5 ms·

> A slap on the wrist. After a half million Americans have died from a crisis they helped kickstart, they should be facing criminal charges and jail time. I ke

> A slap on the wrist. After a half million Americans have died from a crisis they helped kickstart, they should be facing criminal charges and jail time. I keep reading people who say, over and over again, that the war on drugs is a failure and that it's a mistake to try criminally prosecute suppliers and send them to prison. People will always find a way to get the drugs if they want them, we're told. But then I see the same people turn around that McKinsey is responsible for millions of deaths from the opioid crisis, and the execs involved should be held criminally responsible. It's hard to reconcile the calls for criminal prosecution against McKinsey execs with the argument that drugs should be legalized and that we shouldn't go after other suppliers of drugs.

genocidicbunny 2y ago
I'm not sure most people are against going after the suppliers, even if they support decriminalization. Decriminalization should mean that users are not prosecuted for simply using drugs, but those participating in the manufacture and distribution are still held responsible.
- gonzobonzo 2y ago
  > I'm not sure most people are against going after the suppliers I see the claim made often, it even commonly pops up on HN. The claim is that the War on Drugs is a failure, because any prohibition efforts are doomed. Laws against a substance merely push it into the criminal sector and don't actually disrupt the supply. So the only outcome is that we get more crime and suffering, but the amount of people using the drug doesn't change. We saw a similarly argument often used when marijuana legalization was being discussed - legalization wouldn't actually impact the number of people who used the drugs, because prohibition laws don't stop people from acquiring a substance. Naturally, the validity of marijuana legalization goes well beyond it's impact on the number of users, but there were many claims that it wouldn't impact the number of users. Of course, one can make the argument that the War on Drugs is a good thing but that it's implementation has often been wrong (for instance, that there should be more effort made on going after suppliers rather than users). But it's very common to see people claim that any attempts at prohibition are doomed to failure and cause more harm with little to no benefit. Edit: To give an example, here's a HN discussion where most of the people are in favor of fully legalizing all drugs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10424099 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10424099
  - bdangubic 2y ago
    attempts against prohibition are doomed to failure because they go against human nature and going against human nature will (almost) always fail. tell teenagers they can’t drink till they are 18… well… tell a kid she/he can’t… well… humans will do drugs. you have to start there. no matter what you try and “prohibit” this is your ground zero. from here you can decide which policy has the greatest chance of “success” once you define what success means to you.
- kjkjadksj 2y ago
  Decriminalization still means you get prosecuted for using in public. You can’t smoke weed in public or even a cigarette in most public places nor are you allowed to drink in public. Shooting dope in a park will still be illegal.
rqtwteye 2y ago
It’s consistent. Go after the big guys, suppliers and other enablers. Not after the individual addict.
emseetech 2y ago
Legalization was popular for weed because weed is relatively benign but decriminalization is what's needed for harder drugs. People get these mixed up and use them interchangeably but they're very different. There will (and should) never be heroin shops that look like Apple stores like there are for weed. Decrim can be for production, distribution and possession but people generally use it to mean possession. That means that possession of amounts for personal use are not a criminal matter, which makes sense if we see it as an addiction that needs to be treated. In that scenario, production and distribution can be (and often are) illegal. There are other nuances in how to handle decriminalization in terms of social services offered and how to disrupt demand.
- kjkjadksj 2y ago
  Hard drugs are already effectively decriminalized in CA. When I see cops literally turn the other way to not have to see someone smoke a rock and have to write them a ticket thats how you know. I can’t say that this policy has lead to anyone getting help. If anything it enables people to slip further into the abyss once they come here from places that would otherwise prosecute that behavior when its done in public in the open like that.
  - emseetech 2y ago
    That's where the final sentence of my post comes in.
krispyfi 2y ago
The shady business practices of McKinsey and Purdue are responsible for getting a lot of people dependent on opioids, but the overdose deaths skyrocketed once doctors were forced to cut patients off of their prescriptions and into the fentanyl-ridden black market due to pressure from DEA. Drug War propaganda has convinced us that addiction is as bad as death, but personally, I would rather live a long, happy and productive life dependent on cheap, legal opioids, like William Stewart Halsted, than die as a casualty of the War on Drugs.
- remarkEon 2y ago
  >dependent on cheap, legal opioids Life long customer.
- oefrha 2y ago
  > rather live a long, happy and productive life dependent on cheap, legal opioids That’s BS. OxyContin addicts tend to experience withdrawal symptoms before the recommended 12 hours is up, they also develop tolerance, so they end up requiring larger and larger dosage with increasing frequency. You’re not going to sustainably live a long, happy and productive life even if you have a cheap, steady, relatively clean supply of it.
  - toyg 2y ago
    Isn't that the same for coffee, though?
    - TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
      Caffeine and sugar are also addictive drugs. Caffeine significantly increases the risk of a heart attack. Refined sugar has numerous slow-motion-car-crash health effects, from tooth damage to obesity to diabetes. Both would be heavily regulated if they were new prescription medications.
    - oefrha 2y ago
      Few coffee addicts become zombies like opioid addicts, with or without coffee.
pxmpxm 2y ago
It's consistent in the sense that people love any angle that removes agency and shifts all responsibility to ephemeral constructs like "big pharma" or "war on drugs". Public flaggelation is not without consequence, however - don't be shocked when you can't find a pharmacy willing to fill a Percocet rx after your next surgery.
refulgentis 2y ago
It's not the same people
madaxe_again 2y ago
So what, you think a kid who deals a single gram of cannabis should spend the rest of their lives in prison? How is that just?
dns_snek 2y ago
People involved in the opioid crisis pushed unnecessary and extremely addictive drugs onto unsuspecting people who trusted them with their care, and it was all done through very intentional deception, lies about how these drugs weren't addictive when they absolutely knew that they were, and through corruption by offering doctors kickbacks for getting people hooked on them. Ignoring everything else, do you really fail to see how bribing doctor to lie to people about the nature of highly addictive drugs is different from a consensual transaction between two adults?
toyg 2y ago
The difference is consent, particularly at the very beginning. Patients typically have to trust a doctor; the definition of consent in those circumstances is very strict, side effects have to be declared etc etc. Any abuse of that consent, like in this case, must be treated like a crime. Whereas when it comes to individuals deciding on their own to experience something, it's all about personal responsibility.
- gonzobonzo 2y ago
  > Patients typically have to trust a doctor; the definition of consent in those circumstances is very strict, side effects have to be declared etc etc. Any abuse of that consent, like in this case, must be treated like a crime. > Whereas when it comes to individuals deciding on their own to experience something, it's all about personal responsibility. The problem with this framing (and some of the other comments have used this framing as well) is acting as if other drugs would not have the same issues as opioids. But if anything, the opioid epidemic has shown the opposite to be the case - people irresponsibly push drugs onto people even when access is limited to a group like doctors who are supposed to be well educated and discerning.
jgtrosh 2y ago
To add to other comments, this can also be partly justified by the fact that blue collar crime is the only kind of crime for which prevalence is even partly inversely correlated with the increase in severity in punishment.
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  > blue collar crime I never saw this term before. Do you mean all crime except white collar crime?
  - jgtrosh 2y ago
    I meant white collar crime

