6 ms·

Do you think legalising safer drugs, like Heroin, would be a sensible step? [Edit: I do] I advocate legalising Opium straight away. I think Heroin is a step f

by worik 3y ago

Do you think legalising safer drugs, like Heroin, would be a sensible step? [Edit: I do] I advocate legalising Opium straight away. I think Heroin is a step further than required. How many people have to die from synthetic opiate overdose? The obvious public health measure is to legalise the much safer natural alternatives.

sneak 3y ago
Cigarettes are already legal despite killing 7x as many in the US as all opioids combined every day, week, month, and year. US drug policy is not about harm reduction or life saving, and never has been.
- worik 3y ago
  > Cigarettes are already legal despite killing 7x as many in the US as all opioids combined Is that true? I am not denying it, but the opiate overdose rate is staggering.
  - notjulianjaynes 3y ago
    Yeah it's somewhere near half a million people per year in the US die from diseases caused by cigarette smoking. Fent's body count last I checked was like 77,000. Whether they are a fair comparison I'm not sure. It might be more accurate to say that while fentanyl can kill you, cigarettes make you live less long, rather than to say they kill you. No one drops dead from lighting a cigarette. Meanwhile, if it weren't for unreliable dosing due to black market pressures, I'm not sure regular, reliably dosed opiate usage would kill you slow the way cigarettes do.[citation needed] Anecdotally, I've noticed that ex junkies often look ten years younger than they have any right to.
- huytersd 3y ago
  Cigarettes are a slow poison and mild stimulant at worst. It really doesn’t modify a person’s day to day behavior in any significant way.
  - worik 3y ago
    Sends them out to stand in the rain several times a day....
- coldtea 3y ago
  >Cigarettes are already legal despite killing 7x as many in the US as all opioids combined every day, week, month, and year. That's because they do it after at least decades of use and for a much smaller percentage (if opioids were used by the same number of people, we'd be knee-deep on corspes in the streets), and they don't affect nowhere near as much (if at all) the general functioning or mental health of their users. Even the average user's health is not really that affected, unless they get C after decades of use. There are much worse offenders (like eating and a sedentary lifestyle).
- FredPret 3y ago
  Cigarette users don't nearly always spiral into behaviors that are both self-destructive, heartbreaking to family, and sometimes violently criminal toward the innocent bystanders nearby.
sarcasmatwork 3y ago
Oregon tried it, and it failed. So no, not they way they did it. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/oregon-governor-signs-a-bill-recriminalizing-drug-possession https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/oregon-governor-signs-...
- goatsi 3y ago
  Oregon decriminalized simple possession by end users. You would still need to purchase the drugs from the exact illicit supply chain the DEA is profiling here, so it's no surprise it didn't solve the overdose crisis. Under legalization you could buy an exact dose from a licensed supplier.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    I’m not sure legalization would change much: fentanyl is so popular as a street drug because it is so cheap. Providing a much more expensive alternative isn’t going to suck away demand from the illicit version
    - mindslight 3y ago
      These are not intrinsically expensive chemicals. A small charity could give it away for free. I would wager dysfunctional drug addicts don't value their time too highly, and wouldn't be put out by having to talk to someone every day to get their fix. Meanwhile it's a great place to push interventions. It's obvious fundamentalist prohibition is straight up not working.
      - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        If you gave it away for free, how would the OD rate not go up? You will still have the street market if you are at least somewhat restrictive however; that is unless we start enforcing laws against dealers again, but that isn’t going to happen without any leverage over users. At best what we can achieve is what Portugal achieved, which is mixed success that no one is really happy about.
lispisok 3y ago
When you legalize something you get more of it. Gotta be mindful of that.
- worik 3y ago
  More drugs? Why is that bad?
  - coldtea 3y ago
    For the users' health, for the user's mental health, for society that has to tolerate these less-functioning persons, for their families, friends, relatives, employees, and so on.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - hehhehaha 3y ago
    Because we simultaneously give people the freedom to do whatever they want to do, and also catch them when they suffer the consequences of their actions. IMO, you either have freedom and responsibility, or control and care. I'd be ok legalizing drugs tomorrow if non-drug users do not need to subsidize the care for drug users.
