5 ms·

Legalization of hard drugs doesn't work long term. If you provide all resources to people to enjoy opiates - they will have no incentive to quit. Why is this ut

Legalization of hard drugs doesn't work long term. If you provide all resources to people to enjoy opiates - they will have no incentive to quit. Why is this utopian view so persistent?

notfed 2y ago
> you provide all resources to people to enjoy opiates - they will have no incentive to quit. So?
- bermuda4you 2y ago
  Ah, the "progressive" argument. Let people rot to death, it's the compassionate way.
  - com2kid 2y ago
    It is also the libertarian argument: The government shouldn't tell people what to do with their own body. Then again, ideally the government would be hard at working making society nice enough to live in that people don't turn to opiates...
    - bermuda4you 2y ago
      Letting people have full agency in their choices - sure. But not the big government part.
    - mensetmanusman 2y ago
      The government is concerned with outsourcing manufacturing to make widgets cost less.
  - heavyset_go 2y ago
    There are millions of people on opioids like Suboxone, Tramadol, hydrocodone, etc that aren't "rotting to death". Opioids, in general, don't have many deleterious effects on the body the way that things like alcohol, cigarettes or amphetamines do.
  - phone8675309 2y ago
    We let people smoke cigarettes and alcohol, both of which are physically more dangerous than opiates. There's even research that tobacco is as addictive as or more addictive than most opiates. I wouldn't call this argument "progressive" and instead call it "consistent with what Americans do with some drugs that are taxed".
    - bermuda4you 2y ago
      Oh I am sorry, I forgot that we spend hundreds of billions of tax dollars on providing safe spaces for smoking cigarettes, free smoking paraphernalia, treating smoking overdoses in public spaces. Great analogy!
vips7L 2y ago
The banning of hard drugs hasn't seemed to work long term either. Do you think they have incentives to quit now? It doesn't seem so to me. People want to do drugs. They're fun.
jrflowers 2y ago
This is a good point. Only prohibition works, which is why the number of opioid deaths have been going down since its inception. It is mystifying why anyone would question the efficacy of the current system
- bermuda4you 2y ago
  Treatment works. Partial enforcement and pandering don't work.
  - jrflowers 2y ago
    Exactly. Prohibition puts people into prisons (another word for treatment), where they are rehabilitated in a drug-free environment and emerge productive members of society. This is obvious because
    - jasmer 2y ago
      [dead]
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    Any statistics on success rate and cost of treatments? It is hard enough to treat alcohol addiction, and that makes people feel awful. I am skeptical about broadly treating opiate addiction, which surely makes people feel much better than being high on alcohol.
    - bermuda4you 2y ago
      I am not necessarily arguing for treatment. Drug addiction is a very serious chronic disease, so treatment would be a better choice than enablement. However, I do agree that success rate of treatment must be pretty low.
      - jrflowers 2y ago
        This makes sense. “Treatment works” is not an argument for treatment, it may in fact not work very well. Nonetheless we must focus solely on prohibition because treatment either does or does not work to an acceptable degree and criminalization obviously increases the amount and/or efficacy of treatment
pfisch 2y ago
>If you provide all resources to people to enjoy opiates - they will have no incentive to quit. Why is that a problem exactly? Also people quit smoking and drinking all the time, has nothing to do with it being legal.
- sp332 2y ago
  The more we have to pay for each other's healthcare (insurance costs going up, ACA subsidies, maybe a future "single payer" situation), the more other people's health decisions are going to be our business.
  - fragmede 2y ago
    Oh! so we should be supporting fentanyl killing people because it makes our healthcare costs go down because now they're dead NEETs instead of a drain on society? how modest.
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      Technically, that is only if fentanyl is disproportionately killing young people who are already addicted due to some other cause and not likely to be economically productive again.
    - beaeglebeachedd 2y ago
      By the societal benefit model, yes. By the more libertarian model yes because of bodily autonomy. Either way yes. Trying to protect them from themselves is worse from virtually any angle and especially the humanitarian one.
