9 ms·

It's not a choice between legalization of all drugs or violence and corruption. Sure, the way the US cracked down on drugs did more harm than good. But that doe

It's not a choice between legalization of all drugs or violence and corruption. Sure, the way the US cracked down on drugs did more harm than good. But that doesn't mean there should be no regulation for drugs whatsoever. Take the opioid epidemic for example. It claimed the lives of hundreds of people per day. Do you think "humane and sensible" people were responsible for that?

cluckindan 1y ago
The opioid epidemic is not a great example, as it began by overprescription of legal, regulated medicinal drugs. The problem blew up when authorities started cracking down on those prescriptions, and the newly dependent started seeking drugs from illegal sources. Those sources included clandestinely produced heroin and fentanyl, leading to massive numbers of overdose deaths. In other words, it was the enforcement of prohibition that ultimately caused more societal and health issues than the quasi-legal sales of hard drugs. It definitely wasn’t the doing of ”humane and sensible” policies! So you see, it is actually a choice between legalization of all drugs or violence and corruption. The system can only regulate drugs when they are legal. Illegal drugs combined with enforcement of prohibition pits producers, traffickers, dealers and users against the police and ultimately the army, which are usually the only groups of people who have a state-sanctioned mandate to use violence against other people. How could violence not result, when it is an integral part of the alleged ”solution”? Just add pervasive income inequality, throw in some general lack of future prospects mixed with widely publicized lies about the billionaire class being entirely self-made through hard work, and baby, you got a stew going, and the people getting thrown in the hot water are already boiling over.
- soraminazuki 1y ago
  That's quite some wall of one insane libertarian take after another that it's impossible to keep up. Regulating drugs isn't the same thing as turning into a police state. > The opioid epidemic is not a great example You think the issue of regulating heroin and fentanyl is comparable to alcohol prohibition, but not the opioid epidemic? > The problem blew up when authorities started cracking down on those prescriptions The problem blew up when pharmaceutical companies deceitfully advertised addictive pain killers as safe and aggressively prescribed them to even those who didn't need it. It would've been prevented if the government adequately stepped in before it happened. It was already too late when authorities started cracking down, and to frame that time as the starting point of the problem is blatantly disingenuous. > It definitely wasn’t the doing of ”humane and sensible” policies! It's you who's framing the deregulation of OxyContin, heroin, and fentanyl as "humane and sensible," not me. > So you see, it is actually a choice between legalization of all drugs or violence and corruption. No, you haven't presented a single supporting argument that stands the test of logic and common sense. > The system can only regulate drugs when they are legal. What kind of logic is that? The only way to regulate something is to not regulate? What kind of mind games are you playing here? > Illegal drugs combined with enforcement of prohibition pits producers, traffickers, dealers and users against the police and ultimately the army, which are usually the only groups of people who have a state-sanctioned mandate to use violence against other people. Just because the US tries to solve every social issue with over-policing, police militarization, and mass incarceration doesn't mean that it's the only solution. > Just add pervasive income inequality, throw in some general lack of future prospects mixed with widely publicized lies about the billionaire class being entirely self-made through hard work, and baby, you got a stew going, and the people getting thrown in the hot water are already boiling over. Yes, and you think having more would-be Sacklers selling highly addictive drugs without anyone to stop them is a solution to that? Give us a break. Libertarianism doesn't stop billionaires and their exploitation of everyone else.
  - cluckindan 1y ago
    Thank you for the strawmen. I will burn them at Christmas. Do you really think ”legal” means unregulated? That, if something, is a libertarian viewpoint. Think about how many regulations you need to fulfill to be able to legally build a house, or employ a person. Are those things completely unregulated? How about the fuel you purchase at a gas station? Ever get only water or nitromethane instead of unleaded gas? Of course you haven’t, because you are buying a legal, regulated product. Making drugs legal would make it possible to enforce standards of quality, labeling, age limits, et cetera before the products ever got to market. By making drugs illegal, the society has abandoned all those controls and replaced them with the threat of violence: enforcement of behavior instead of enforcement of regulations. That does not sound like freedom to me. (Please don’t start arguing that murder also needs to be legalized, we both know that is not what I’m arguing for.)
- LorenPechtel 1y ago