    - rayiner 3y ago
      If you think society has an obligation to you to give you a cradle to grave safety net (and I do), then you have to accept the reciprocal responsibility of maintaining yourself as a productive member of that society. It’s antisocial in a very specific sense of the term—reducing your capacity to take care of someone else who might need the help for reasons outside their control.
    - cameldrv 3y ago
      The problem is that responsibility comes from reason, and drugs like Fentanyl are a direct attack on your faculties of reason. A lot of Enlightenment ideals fall down when faced with hyper addictive things IMO, and we just keep inventing new ones.
throwaway74432 3y ago
Just because a drug doesn't kill you physically, doesn't mean it doesn't harm you in other deeply profound ways. Related: Nuggets[1] 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUngLgGRJpo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUngLgGRJpo
- worik 3y ago
  Opiates, and many classes of illegal drugs, do very little harm. Addiction is the main feature, and if the substance has no artificial scarcity, addiction is easy to manage. There is no basis on harm reduction for the drug policies being pursued in most of the world
  - FredPret 3y ago
    Tell this to the addicts who live on my sidewalk. Many of them got started on pain killers, and now they're permanently bent over in the fentanyl flop; I'd be astounded if any of them ever get better.
    - throwaway74432 3y ago
      Worik's argument appears to be, if people had an unlimited supply of drugs, things would be better than a limited supply. It sounds a lot like the perspective of someone who has never listened to a recovering addict.
      - worik 3y ago
        > sounds a lot like the perspective of someone who has never listened to a recovering addict. Many I came of age in a culture awash with herion I have first hand knowledge of the harms done to drug addicts by criminalising them
  - ProjectArcturis 3y ago
    Long-term opiate use can really mess up your bowels. Matthew Perry nearly died of a perforated colon a couple years before he finally died from other drugs.
huytersd 3y ago
Legalizing opiates is silly. It only takes a handful of times to get hooked and people currently use alcohol for months on end to get through hard times. Anyone with even a slight propensity for substance abuse would be an addict within a year. Contrary to the popular narrative it’s not super simple to get opiates and honestly it’s not on most people’s radars to even seek it out.
- worik 3y ago
  > Anyone with even a slight propensity for substance abuse would be an addict within a year There is no evidence for that. The evidence is that drug addiction has more to do with social issues than chemistry. The book https://chasingthescream.com/ https://chasingthescream.com/ is a good read on this issue.
  - robwwilliams 3y ago
    Both! Sure: little risk when there are few or no drugs in a specific social setting, and no peers are using drugs. So it is true that social setting can be determinative in extreme cases. But if drugs are available and some peers are users then genetic variation definitely modulates risk of addiction to drugs that greatly degrade function and even mortality risk. I am sure you know last year’s excess death attributable to opiates and ilk—-now well over 100,000 in 2023— four-fold higher than in 1990. Team Sackler/Purdue Pharma, lax regulation, and greed all around, get lots of opprobrium but no jail time. And just to admit: Alcohol and tobacco both have much higher burdens in terms of disability-adjusted life years. For alcohol see this plot: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/dalys-from-alcohol-use-disorders-by-age https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/dalys-from-alcohol-use-di... For other drugs of abuse (excluding tobacco) see https://www.paho.org/en/enlace/burden-drug-use-disorders https://www.paho.org/en/enlace/burden-drug-use-disorders
    - worik 3y ago
      Synthetic opiates are particularly lethal Raw opium is much harder to kill yourself with. For an addict herion overdose is almost unknown. True. It does not suppress the breathing reflex like morphine and synthetics. Putting powerful deadly drugs in an easy to swallow pill is not a sensible approach to recreational drugs Opium lounges are a much better idea. I am keen on those.
coffeebeqn 3y ago
Legalize it in what manner? Fentanyl is legal - it’s used by hospitals all over the country. Should you be able to buy opium at the corner store? I’m not sure that would be good for almost anyone given the dependence you build on it very quickly. What’s the Bull case for more people having easy access to opium products ?
- mindslight 3y ago