fallingsquirrel 2y ago
If you provide all resources to people to enjoy alcohol, why would anyone quit? Would you argue we should go back to prohibition?
- cpncrunch 2y ago
  You can safely have a few drinks (or more) and feel normal the next day and go to work. You can't do that with fentanyl.
  - TillE 2y ago
    Fentanyl only exists because it's cheap and easy to make. Anyone with a choice would always take something like oxycodone, and there are a ton of occasional recreational oxy users in the world.
    - beaeglebeachedd 2y ago
      Tar heroin cheaper to make probably. If it were legalized we wouldn't be optimizing for ease of smuggling which is largely dictated by potency instead of manufacturing costs.
    - quickthrowman 2y ago
      > there are a ton of occasional recreational oxy users in the world. Today, virtually all of the ‘oxycontin’ that is used recreationally is actually fentanyl and binders that looks like an oxycontin. Unless it’s in a prescription bottle (and even then,) it’s almost certainly fentanyl. > In 2023, DEA seized more than 80 million fentanyl-laced fake pills and nearly 12,000 pounds of fentanyl powder. The 2023 seizures are equivalent to more than 381 million lethal doses of fentanyl. [0] If they seized 80 million, just imagine how many weren’t seized. [0]https://www.dea.gov/onepill#:~:text=In%202023%2C%20DEA%20seized%20more,million%20lethal%20doses%20of%20fentanyl https://www.dea.gov/onepill#:~:text=In%202023%2C%20DEA%20sei....
  - vips7L 2y ago
    No body wants to do fentanyl though. People want to safely do Cocaine or MDMA without dying from fentanyl.
squarefoot 2y ago
> If you provide all resources to people to enjoy opiates - they will have no incentive to quit. Many people, including myself, quit smoking normal cigarettes although it was highly addictive, because it was bad for health, not because of legality or cost. Of course opiates are a very different beast, but the point is that if someone wants to get drugs they will succeed, period. Expecting them to disappear just because they are made illegal is 100% fantasy. Legalizing drugs would move their production and sale in the open and more regulated markets, with less risks of them being made by improvised chemists in their basement, plus lower costs and much less involvement by organized crime which once prices drop would move to more lucrative businesses. remember what happened in the US when alcohol was banned: people searching for drinks would still find where to buy them, but it was organized crime that started making profits out of the ban.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  > Of course opiates are a very different beast, but the point is that if someone wants to get drugs they will succeed, period. Are you suggesting there should be no controlled chemicals? No pharmacist? >Expecting them to disappear just because they are made illegal is 100% fantasy. What if the expectation is for fewer people to use less of them due to higher hurdles?
  - squarefoot 2y ago
    > Are you suggesting there should be no controlled chemicals? No pharmacist? No, that was not my point. > What if the expectation is for fewer people to use less of them due to higher hurdles? That's the very reason why "first dose is free". Many people are sucked into drugs consumption either for fun at parties or because they're lured into substances by "friends". Unfortunately, once they're dependent it's too late to put obstacles on their way.
  - beaeglebeachedd 2y ago
    >Are you suggesting there should be no controlled chemicals? No pharmacist This is what I advocate for. Probably way more killed by regulation here than saved. I recall accompanying someone in Mexico who had to get their life saving asthma medication in one of those unregulated pharmacies that don't ask questions, because they can't afford to see a doctor to get a prescription.
anigbrowl 2y ago
I prefer reasoning from results rather than handwaving: https://drugpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/dpa-drug-decriminalization-portugal-health-human-centered-approach_0.pdf https://drugpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/dpa-drug-d...
- bermuda4you 2y ago
  When was this document written? Today Portugal has nearly the same level of drug-addiction problems as they had in the early 2000s when they legalized all drugs. https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/is-portugals-drug-decriminalization-a-failure-or-success-the-answer-isnt-so-simple/ https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/is-portugals-dru...
itishappy 2y ago
> they will have no incentive to quit. I don't think legality is the main thing incentivizing people to quit.

