3 ms·

> But in terms of harm reduction Silk Road was pretty awesome (fwiw, I never used the service). Not only did it derisk buying and selling drugs... I don't see

> But in terms of harm reduction Silk Road was pretty awesome (fwiw, I never used the service). Not only did it derisk buying and selling drugs... I don't see how it follows that derisking drug sales necessarily didn't increase harm. Yes, if you were selling drugs on Silk Road you were less likely to get into a violent confrontation with a client. Yes, if you were buying drugs on Silk Road you were less likely to get into a violent confrontation with the dealer. But the claim here is that Silk Road also dramatically reduced barriers to entry for both buyers and sellers for very serious drugs. Heroin is no joke and no amount of pseudo-libertarian drug legalization arguments make it any safer. If Silk Road made it available to a dramatically broader audience that otherwise wouldn't have been able to get it, the harm to society, on balance, must have been enormous. > The whole ordeal here just drives the point home, that the drug war is not at all about harm reduction for anybody, not users, certainly not dealers, and not even society at large. Heroin isn't weed. It destroys lives of its users and certainly harms the society at large. To say otherwise is preposterous, at best.

mathetic 12y ago
I like how you conveniently ignored the parent's comments about cartels. Also I don't understand the use of "pseudo-libertarian" here? Drug usage is a personal decision and it's none of state's business. That is the very definition of libertarianism. It has nothing to do with Silk Road but since you brought it up, legalising drug usage is for the greater good. You see the real danger does not originate from violent confrontations but the circles the the usage drags you in. If it was legally available, there wouldn't be need for an individual to get involved for their recreational needs. On a medical perspective, it is common not to help out a friend having adverse reactions to a drug used simply because it is incriminating if you call the hospital and then stay with him/her. And as if this wasn't enough, people just don't seem to get that the war on drugs has been lost in every continent. It will just go on and on and on. You can make it safer, peaceful and prevent it to be a source of revenue for actual crimes, or just don't give a crap and be irresponsible.
- coffeemug 12y ago
  > Drug usage is a personal decision and it's none of state's business. Not unless the drug has been empirically found to have a high probability of harming the individual and a high probability of spreading through communities. Then it's very much state's business because it becomes a matter of social preservation. > I don't understand the use of "pseudo-libertarian". "Pseudo-libertarian" is the kind of libertarian that doesn't account of empirical evidence in their arguments.
  - woah 12y ago
    Yea we get it. Drug are bad mmmkay. The fact is that the drug war has done nothing to reduce their use, and it provides a huge source of revenue for actual violent criminals.
- geographomics 12y ago
  > Drug usage is a personal decision and it's none of state's business. I agree with this up to the point where drug use becomes drug addiction. Of course this doesn't happen to everyone who uses drugs recreationally, but if it does, then it's not so much a decision but a relentless compulsion that thoroughly decimates one's freedom to choose. Whether it's the state's business or not, I suppose that depends on whether one feels the state has some responsibility towards the mental and physical health of its citizens. I'm very much in favour of harm reduction programmes for drug addicts, rather than the prevailing trend of terribly harsh punishment. Some may feel that this sort of thing is too paternalistic and interfering but it's certainly better than imprisonment.
mapt 12y ago
It can, but we have pretty abundant evidence now that the treatment we chose for the threat of heroin, the drug war, has a much worse net effect on society than the disease of unchallenged heroin addiction.
maccard 12y ago
> Heroin isn't weed. It destroys lives of its users Well, no more than any other addiction to opiates. The issue with heroin addiction is that 1) it's illegal; (in many places) 2) it's expensive as hell. Clean Heroin by itself has no majorly bad side effects that aren't associated with other (legal and regularly used/abused) opiates like oxy/hydrocodene. Constipation and cotton mouth are about all that comes to mind. The risks are the same as any other street drugs; bad batches, reusing needles, dirty needles, and unmonitored usage. I'm not saying heroin is good, by any means, but it's not as bad as it's sold as.
- nostrademons 12y ago
  This isn't really true, pharmacologically. One way to measure the safety of a drug is the therapeutic index [1], basically the ratio of the lethal dose to the effective dose. It's basically how much of a margin of error you have when administering the drug before it'll kill you. Morphine has a TI of around 70, marijuana and LSD are > 1000, codeine is 20, alcohol is around 10, and heroin is 5 [2]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_index [2] http://www.americanscientist.org/libraries/documents/200645104835_307.pdf http://www.americanscientist.org/libraries/documents/2006451...