  The pragmatic argument is to have a regulated and legally accountable supply chain that results in predictable dosing with known substances and amounts. How many people are overdosing on known good prescription pain pills compared to random shit mixed by street dealers?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
FredPret 3y ago
Some time ago, when I was a young man with right-wing persuasions, I listened to the arguments of left-wingers like John Oliver in favour of legalization. I was convinced. Let the free market sort itself out, I thought. Boy did ever I take a sharp turn towards the political center on this in the years since. Some regulations have a very high return on investment, and controlling/banning the crap out of fentanyl is one of those.
- bsder 3y ago
  Because street fentanyl is currently illegal, it has zero quality control, and people wind up dead taking doses that they didn't intend. Because it contaminates other drugs, people who don't intend to take fentanyl sometimes wind up dead from it. We would be better off if people could purchase drugs legally from places that have stringent quality control so doses could be properly controlled.
  - daeros 3y ago
    that's what i've been saying for a long time, the problem isn't the pharamustical grade fentanyl, it's the street fentanyl thats problem, essentially because drug dealers have no quality control. Also cold comfort that the Scientist are with me. There's no drug that has ever become safer by ceding the market to criminals by way of prohibition. Every single one of them has gotten worse under such a regime. Look at Krokodil, that's the result of the inability to afford the real thing, and largely because of regulations on the chemical precursors.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
newzisforsukas 3y ago
There are probably ways to distribute a legal and safe mixture of recreational opioids with some portion being an opioid antagonist that would prevent abuse at the levels that lead to gross addiction (see suboxone). Or some novel molecule that has those properties. Raw opium wouldn't be that though.
theGeatZhopa 3y ago
But not with opium. Please not . Everything "natural" that can make you addicted to, is the same as synthetically made stuff that makes you addicted to. The problem is here not in the market or lacking regulations. The problem is that you have personality changing, highly addictive, dangerous stuff. Mary Jane, alcohol and tacos is enough of regulated. Advocating here doesn't take into account that the advocatee kills. It's not harmless.
- worik 3y ago
  > Advocating here doesn't take into account that the advocatee kills. It's not harmless. Opium is not a great killer
  - theGeatZhopa 3y ago
    It is not a fast killer, but it kills you. Like tobacco, Alcohol, and the regulated Heroin and all the other drugs too. The dangerousness comes from the speed of getting addicted to and the damage it causes: health, sociological and financial. You arguing like opium is like weed. Hell. No! Get your experiences.
    - worik 3y ago
      > but it kills you. Like tobacco, Alcohol, and the regulated Heroin and all the other drugs too. That is untrue Opiates have few long-term health detrimental effects, exciting addiction (Amd, reportedly, constipation)
      - theGeatZhopa 3y ago
        It's a f*ing addictive making drug. You don't have experience with that it seems and thinking it's romantic or something? The addicts suffer a lot, they can't work high but can't be not be high. And that kills. First it kills your social life. Then it kills you. If it's not the cancer it might cause, then it's not necessary the overdoses of other drugs which you take instead. All addictive making stuff should be banned. https://monographs.iarc.who.int/news-events/volume-126-opium-consumption-2/ https://monographs.iarc.who.int/news-events/volume-126-opium... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9159125/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9159125/ Just YouTube a little bit around and take a look at your "that's not true". Look how addicts living a wonderful life. Picture you living sich a wonderful life :) Drugs are bad. Whatever makes you addicted, should be banned and highly regulated. Not the opposite. When you take weed as example - that's not a problem because it doesn't make your body addicted to (but your brain, which is really not that big problem). I'm consuming that since 25y (in average daily) and comparable lot with 5-10J per day. If I'm about to be empty, I start to get nervous because I don't want not to smoke. But if I decide to stop it, I have 2 weeks where I'm really not a good guy. But that's all. It's more the nicotine. If I can't smoke, I search for a solution so I can. If you smoke opium, try to do that:) if you take fentanyl, try to do it. So you basically have no experience and talking about "it should be allowed because it's just obstipation and a little addiction" in my eyes.. to naive look. The same I see with the young people who are against prohibition by the state but for self decisions.. LOL. they're the first one getting hooked on it.