Legalization of hard drugs doesn't work long term. If you provide all resources to people to enjoy opiates - they will have no incentive to quit. Why is this utopian view so persistent?

notfed 2y ago

> you provide all resources to people to enjoy opiates - they will have no incentive to quit. So?

bermuda4you 2y ago
Ah, the "progressive" argument. Let people rot to death, it's the compassionate way.
- com2kid 2y ago
  It is also the libertarian argument: The government shouldn't tell people what to do with their own body. Then again, ideally the government would be hard at working making society nice enough to live in that people don't turn to opiates...
  - bermuda4you 2y ago
    Letting people have full agency in their choices - sure. But not the big government part.
  - mensetmanusman 2y ago
    The government is concerned with outsourcing manufacturing to make widgets cost less.
- heavyset_go 2y ago
  There are millions of people on opioids like Suboxone, Tramadol, hydrocodone, etc that aren't "rotting to death". Opioids, in general, don't have many deleterious effects on the body the way that things like alcohol, cigarettes or amphetamines do.
- phone8675309 2y ago
  We let people smoke cigarettes and alcohol, both of which are physically more dangerous than opiates. There's even research that tobacco is as addictive as or more addictive than most opiates. I wouldn't call this argument "progressive" and instead call it "consistent with what Americans do with some drugs that are taxed".
  - bermuda4you 2y ago
    Oh I am sorry, I forgot that we spend hundreds of billions of tax dollars on providing safe spaces for smoking cigarettes, free smoking paraphernalia, treating smoking overdoses in public spaces. Great analogy!

vips7L 2y ago

The banning of hard drugs hasn't seemed to work long term either. Do you think they have incentives to quit now? It doesn't seem so to me. People want to do drugs. They're fun.

jrflowers 2y ago

This is a good point. Only prohibition works, which is why the number of opioid deaths have been going down since its inception. It is mystifying why anyone would question the efficacy of the current system

bermuda4you 2y ago
Treatment works. Partial enforcement and pandering don't work.
- jrflowers 2y ago
  Exactly. Prohibition puts people into prisons (another word for treatment), where they are rehabilitated in a drug-free environment and emerge productive members of society. This is obvious because
  - jasmer 2y ago
    [dead]
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  Any statistics on success rate and cost of treatments? It is hard enough to treat alcohol addiction, and that makes people feel awful. I am skeptical about broadly treating opiate addiction, which surely makes people feel much better than being high on alcohol.
  - bermuda4you 2y ago
    I am not necessarily arguing for treatment. Drug addiction is a very serious chronic disease, so treatment would be a better choice than enablement. However, I do agree that success rate of treatment must be pretty low.
    - jrflowers 2y ago
      This makes sense. “Treatment works” is not an argument for treatment, it may in fact not work very well. Nonetheless we must focus solely on prohibition because treatment either does or does not work to an acceptable degree and criminalization obviously increases the amount and/or efficacy of treatment

pfisch 2y ago

>If you provide all resources to people to enjoy opiates - they will have no incentive to quit. Why is that a problem exactly? Also people quit smoking and drinking all the time, has nothing to do with it being legal.

sp332 2y ago
The more we have to pay for each other's healthcare (insurance costs going up, ACA subsidies, maybe a future "single payer" situation), the more other people's health decisions are going to be our business.
- fragmede 2y ago
  Oh! so we should be supporting fentanyl killing people because it makes our healthcare costs go down because now they're dead NEETs instead of a drain on society? how modest.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    Technically, that is only if fentanyl is disproportionately killing young people who are already addicted due to some other cause and not likely to be economically productive again.
  - beaeglebeachedd 2y ago
    By the societal benefit model, yes. By the more libertarian model yes because of bodily autonomy. Either way yes. Trying to protect them from themselves is worse from virtually any angle and especially the humanitarian one.