genocidicbunny 2y ago

I'm not sure most people are against going after the suppliers, even if they support decriminalization. Decriminalization should mean that users are not prosecuted for simply using drugs, but those participating in the manufacture and distribution are still held responsible.

gonzobonzo 2y ago
> I'm not sure most people are against going after the suppliers I see the claim made often, it even commonly pops up on HN. The claim is that the War on Drugs is a failure, because any prohibition efforts are doomed. Laws against a substance merely push it into the criminal sector and don't actually disrupt the supply. So the only outcome is that we get more crime and suffering, but the amount of people using the drug doesn't change. We saw a similarly argument often used when marijuana legalization was being discussed - legalization wouldn't actually impact the number of people who used the drugs, because prohibition laws don't stop people from acquiring a substance. Naturally, the validity of marijuana legalization goes well beyond it's impact on the number of users, but there were many claims that it wouldn't impact the number of users. Of course, one can make the argument that the War on Drugs is a good thing but that it's implementation has often been wrong (for instance, that there should be more effort made on going after suppliers rather than users). But it's very common to see people claim that any attempts at prohibition are doomed to failure and cause more harm with little to no benefit. Edit: To give an example, here's a HN discussion where most of the people are in favor of fully legalizing all drugs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10424099 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10424099
- bdangubic 2y ago
  attempts against prohibition are doomed to failure because they go against human nature and going against human nature will (almost) always fail. tell teenagers they can’t drink till they are 18… well… tell a kid she/he can’t… well… humans will do drugs. you have to start there. no matter what you try and “prohibit” this is your ground zero. from here you can decide which policy has the greatest chance of “success” once you define what success means to you.
kjkjadksj 2y ago
Decriminalization still means you get prosecuted for using in public. You can’t smoke weed in public or even a cigarette in most public places nor are you allowed to drink in public. Shooting dope in a park will still be illegal.

rqtwteye 2y ago

It’s consistent. Go after the big guys, suppliers and other enablers. Not after the individual addict.

