4 ms·

> I'm quite libertarian in a lot of my views, but this particular one on lax drug controls I've never really been able to buy into. Ok, I'll bite ;) Let's agr

> I'm quite libertarian in a lot of my views, but this particular one on lax drug controls I've never really been able to buy into. Ok, I'll bite ;) Let's agree that the "liberal" approach is harm-reduction -- safe injection sites, needle exchanges, free filters, test sites, community disease screening, etc. In places where this has been tried (see: SF), it seems to provide some relief to people on the ground, but it's done nothing to address in the inflow of addicts against ever more dangerous supply. What if the correct liberal position was actually "free pain pills for anyone that needs them, with compassion for all users", and what we think of as "liberal" policies even in SF are actually appeasement of a puritanical system? That would make the libertarian position "you can't be giving out free pills with government money, make them buy them when they need them like the rest of us" and the world would return to order. The right-wing position would remain "the government should use force to prevent people from doing immoral things". As for the addicts, they will now be using a safer route of administration with controlled dosing and not be economically hindered. As for the cartels, they will no longer find money in the drug trade. For a while I thought I understood the dynamics of how things got the way they are, but it seems like everyone else has forgotten, so maybe we could try a new approach soon.

sepositus 2y ago
I spend a good portion of my time in community service, mostly in areas where drug abuse is rampant. During this time, I've talked with a fair number of addicts, and I'd say over 90% of them stem from either being introduced to drugs by a friend (peer pressure) or following after the drug addiction of an existing family member. Generally, within a year or two, they were on the streets resorting to crime to fuel their addiction. Now, my experience is not representative as a whole, but it's generally what fuels my thoughts on this subject. If this is the story I hear quite frequently, why would I want these drugs to be introduced legally into people's lives? That's why I've always had issues understanding people pushing for legalization. I understand how it can come across as puritanical ("I know what's best for you"). However, when all data suggests that engaging in drug use almost universally results in poverty, why would we as a society want to unleash such a thing upon people? It's for the betterment of humanity that life-ruining drugs are illegal. At least those are my thoughts.
- sokka_h2otribe 2y ago
  I have never heard of someone on the streets directly for marijuana usage. Opioids are actually cheap to produce, expensive to buy. The poverty is quite related to the costs, and I think that's where I challenge your take. That said, the most compelling take i have heard in the first half of 'In the realm of hungry ghosts' by Gabor Mate`. He points out that we need to consider the fact that some people may be much more predisposed to opioid addiction, by either default wiring or by life experiences. In this case, is the freedom of the majority of folks to take what they want worth the risk to those who would suffer from it? I don't believe he supports the criminalization of the drug use, but he makes a good point that we need to think about this reality of different-risks. The reason why I come back to legalization is that I cannot tolerate the fact we have such massive funding sources for the cartels (and police) in the illegal trade. It is deeply compelling to me that we would be better off without funding that society destroying business.
  - sepositus 2y ago
    > I have never heard of someone on the streets directly for marijuana usage Yeah, I'm certainly not talking about this class of drugs. The context of the discussion is opioids, and I'm mainly referring to the more destructive ones. I had no issue when marijuana was legalized in my state. > The poverty is quite related to the costs, and I think that's where I challenge your take. I'm not sure that represents the whole picture. Beyond relationships, the main thing most people I've met in this situation lost was their job. Followed by whatever housing situation they had. Sure, cost doesn't make it any easier on them, but from my perspective, it was the drug abuse and the resulting cycles of high/low that led to their financial demise. > The reason why I come back to legalization is that I cannot tolerate the fact we have such massive funding sources for the cartels (and police) in the illegal trade Yeah, I agree, and I have the same feelings. I just can't, in good faith, support legalization with all I've seen. It's a complicated problem.

sepositus 2y ago

I spend a good portion of my time in community service, mostly in areas where drug abuse is rampant. During this time, I've talked with a fair number of addicts, and I'd say over 90% of them stem from either being introduced to drugs by a friend (peer pressure) or following after the drug addiction of an existing family member. Generally, within a year or two, they were on the streets resorting to crime to fuel their addiction. Now, my experience is not representative as a whole, but it's generally what fuels my thoughts on this subject. If this is the story I hear quite frequently, why would I want these drugs to be introduced legally into people's lives? That's why I've always had issues understanding people pushing for legalization. I understand how it can come across as puritanical ("I know what's best for you"). However, when all data suggests that engaging in drug use almost universally results in poverty, why would we as a society want to unleash such a thing upon people? It's for the betterment of humanity that life-ruining drugs are illegal. At least those are my thoughts.

sokka_h2otribe 2y ago
I have never heard of someone on the streets directly for marijuana usage. Opioids are actually cheap to produce, expensive to buy. The poverty is quite related to the costs, and I think that's where I challenge your take. That said, the most compelling take i have heard in the first half of 'In the realm of hungry ghosts' by Gabor Mate`. He points out that we need to consider the fact that some people may be much more predisposed to opioid addiction, by either default wiring or by life experiences. In this case, is the freedom of the majority of folks to take what they want worth the risk to those who would suffer from it? I don't believe he supports the criminalization of the drug use, but he makes a good point that we need to think about this reality of different-risks. The reason why I come back to legalization is that I cannot tolerate the fact we have such massive funding sources for the cartels (and police) in the illegal trade. It is deeply compelling to me that we would be better off without funding that society destroying business.
- sepositus 2y ago
  > I have never heard of someone on the streets directly for marijuana usage Yeah, I'm certainly not talking about this class of drugs. The context of the discussion is opioids, and I'm mainly referring to the more destructive ones. I had no issue when marijuana was legalized in my state. > The poverty is quite related to the costs, and I think that's where I challenge your take. I'm not sure that represents the whole picture. Beyond relationships, the main thing most people I've met in this situation lost was their job. Followed by whatever housing situation they had. Sure, cost doesn't make it any easier on them, but from my perspective, it was the drug abuse and the resulting cycles of high/low that led to their financial demise. > The reason why I come back to legalization is that I cannot tolerate the fact we have such massive funding sources for the cartels (and police) in the illegal trade Yeah, I agree, and I have the same feelings. I just can't, in good faith, support legalization with all I've seen. It's a complicated problem.