  Actually, it had another serious flaw: The drug at the center of this was listed as working for 12 hours. In many patients it did not. And the docs do not listen--it's supposed to be every X hours, it's every X hours. Fortunately I've had very little need of pain stuff because I know every single drug that I have ever been able to discern wearing off does so in less than the specified time. Blood pressure by the book of 1/day swings both too high and too low. Same total dose split into morning/evening provides very good control.
quickthrowman 1y ago
> Take the opioid epidemic for example. It claimed the lives of hundreds of people per day. Do you think "humane and sensible" people were responsible for that? If an opiate addict could get their daily heroin legally for $10/day, there would be no black market filled with poorly dosed fentanyl pills that kill people. The amount of overdose deaths is caused by enforcement forcing the market to select an inferior product, fentanyl I’m not advocating for making opiates legal, for what it’s worth. I’ve been addicted to heroin, suboxone got me clean.
- cluckindan 1y ago
  Not even $10: one tablet of buprenorphine costs like $1 at the pharmacy. Probably more in the US, though.
  - quickthrowman 1y ago
    The generic tablets and films were pretty cheap when I was on buprenorphine in 2011 and 2012, it was the $500/month shakedown from one of the 100 doctors licensed in my state to prescribe it that was expensive. I believe any doctor can prescribe suboxone in the US now so it’s probably a lot cheaper than it used to be.
LorenPechtel 1y ago
No. The drug warriors are neither humane nor sensible. Opioids are actually not all that dangerous, but the range between high and dead is not all that great. When you know what you're getting (chronic pain patients) the problem rate is low. But with the street you get varying purity. And the drug war has caused the manufacturers to move to more concentrated products to make smuggling easier. And fentanyl has a very nasty property: the tendency to clump. This is no problem for the pharmaceutical industry, but when you have a dealer mixing stuff it's easy for a lethal clump to remain in the product. You get that, you better hope somebody nearby has Narcan. You don't see it killing the pain patients like it kill the people on the street--this is a dose problem, not something inherent to the drugs. And why is that a reason, anyway? There is no question as to the most deadly recreational drug: tobacco. Yet it's legal. Protecting the user is clearly not the motivation. (The data isn't so clear on the second because the data is so contaminated, but it looks like it is alcohol.) Also, the majority of crime traces back to drugs. Remove the drug market, you cut the crime rate in half overnight. And there's no question the drug war causes a lot more harm than the drugs. I can see no reasonable justification for the low-addictive stuff not to be legal. The highly addictive stuff you can make an argument for it being legal with a prescription, addiction is a valid reason for a prescription. It has been handled that way in the past in England and worked well. In in ideal world I would favor this approach, but I have a sufficient distrust of the politicians to trust this wouldn't become full of obstacles. Amsterdam's experience with legalization says that it doesn't increase use, but advertising does. Thus, what I would like to see: General promotional stuff is limited to simple item-price listings. Nothing more can be presented unless the customer has already demonstrated interest, either by entering a website (and the insides of the website can't be bookmarked, you must enter the gate each visit), or by entering a portion of a store devoted to that drug. Externally there must be a minimum of information needed to identify what the business is. The selecting your stuff part can never be mixed, you want two different types and you must visit both places even if they have a common checkout. The same rules apply to all recreational drugs, including tobacco and alcohol.
- soraminazuki 1y ago
  > No. The drug warriors are neither humane nor sensible. I never once advocated for the war on drugs approach, and I made that crystal clear in my comment. Proper policy != war on drugs. It means making sure that drugs get properly certified and its distribution controlled. It means focusing on treatment rather than aggressively punishing those who get addicted. It means addressing the underlying social issues that pushes people towards drugs rather than pouring all money into militarizing the police. > Opioids are actually not all that dangerous Victims of the epidemic would beg to differ. The epidemic highlighted the need for proper control of drugs through certification and prescription. It showed how far the pharmaceutical industry will go if left unregulated. > But with the street you get varying purity. I never advocated for this either. It should be illegal to sell drugs without a license. > There is no question as to the most deadly recreational drug: tobacco. Yet it's legal. Which is why regulation has increased for tobacco all around the world. We could do more to limit the exploitation of people by tobacco companies. > I can see no reasonable justification for the low-addictive stuff not to be legal. Yes, the specifics of regulation should vary depending on the dangers of each drug. I'm against all drugs being unilaterally legalized.