by worik 3y ago

sneak 3y ago

Cigarettes are already legal despite killing 7x as many in the US as all opioids combined every day, week, month, and year. US drug policy is not about harm reduction or life saving, and never has been.

worik 3y ago
> Cigarettes are already legal despite killing 7x as many in the US as all opioids combined Is that true? I am not denying it, but the opiate overdose rate is staggering.
- notjulianjaynes 3y ago
  Yeah it's somewhere near half a million people per year in the US die from diseases caused by cigarette smoking. Fent's body count last I checked was like 77,000. Whether they are a fair comparison I'm not sure. It might be more accurate to say that while fentanyl can kill you, cigarettes make you live less long, rather than to say they kill you. No one drops dead from lighting a cigarette. Meanwhile, if it weren't for unreliable dosing due to black market pressures, I'm not sure regular, reliably dosed opiate usage would kill you slow the way cigarettes do.[citation needed] Anecdotally, I've noticed that ex junkies often look ten years younger than they have any right to.
huytersd 3y ago
Cigarettes are a slow poison and mild stimulant at worst. It really doesn’t modify a person’s day to day behavior in any significant way.
- worik 3y ago
  Sends them out to stand in the rain several times a day....
coldtea 3y ago
>Cigarettes are already legal despite killing 7x as many in the US as all opioids combined every day, week, month, and year. That's because they do it after at least decades of use and for a much smaller percentage (if opioids were used by the same number of people, we'd be knee-deep on corspes in the streets), and they don't affect nowhere near as much (if at all) the general functioning or mental health of their users. Even the average user's health is not really that affected, unless they get C after decades of use. There are much worse offenders (like eating and a sedentary lifestyle).
FredPret 3y ago
Cigarette users don't nearly always spiral into behaviors that are both self-destructive, heartbreaking to family, and sometimes violently criminal toward the innocent bystanders nearby.

sarcasmatwork 3y ago

Oregon tried it, and it failed. So no, not they way they did it. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/oregon-governor-signs-a-bill-recriminalizing-drug-possession https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/oregon-governor-signs-...

goatsi 3y ago
Oregon decriminalized simple possession by end users. You would still need to purchase the drugs from the exact illicit supply chain the DEA is profiling here, so it's no surprise it didn't solve the overdose crisis. Under legalization you could buy an exact dose from a licensed supplier.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  I’m not sure legalization would change much: fentanyl is so popular as a street drug because it is so cheap. Providing a much more expensive alternative isn’t going to suck away demand from the illicit version
  - mindslight 3y ago
    These are not intrinsically expensive chemicals. A small charity could give it away for free. I would wager dysfunctional drug addicts don't value their time too highly, and wouldn't be put out by having to talk to someone every day to get their fix. Meanwhile it's a great place to push interventions. It's obvious fundamentalist prohibition is straight up not working.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      If you gave it away for free, how would the OD rate not go up? You will still have the street market if you are at least somewhat restrictive however; that is unless we start enforcing laws against dealers again, but that isn’t going to happen without any leverage over users. At best what we can achieve is what Portugal achieved, which is mixed success that no one is really happy about.

lispisok 3y ago

When you legalize something you get more of it. Gotta be mindful of that.

worik 3y ago
More drugs? Why is that bad?
- coldtea 3y ago
  For the users' health, for the user's mental health, for society that has to tolerate these less-functioning persons, for their families, friends, relatives, employees, and so on.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- hehhehaha 3y ago
  Because we simultaneously give people the freedom to do whatever they want to do, and also catch them when they suffer the consequences of their actions. IMO, you either have freedom and responsibility, or control and care. I'd be ok legalizing drugs tomorrow if non-drug users do not need to subsidize the care for drug users.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    If you think society has an obligation to you to give you a cradle to grave safety net (and I do), then you have to accept the reciprocal responsibility of maintaining yourself as a productive member of that society. It’s antisocial in a very specific sense of the term—reducing your capacity to take care of someone else who might need the help for reasons outside their control.
  - cameldrv 3y ago
    The problem is that responsibility comes from reason, and drugs like Fentanyl are a direct attack on your faculties of reason. A lot of Enlightenment ideals fall down when faced with hyper addictive things IMO, and we just keep inventing new ones.