emseetech 2y ago

Legalization was popular for weed because weed is relatively benign but decriminalization is what's needed for harder drugs. People get these mixed up and use them interchangeably but they're very different. There will (and should) never be heroin shops that look like Apple stores like there are for weed. Decrim can be for production, distribution and possession but people generally use it to mean possession. That means that possession of amounts for personal use are not a criminal matter, which makes sense if we see it as an addiction that needs to be treated. In that scenario, production and distribution can be (and often are) illegal. There are other nuances in how to handle decriminalization in terms of social services offered and how to disrupt demand.

kjkjadksj 2y ago
Hard drugs are already effectively decriminalized in CA. When I see cops literally turn the other way to not have to see someone smoke a rock and have to write them a ticket thats how you know. I can’t say that this policy has lead to anyone getting help. If anything it enables people to slip further into the abyss once they come here from places that would otherwise prosecute that behavior when its done in public in the open like that.
- emseetech 2y ago
  That's where the final sentence of my post comes in.

krispyfi 2y ago

The shady business practices of McKinsey and Purdue are responsible for getting a lot of people dependent on opioids, but the overdose deaths skyrocketed once doctors were forced to cut patients off of their prescriptions and into the fentanyl-ridden black market due to pressure from DEA. Drug War propaganda has convinced us that addiction is as bad as death, but personally, I would rather live a long, happy and productive life dependent on cheap, legal opioids, like William Stewart Halsted, than die as a casualty of the War on Drugs.

remarkEon 2y ago
>dependent on cheap, legal opioids Life long customer.
oefrha 2y ago
> rather live a long, happy and productive life dependent on cheap, legal opioids That’s BS. OxyContin addicts tend to experience withdrawal symptoms before the recommended 12 hours is up, they also develop tolerance, so they end up requiring larger and larger dosage with increasing frequency. You’re not going to sustainably live a long, happy and productive life even if you have a cheap, steady, relatively clean supply of it.
- toyg 2y ago
  Isn't that the same for coffee, though?
  - TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
    Caffeine and sugar are also addictive drugs. Caffeine significantly increases the risk of a heart attack. Refined sugar has numerous slow-motion-car-crash health effects, from tooth damage to obesity to diabetes. Both would be heavily regulated if they were new prescription medications.
  - oefrha 2y ago
    Few coffee addicts become zombies like opioid addicts, with or without coffee.

pxmpxm 2y ago

It's consistent in the sense that people love any angle that removes agency and shifts all responsibility to ephemeral constructs like "big pharma" or "war on drugs". Public flaggelation is not without consequence, however - don't be shocked when you can't find a pharmacy willing to fill a Percocet rx after your next surgery.

refulgentis 2y ago

It's not the same people

madaxe_again 2y ago

So what, you think a kid who deals a single gram of cannabis should spend the rest of their lives in prison? How is that just?

dns_snek 2y ago

People involved in the opioid crisis pushed unnecessary and extremely addictive drugs onto unsuspecting people who trusted them with their care, and it was all done through very intentional deception, lies about how these drugs weren't addictive when they absolutely knew that they were, and through corruption by offering doctors kickbacks for getting people hooked on them. Ignoring everything else, do you really fail to see how bribing doctor to lie to people about the nature of highly addictive drugs is different from a consensual transaction between two adults?

toyg 2y ago

The difference is consent, particularly at the very beginning. Patients typically have to trust a doctor; the definition of consent in those circumstances is very strict, side effects have to be declared etc etc. Any abuse of that consent, like in this case, must be treated like a crime. Whereas when it comes to individuals deciding on their own to experience something, it's all about personal responsibility.

gonzobonzo 2y ago
> Patients typically have to trust a doctor; the definition of consent in those circumstances is very strict, side effects have to be declared etc etc. Any abuse of that consent, like in this case, must be treated like a crime. > Whereas when it comes to individuals deciding on their own to experience something, it's all about personal responsibility. The problem with this framing (and some of the other comments have used this framing as well) is acting as if other drugs would not have the same issues as opioids. But if anything, the opioid epidemic has shown the opposite to be the case - people irresponsibly push drugs onto people even when access is limited to a group like doctors who are supposed to be well educated and discerning.

jgtrosh 2y ago

To add to other comments, this can also be partly justified by the fact that blue collar crime is the only kind of crime for which prevalence is even partly inversely correlated with the increase in severity in punishment.

throwaway2037 2y ago
> blue collar crime I never saw this term before. Do you mean all crime except white collar crime?
- jgtrosh 2y ago
  I meant white collar crime