cluckindan 1y ago

The opioid epidemic is not a great example, as it began by overprescription of legal, regulated medicinal drugs. The problem blew up when authorities started cracking down on those prescriptions, and the newly dependent started seeking drugs from illegal sources. Those sources included clandestinely produced heroin and fentanyl, leading to massive numbers of overdose deaths. In other words, it was the enforcement of prohibition that ultimately caused more societal and health issues than the quasi-legal sales of hard drugs. It definitely wasn’t the doing of ”humane and sensible” policies! So you see, it is actually a choice between legalization of all drugs or violence and corruption. The system can only regulate drugs when they are legal. Illegal drugs combined with enforcement of prohibition pits producers, traffickers, dealers and users against the police and ultimately the army, which are usually the only groups of people who have a state-sanctioned mandate to use violence against other people. How could violence not result, when it is an integral part of the alleged ”solution”? Just add pervasive income inequality, throw in some general lack of future prospects mixed with widely publicized lies about the billionaire class being entirely self-made through hard work, and baby, you got a stew going, and the people getting thrown in the hot water are already boiling over.

soraminazuki 1y ago
That's quite some wall of one insane libertarian take after another that it's impossible to keep up. Regulating drugs isn't the same thing as turning into a police state. > The opioid epidemic is not a great example You think the issue of regulating heroin and fentanyl is comparable to alcohol prohibition, but not the opioid epidemic? > The problem blew up when authorities started cracking down on those prescriptions The problem blew up when pharmaceutical companies deceitfully advertised addictive pain killers as safe and aggressively prescribed them to even those who didn't need it. It would've been prevented if the government adequately stepped in before it happened. It was already too late when authorities started cracking down, and to frame that time as the starting point of the problem is blatantly disingenuous. > It definitely wasn’t the doing of ”humane and sensible” policies! It's you who's framing the deregulation of OxyContin, heroin, and fentanyl as "humane and sensible," not me. > So you see, it is actually a choice between legalization of all drugs or violence and corruption. No, you haven't presented a single supporting argument that stands the test of logic and common sense. > The system can only regulate drugs when they are legal. What kind of logic is that? The only way to regulate something is to not regulate? What kind of mind games are you playing here? > Illegal drugs combined with enforcement of prohibition pits producers, traffickers, dealers and users against the police and ultimately the army, which are usually the only groups of people who have a state-sanctioned mandate to use violence against other people. Just because the US tries to solve every social issue with over-policing, police militarization, and mass incarceration doesn't mean that it's the only solution. > Just add pervasive income inequality, throw in some general lack of future prospects mixed with widely publicized lies about the billionaire class being entirely self-made through hard work, and baby, you got a stew going, and the people getting thrown in the hot water are already boiling over. Yes, and you think having more would-be Sacklers selling highly addictive drugs without anyone to stop them is a solution to that? Give us a break. Libertarianism doesn't stop billionaires and their exploitation of everyone else.
- cluckindan 1y ago
  Thank you for the strawmen. I will burn them at Christmas. Do you really think ”legal” means unregulated? That, if something, is a libertarian viewpoint. Think about how many regulations you need to fulfill to be able to legally build a house, or employ a person. Are those things completely unregulated? How about the fuel you purchase at a gas station? Ever get only water or nitromethane instead of unleaded gas? Of course you haven’t, because you are buying a legal, regulated product. Making drugs legal would make it possible to enforce standards of quality, labeling, age limits, et cetera before the products ever got to market. By making drugs illegal, the society has abandoned all those controls and replaced them with the threat of violence: enforcement of behavior instead of enforcement of regulations. That does not sound like freedom to me. (Please don’t start arguing that murder also needs to be legalized, we both know that is not what I’m arguing for.)
LorenPechtel 1y ago
Actually, it had another serious flaw: The drug at the center of this was listed as working for 12 hours. In many patients it did not. And the docs do not listen--it's supposed to be every X hours, it's every X hours. Fortunately I've had very little need of pain stuff because I know every single drug that I have ever been able to discern wearing off does so in less than the specified time. Blood pressure by the book of 1/day swings both too high and too low. Same total dose split into morning/evening provides very good control.

