4 ms·

> The government should just regulate it, control purity and production and let people access small amounts for recreation/performance. The thing is, drugs are

by cyberax 6mo ago

> The government should just regulate it, control purity and production and let people access small amounts for recreation/performance. The thing is, drugs are addictive. ESPECIALLY meth. How would you prevent people from just getting as much as they want and then becoming drug zombies? Fentanyl is similar. Cartels perfected its production, so now it's pure and widely available. It's even worse than meth in some regards. Once you start using fentanyl, you're going to become a hardened addict. And there will be almost no hope of recovery, the success rate of drug rehab treatments is in single-digit percentages. I guess the idea is that people will just keep using "safer" drugs like cocaine instead? I'm not sure it's working, we legalized cannabis and it made zero difference.

dostick 6mo ago
Drugs are not addictive in a sense that they make person to go out and buy more. The only thing about drugs is that they are the best thing in that person’s life at the moment. Blaming drugs is as outdated as blaming npm package for vulnerability that some bad actor pushed into it.
- nswango 6mo ago
  Have you ever been an addict? I have, and the argument that everyone addicted had some other issue going on is pretty pointless imho. Yes, they had some other issue, and now before fixing that issue they also have to deal with being a drug addict.
- autoexec 6mo ago
  > Drugs are not addictive in a sense that they make person to go out and buy more. Some are. Your life could be better than it's ever been but if you've got a physiological dependence on a drug and don't have enough of it in your system you're going to have a very very bad time until you get more. Some drugs will even kill you if you fail to get more and you need to be carefully weaned off them before you can stop taking it.
jampekka 6mo ago
The main idea indeed is usually "channeling consumption" to less harmful substances, dosages/concentrations and outlets. A prime example is alcohol, where prohibition led to bad outcomes. This led to the regulated legalization model. E.g. in some Nordic countries hard liquor is still only available in government stores and licensed restaurants, with exactly this logic. Not long ago bars could serve only one "unit" of alcohol at a time. Longer ago there were limits to how much alcohol one could buy in a week. > I guess the idea is that people will just keep using "safer" drugs like cocaine instead? I'm not sure it's working, we legalized cannabis and it made zero difference. Cannabis and cocaine are very different kinds of substances with very different uses and audiences. Expecting legalized cannabis to substantially reduce cocaine use is like expecting banning of coffee would substantially increase alcohol consumption. There can be some minor effects due to multiple illegal substances tending to have the same outlets, but this is likely a subtle at best. Also how much more "safe" cocaine is from methamphetamine is not that clear. Probably the largest effect is from very different demographics of methamphetamine vs cocaine users.
- cyberax 6mo ago
  > A prime example is alcohol, where prohibition led to bad outcomes. This led to the regulated legalization model. The problem is that addicts are not going to be satisfied. Canada tried "safe supply" programs, where addicts are provided with medical opiates. Some addicts ended up selling pills because they were too weak and buying stronger street drugs. It also apparently failed to improve long-term outcomes, although it's a bit early to tell that for certain. > Expecting legalized cannabis to substantially reduce cocaine use is like expecting banning of coffee would substantially increase alcohol consumption. Well, it did not reduce opiate consumption either.

by cyberax 6mo ago

dostick 6mo ago

Drugs are not addictive in a sense that they make person to go out and buy more. The only thing about drugs is that they are the best thing in that person’s life at the moment. Blaming drugs is as outdated as blaming npm package for vulnerability that some bad actor pushed into it.

nswango 6mo ago
Have you ever been an addict? I have, and the argument that everyone addicted had some other issue going on is pretty pointless imho. Yes, they had some other issue, and now before fixing that issue they also have to deal with being a drug addict.
autoexec 6mo ago
> Drugs are not addictive in a sense that they make person to go out and buy more. Some are. Your life could be better than it's ever been but if you've got a physiological dependence on a drug and don't have enough of it in your system you're going to have a very very bad time until you get more. Some drugs will even kill you if you fail to get more and you need to be carefully weaned off them before you can stop taking it.

jampekka 6mo ago

The main idea indeed is usually "channeling consumption" to less harmful substances, dosages/concentrations and outlets. A prime example is alcohol, where prohibition led to bad outcomes. This led to the regulated legalization model. E.g. in some Nordic countries hard liquor is still only available in government stores and licensed restaurants, with exactly this logic. Not long ago bars could serve only one "unit" of alcohol at a time. Longer ago there were limits to how much alcohol one could buy in a week. > I guess the idea is that people will just keep using "safer" drugs like cocaine instead? I'm not sure it's working, we legalized cannabis and it made zero difference. Cannabis and cocaine are very different kinds of substances with very different uses and audiences. Expecting legalized cannabis to substantially reduce cocaine use is like expecting banning of coffee would substantially increase alcohol consumption. There can be some minor effects due to multiple illegal substances tending to have the same outlets, but this is likely a subtle at best. Also how much more "safe" cocaine is from methamphetamine is not that clear. Probably the largest effect is from very different demographics of methamphetamine vs cocaine users.

cyberax 6mo ago
> A prime example is alcohol, where prohibition led to bad outcomes. This led to the regulated legalization model. The problem is that addicts are not going to be satisfied. Canada tried "safe supply" programs, where addicts are provided with medical opiates. Some addicts ended up selling pills because they were too weak and buying stronger street drugs. It also apparently failed to improve long-term outcomes, although it's a bit early to tell that for certain. > Expecting legalized cannabis to substantially reduce cocaine use is like expecting banning of coffee would substantially increase alcohol consumption. Well, it did not reduce opiate consumption either.