3 ms·

The same complaint he makes about "drugs" can also be applied to terms like "legalization" and "regulation" and "prohibition". People react to the terms withou

The same complaint he makes about "drugs" can also be applied to terms like "legalization" and "regulation" and "prohibition". People react to the terms without coming to a common understanding of what the terms mean, and the conversation doesn't evolve. For instance, one person can be anti-legalization, and another pro-legalization, and have an argument without realizing that they are both against prison sentences for non-violent crimes against the self. Also, for one person legalization might mean that every substance is openly available, whereas for another it might mean openly available in a highly regulated form, whereas for another it might mean that you have to have a license to ingest, or even an approach like Portugal's where you can still be apprehended(!) and made to appear before a panel even though it's without risk of a prison sentence. I also think there's a lack of respect for our own proven cognitive biases, and our interconnected societies. I know several medical social workers that have first-hand experience with the negative impact that drug users have on our communities even if the users are technically only ingesting products into their own bodies, aren't dealing, and aren't negatively impacting immediate family members. People might think they are making responsible independent choices when they put some of these substances into their bodies, but that doesn't mean they're always correct - and the burden of these choices can then be put on the shoulders of larger society.

cle 13y ago
I agree, there can be a lot of negative externalities from drug use. At the same time, there can be positive externalities. Everyone knows what these are. I would like to see more nuanced drug policy. Let's try to discourage the kind of drug use that leads to negative externalities, without discouraging the kind of drug use that can lead to positive ones. For example, treatment instead of imprisonment. If we take a lot of the resources that we spend on imprisoning drug users and spend it on treatment and honest drug use education, I think we'd see a lot more progress. Of course, it's hard to come up with campaign slogans or appeal to emotions by making cogent, nuanced arguments. So I have little faith anyone will actually do this anytime soon.
- lovemenot 13y ago
  >> Of course, it's hard to come up with campaign slogans or appeal to emotions by making cogent, nuanced arguments. Just say "it depends".
Nursie 13y ago
On the subject of biases - do you think perhaps that the selection of people that your medical social worker friends see might, maybe, represent the problem end of the spectrum of users? Rather than a representative cross section? I don't have any doubt some substances are much worse than others for this, meth and crack spring to mind, but the personal experiences of social workers are IMHO useful to see what can happen when things go wrong, not useful to assess how likely that is.
- tunesmith 13y ago
  Yeah, I'm making more a "there exists" argument rather than saying that they're representative of all drug users. However, it's common enough that the impact on society is non-negligible, IMO. It of course invites the question of "how much of that negative impact means that some form of regulation is worthwhile?" I think that's an interesting discussion to have, the ones that admit the problem and try and quantify it. I'm not sure that many people are able to have the conversation outside of policy wonks, though.
  - Nursie 13y ago
    I've no idea what the appropriate amount of regulation is. One of the interesting things that David Nutt said in his book was that perhaps, if we didn't have the puritan attitude, we could research substances that gave people the effects they want without as much harm. What if we had an alcohol alternative that was non addictive and could be switched off at the end of the night with an antidote? Or a recreational stimulant that didn't cause heart strain? If we approached the question of drugs from a libertine but harm-reducing viewpoint, I wonder what we could achieve. Also of course, who would get hooked on meth if they had a choice of cheaper, safer, legal alternatives? Some still would but I bet it would be less.

cle 13y ago

I agree, there can be a lot of negative externalities from drug use. At the same time, there can be positive externalities. Everyone knows what these are. I would like to see more nuanced drug policy. Let's try to discourage the kind of drug use that leads to negative externalities, without discouraging the kind of drug use that can lead to positive ones. For example, treatment instead of imprisonment. If we take a lot of the resources that we spend on imprisoning drug users and spend it on treatment and honest drug use education, I think we'd see a lot more progress. Of course, it's hard to come up with campaign slogans or appeal to emotions by making cogent, nuanced arguments. So I have little faith anyone will actually do this anytime soon.

lovemenot 13y ago
>> Of course, it's hard to come up with campaign slogans or appeal to emotions by making cogent, nuanced arguments. Just say "it depends".

Nursie 13y ago

On the subject of biases - do you think perhaps that the selection of people that your medical social worker friends see might, maybe, represent the problem end of the spectrum of users? Rather than a representative cross section? I don't have any doubt some substances are much worse than others for this, meth and crack spring to mind, but the personal experiences of social workers are IMHO useful to see what can happen when things go wrong, not useful to assess how likely that is.

tunesmith 13y ago
Yeah, I'm making more a "there exists" argument rather than saying that they're representative of all drug users. However, it's common enough that the impact on society is non-negligible, IMO. It of course invites the question of "how much of that negative impact means that some form of regulation is worthwhile?" I think that's an interesting discussion to have, the ones that admit the problem and try and quantify it. I'm not sure that many people are able to have the conversation outside of policy wonks, though.
- Nursie 13y ago
  I've no idea what the appropriate amount of regulation is. One of the interesting things that David Nutt said in his book was that perhaps, if we didn't have the puritan attitude, we could research substances that gave people the effects they want without as much harm. What if we had an alcohol alternative that was non addictive and could be switched off at the end of the night with an antidote? Or a recreational stimulant that didn't cause heart strain? If we approached the question of drugs from a libertine but harm-reducing viewpoint, I wonder what we could achieve. Also of course, who would get hooked on meth if they had a choice of cheaper, safer, legal alternatives? Some still would but I bet it would be less.