like the weather. On some level, drugs exist "out there" and people will use them "sometimes." We can't change that. What we can change are the systems that make the already difficult problem of addiction worse by introducing lethal surprises.
- BobaFloutist 3y ago
  Yeah when people have no legal pain management you get the current opioid crisis (as opposed to the previous version where people were aggressively given highly addictive substances without sufficient support or oversight).
Scoundreller 3y ago
> Would workplaces include nicotine in their mandatory drug testing? That's already happening in USA. https://www.reliasmedia.com/articles/13807-cleveland-clinic-new-hires-must-be-nonsmokers https://www.reliasmedia.com/articles/13807-cleveland-clinic-... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5788708/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5788708/ And perhaps baselessly, not just testing for tobacco, but any form of nicotine.

depereo 3y ago

Legalized, regulated, taxed substances with guarantees, legal vendor liability and consumer protections are safer and better for everyone than unregulated markets with no guarantees or consumer protections and with zero vendor liability. There's no magic involved.

nwiswell 3y ago

Legal drugs may actually be more expensive and less available than their illegal counterparts. It's worked out that way in a lot of US states for weed -- the illegal stuff is still around and still cheaper. I read recently that in California, illegal weed is still 75% of the market.

objektif 3y ago
I think you are speaking way too soon on this. We are just getting started. Plus price is not the only determinant in how widespread usage for certain drugs are.
- nwiswell 3y ago
  Maybe so, but it was legalized in CA for recreational use way back in 2016, and the scheme came into force in 2018. Part of the issue is that nobody wants to permit a dispensary in their neighborhood, so coverage is poor. Another problem is that it's simply much more expensive. If you're already happy with your friendly neighborhood plug, why change? I found the the article I mentioned: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-05-22/legal-weed-cannabis-marijuana-rules https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-05-22/legal-weed-...
  - foogazi 3y ago
    > Under Proposition 64, legal-weed businesses must first obtain approval from local authorities, which is impossible in many parts of California. Not exactly encouraging new businesses, but to still go from 0 to 25% that’s not too bad

amanaplanacanal 3y ago

It magically kept people from going to prison for possession of not legal drugs.

Pxtl 3y ago

How many times have people smoking cigarettes been killed because somebody dosed their smokes with fentanyl?