3 ms·

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 cr

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.

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.