fallingsquirrel 2y ago

If you provide all resources to people to enjoy alcohol, why would anyone quit? Would you argue we should go back to prohibition?

cpncrunch 2y ago
You can safely have a few drinks (or more) and feel normal the next day and go to work. You can't do that with fentanyl.
- TillE 2y ago
  Fentanyl only exists because it's cheap and easy to make. Anyone with a choice would always take something like oxycodone, and there are a ton of occasional recreational oxy users in the world.
  - beaeglebeachedd 2y ago
    Tar heroin cheaper to make probably. If it were legalized we wouldn't be optimizing for ease of smuggling which is largely dictated by potency instead of manufacturing costs.
  - quickthrowman 2y ago
    > there are a ton of occasional recreational oxy users in the world. Today, virtually all of the ‘oxycontin’ that is used recreationally is actually fentanyl and binders that looks like an oxycontin. Unless it’s in a prescription bottle (and even then,) it’s almost certainly fentanyl. > In 2023, DEA seized more than 80 million fentanyl-laced fake pills and nearly 12,000 pounds of fentanyl powder. The 2023 seizures are equivalent to more than 381 million lethal doses of fentanyl. [0] If they seized 80 million, just imagine how many weren’t seized. [0]https://www.dea.gov/onepill#:~:text=In%202023%2C%20DEA%20seized%20more,million%20lethal%20doses%20of%20fentanyl https://www.dea.gov/onepill#:~:text=In%202023%2C%20DEA%20sei....
- vips7L 2y ago
  No body wants to do fentanyl though. People want to safely do Cocaine or MDMA without dying from fentanyl.

squarefoot 2y ago

> If you provide all resources to people to enjoy opiates - they will have no incentive to quit. Many people, including myself, quit smoking normal cigarettes although it was highly addictive, because it was bad for health, not because of legality or cost. Of course opiates are a very different beast, but the point is that if someone wants to get drugs they will succeed, period. Expecting them to disappear just because they are made illegal is 100% fantasy. Legalizing drugs would move their production and sale in the open and more regulated markets, with less risks of them being made by improvised chemists in their basement, plus lower costs and much less involvement by organized crime which once prices drop would move to more lucrative businesses. remember what happened in the US when alcohol was banned: people searching for drinks would still find where to buy them, but it was organized crime that started making profits out of the ban.

lotsofpulp 2y ago
> Of course opiates are a very different beast, but the point is that if someone wants to get drugs they will succeed, period. Are you suggesting there should be no controlled chemicals? No pharmacist? >Expecting them to disappear just because they are made illegal is 100% fantasy. What if the expectation is for fewer people to use less of them due to higher hurdles?
- squarefoot 2y ago
  > Are you suggesting there should be no controlled chemicals? No pharmacist? No, that was not my point. > What if the expectation is for fewer people to use less of them due to higher hurdles? That's the very reason why "first dose is free". Many people are sucked into drugs consumption either for fun at parties or because they're lured into substances by "friends". Unfortunately, once they're dependent it's too late to put obstacles on their way.
- beaeglebeachedd 2y ago
  >Are you suggesting there should be no controlled chemicals? No pharmacist This is what I advocate for. Probably way more killed by regulation here than saved. I recall accompanying someone in Mexico who had to get their life saving asthma medication in one of those unregulated pharmacies that don't ask questions, because they can't afford to see a doctor to get a prescription.

anigbrowl 2y ago

I prefer reasoning from results rather than handwaving: https://drugpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/dpa-drug-decriminalization-portugal-health-human-centered-approach_0.pdf https://drugpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/dpa-drug-d...

bermuda4you 2y ago
When was this document written? Today Portugal has nearly the same level of drug-addiction problems as they had in the early 2000s when they legalized all drugs. https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/is-portugals-drug-decriminalization-a-failure-or-success-the-answer-isnt-so-simple/ https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/is-portugals-dru...

itishappy 2y ago

> they will have no incentive to quit. I don't think legality is the main thing incentivizing people to quit.