quickthrowman 1y ago

> Take the opioid epidemic for example. It claimed the lives of hundreds of people per day. Do you think "humane and sensible" people were responsible for that? If an opiate addict could get their daily heroin legally for $10/day, there would be no black market filled with poorly dosed fentanyl pills that kill people. The amount of overdose deaths is caused by enforcement forcing the market to select an inferior product, fentanyl I’m not advocating for making opiates legal, for what it’s worth. I’ve been addicted to heroin, suboxone got me clean.

cluckindan 1y ago
Not even $10: one tablet of buprenorphine costs like $1 at the pharmacy. Probably more in the US, though.
- quickthrowman 1y ago
  The generic tablets and films were pretty cheap when I was on buprenorphine in 2011 and 2012, it was the $500/month shakedown from one of the 100 doctors licensed in my state to prescribe it that was expensive. I believe any doctor can prescribe suboxone in the US now so it’s probably a lot cheaper than it used to be.

LorenPechtel 1y ago

No. The drug warriors are neither humane nor sensible. Opioids are actually not all that dangerous, but the range between high and dead is not all that great. When you know what you're getting (chronic pain patients) the problem rate is low. But with the street you get varying purity. And the drug war has caused the manufacturers to move to more concentrated products to make smuggling easier. And fentanyl has a very nasty property: the tendency to clump. This is no problem for the pharmaceutical industry, but when you have a dealer mixing stuff it's easy for a lethal clump to remain in the product. You get that, you better hope somebody nearby has Narcan. You don't see it killing the pain patients like it kill the people on the street--this is a dose problem, not something inherent to the drugs. And why is that a reason, anyway? There is no question as to the most deadly recreational drug: tobacco. Yet it's legal. Protecting the user is clearly not the motivation. (The data isn't so clear on the second because the data is so contaminated, but it looks like it is alcohol.) Also, the majority of crime traces back to drugs. Remove the drug market, you cut the crime rate in half overnight. And there's no question the drug war causes a lot more harm than the drugs. I can see no reasonable justification for the low-addictive stuff not to be legal. The highly addictive stuff you can make an argument for it being legal with a prescription, addiction is a valid reason for a prescription. It has been handled that way in the past in England and worked well. In in ideal world I would favor this approach, but I have a sufficient distrust of the politicians to trust this wouldn't become full of obstacles. Amsterdam's experience with legalization says that it doesn't increase use, but advertising does. Thus, what I would like to see: General promotional stuff is limited to simple item-price listings. Nothing more can be presented unless the customer has already demonstrated interest, either by entering a website (and the insides of the website can't be bookmarked, you must enter the gate each visit), or by entering a portion of a store devoted to that drug. Externally there must be a minimum of information needed to identify what the business is. The selecting your stuff part can never be mixed, you want two different types and you must visit both places even if they have a common checkout. The same rules apply to all recreational drugs, including tobacco and alcohol.

soraminazuki 1y ago
> No. The drug warriors are neither humane nor sensible. I never once advocated for the war on drugs approach, and I made that crystal clear in my comment. Proper policy != war on drugs. It means making sure that drugs get properly certified and its distribution controlled. It means focusing on treatment rather than aggressively punishing those who get addicted. It means addressing the underlying social issues that pushes people towards drugs rather than pouring all money into militarizing the police. > Opioids are actually not all that dangerous Victims of the epidemic would beg to differ. The epidemic highlighted the need for proper control of drugs through certification and prescription. It showed how far the pharmaceutical industry will go if left unregulated. > But with the street you get varying purity. I never advocated for this either. It should be illegal to sell drugs without a license. > There is no question as to the most deadly recreational drug: tobacco. Yet it's legal. Which is why regulation has increased for tobacco all around the world. We could do more to limit the exploitation of people by tobacco companies. > I can see no reasonable justification for the low-addictive stuff not to be legal. Yes, the specifics of regulation should vary depending on the dangers of each drug. I'm against all drugs being unilaterally legalized.