throwaway74432 3y ago

Just because a drug doesn't kill you physically, doesn't mean it doesn't harm you in other deeply profound ways. Related: Nuggets[1] 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUngLgGRJpo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUngLgGRJpo

worik 3y ago
Opiates, and many classes of illegal drugs, do very little harm. Addiction is the main feature, and if the substance has no artificial scarcity, addiction is easy to manage. There is no basis on harm reduction for the drug policies being pursued in most of the world
- FredPret 3y ago
  Tell this to the addicts who live on my sidewalk. Many of them got started on pain killers, and now they're permanently bent over in the fentanyl flop; I'd be astounded if any of them ever get better.
  - throwaway74432 3y ago
    Worik's argument appears to be, if people had an unlimited supply of drugs, things would be better than a limited supply. It sounds a lot like the perspective of someone who has never listened to a recovering addict.
    - worik 3y ago
      > sounds a lot like the perspective of someone who has never listened to a recovering addict. Many I came of age in a culture awash with herion I have first hand knowledge of the harms done to drug addicts by criminalising them
- ProjectArcturis 3y ago
  Long-term opiate use can really mess up your bowels. Matthew Perry nearly died of a perforated colon a couple years before he finally died from other drugs.

huytersd 3y ago

Legalizing opiates is silly. It only takes a handful of times to get hooked and people currently use alcohol for months on end to get through hard times. Anyone with even a slight propensity for substance abuse would be an addict within a year. Contrary to the popular narrative it’s not super simple to get opiates and honestly it’s not on most people’s radars to even seek it out.

worik 3y ago
> Anyone with even a slight propensity for substance abuse would be an addict within a year There is no evidence for that. The evidence is that drug addiction has more to do with social issues than chemistry. The book https://chasingthescream.com/ https://chasingthescream.com/ is a good read on this issue.
- robwwilliams 3y ago
  Both! Sure: little risk when there are few or no drugs in a specific social setting, and no peers are using drugs. So it is true that social setting can be determinative in extreme cases. But if drugs are available and some peers are users then genetic variation definitely modulates risk of addiction to drugs that greatly degrade function and even mortality risk. I am sure you know last year’s excess death attributable to opiates and ilk—-now well over 100,000 in 2023— four-fold higher than in 1990. Team Sackler/Purdue Pharma, lax regulation, and greed all around, get lots of opprobrium but no jail time. And just to admit: Alcohol and tobacco both have much higher burdens in terms of disability-adjusted life years. For alcohol see this plot: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/dalys-from-alcohol-use-disorders-by-age https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/dalys-from-alcohol-use-di... For other drugs of abuse (excluding tobacco) see https://www.paho.org/en/enlace/burden-drug-use-disorders https://www.paho.org/en/enlace/burden-drug-use-disorders
  - worik 3y ago
    Synthetic opiates are particularly lethal Raw opium is much harder to kill yourself with. For an addict herion overdose is almost unknown. True. It does not suppress the breathing reflex like morphine and synthetics. Putting powerful deadly drugs in an easy to swallow pill is not a sensible approach to recreational drugs Opium lounges are a much better idea. I am keen on those.

coffeebeqn 3y ago

Legalize it in what manner? Fentanyl is legal - it’s used by hospitals all over the country. Should you be able to buy opium at the corner store? I’m not sure that would be good for almost anyone given the dependence you build on it very quickly. What’s the Bull case for more people having easy access to opium products ?

mindslight 3y ago
The pragmatic argument is to have a regulated and legally accountable supply chain that results in predictable dosing with known substances and amounts. How many people are overdosing on known good prescription pain pills compared to random shit mixed by street dealers?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

FredPret 3y ago

Some time ago, when I was a young man with right-wing persuasions, I listened to the arguments of left-wingers like John Oliver in favour of legalization. I was convinced. Let the free market sort itself out, I thought. Boy did ever I take a sharp turn towards the political center on this in the years since. Some regulations have a very high return on investment, and controlling/banning the crap out of fentanyl is one of those.

bsder 3y ago
Because street fentanyl is currently illegal, it has zero quality control, and people wind up dead taking doses that they didn't intend. Because it contaminates other drugs, people who don't intend to take fentanyl sometimes wind up dead from it. We would be better off if people could purchase drugs legally from places that have stringent quality control so doses could be properly controlled.
- daeros 3y ago
  that's what i've been saying for a long time, the problem isn't the pharamustical grade fentanyl, it's the street fentanyl thats problem, essentially because drug dealers have no quality control. Also cold comfort that the Scientist are with me. There's no drug that has ever become safer by ceding the market to criminals by way of prohibition. Every single one of them has gotten worse under such a regime. Look at Krokodil, that's the result of the inability to afford the real thing, and largely because of regulations on the chemical precursors.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

newzisforsukas 3y ago

There are probably ways to distribute a legal and safe mixture of recreational opioids with some portion being an opioid antagonist that would prevent abuse at the levels that lead to gross addiction (see suboxone). Or some novel molecule that has those properties. Raw opium wouldn't be that though.

theGeatZhopa 3y ago

But not with opium. Please not . Everything "natural" that can make you addicted to, is the same as synthetically made stuff that makes you addicted to. The problem is here not in the market or lacking regulations. The problem is that you have personality changing, highly addictive, dangerous stuff. Mary Jane, alcohol and tacos is enough of regulated. Advocating here doesn't take into account that the advocatee kills. It's not harmless.

worik 3y ago
> Advocating here doesn't take into account that the advocatee kills. It's not harmless. Opium is not a great killer
- theGeatZhopa 3y ago
  It is not a fast killer, but it kills you. Like tobacco, Alcohol, and the regulated Heroin and all the other drugs too. The dangerousness comes from the speed of getting addicted to and the damage it causes: health, sociological and financial. You arguing like opium is like weed. Hell. No! Get your experiences.
  - worik 3y ago
    > but it kills you. Like tobacco, Alcohol, and the regulated Heroin and all the other drugs too. That is untrue Opiates have few long-term health detrimental effects, exciting addiction (Amd, reportedly, constipation)
    - theGeatZhopa 3y ago
      It's a f*ing addictive making drug. You don't have experience with that it seems and thinking it's romantic or something? The addicts suffer a lot, they can't work high but can't be not be high. And that kills. First it kills your social life. Then it kills you. If it's not the cancer it might cause, then it's not necessary the overdoses of other drugs which you take instead. All addictive making stuff should be banned. https://monographs.iarc.who.int/news-events/volume-126-opium-consumption-2/ https://monographs.iarc.who.int/news-events/volume-126-opium... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9159125/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9159125/ Just YouTube a little bit around and take a look at your "that's not true". Look how addicts living a wonderful life. Picture you living sich a wonderful life :) Drugs are bad. Whatever makes you addicted, should be banned and highly regulated. Not the opposite. When you take weed as example - that's not a problem because it doesn't make your body addicted to (but your brain, which is really not that big problem). I'm consuming that since 25y (in average daily) and comparable lot with 5-10J per day. If I'm about to be empty, I start to get nervous because I don't want not to smoke. But if I decide to stop it, I have 2 weeks where I'm really not a good guy. But that's all. It's more the nicotine. If I can't smoke, I search for a solution so I can. If you smoke opium, try to do that:) if you take fentanyl, try to do it. So you basically have no experience and talking about "it should be allowed because it's just obstipation and a little addiction" in my eyes.. to naive look. The same I see with the young people who are against prohibition by the state but for self decisions.. LOL. they're the first one getting hooked on it.