  - maccard 12y ago
    And even lower again is Paracetamol/Acetaminophen (Tylenol if you're in the US), with the fatal dosage being as low as 3 times the recommended dosage [1]. I can walk into a pharmacy here and buy enough of it to shut down my liver for less than a pound. I get what you're saying, but if you're talking about overdosing, then I think it's fair to say Heroin is absolutely lethal. But if used responsibly (I know, I know) it's safe.
icebraining 12y ago
Heroin isn't weed. It destroys lives of its users and certainly harms the society at large. To say otherwise is preposterous, at best. deciplex didn't say it wasn't. Read the phrase again. In fact, it's exactly because heroin is harmful that an approach that actually has a chance of reducing its use - unlike the aforementioned drug war - is in dire need.
klibertp 12y ago
> Heroin isn't weed. It destroys lives of its users and certainly harms the society at large. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8965411 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8965411 Also a sibling comment maccard. Also google "krokodil". In short it's not heroin that destroys lives, it's idiotic policy which makes heroin (or other opiates) very expensive (destroying users' careers and relationships) or unavailable (destroying users' health via them trying to substitute it with something much worse). The only real threat of opiates is overdosing, which comes from increasing tolerance and uncertain quality of a drug. Making opiates legal and quality-checked and allowing to develop substances that would reduce possibility of increasing tolerance would make opiates just as safe as weed, and certainly safer than alcohol. But that wouldn't work, because... what? I'm curious.
- geographomics 12y ago
  In support of what you're saying: many countries (but not the US) take a less punitive approach, preferring to focus on harm reduction. For example in the UK, needle exchanges - places where you can get clean needles and other paraphenalia - have been well established since the late 1980s to help protect people who inject drugs against the infection risks of needle sharing. It's been credited with greatly reducing the prevalence of HIV and hepatitis viruses amongst that population. Similarly, heroin addicts are often prescribed synthetic opiates such as methadone and buprenorphine, to prevent their reliance on dealers. This doesn't much reduce deaths from overdose, but does seem to prevent societal harm. Indeed if you are charged with theft or robbery and it turns out that it was to help feed your opiate addiction, it's not uncommon for the judge to offer access to a treatment programme in lieu of a custodial sentence. There is however a problem with user compliance. Some recent research over the past decade or so has been in 'contingency management', where addicts are offered financial rewards to attend or comply with such treatments. It's very controversial and so far has had mixed results, but the idea is that the overall cost to the state will be reduced, in that a small 'bribe' can put people on the right path, hopefully leading to feeling more intrinsically rewarded by the success of the treatment, and that is less expensive than medical treatment later on. But despite all this, as you imply, it does need the political will behind it to have any good effect.
byEngineer 12y ago
there is no logical arguments behind keeping it illegal. Just emotional stuff. That's the problem i dislike hard liners on drugs legality so much. They are like cult members and can't talk to their reason. How is it your business if someone's injecting heroin? Is this your business? By the Constituion? By comparison to alcohol or weed? None of your business. The same way like guns. I can buy gun to hurt you, and that's fine, but can't get some chemicals to hurt myself? Where is logic here brother? There is none. Just emotional BS. Get over it. As crash in 1929 legalized alcohol and we don't have beer dealers shooting each other (we used to have them!!!). As crash in 2008 legalized weed in large parts of the country, the same way next crash will legalize rest of it. In this economy I don't have so much money to spend on somebody's else life. Sorry. And now start your emotional cry.

mathetic 12y ago

I like how you conveniently ignored the parent's comments about cartels. Also I don't understand the use of "pseudo-libertarian" here? Drug usage is a personal decision and it's none of state's business. That is the very definition of libertarianism. It has nothing to do with Silk Road but since you brought it up, legalising drug usage is for the greater good. You see the real danger does not originate from violent confrontations but the circles the the usage drags you in. If it was legally available, there wouldn't be need for an individual to get involved for their recreational needs. On a medical perspective, it is common not to help out a friend having adverse reactions to a drug used simply because it is incriminating if you call the hospital and then stay with him/her. And as if this wasn't enough, people just don't seem to get that the war on drugs has been lost in every continent. It will just go on and on and on. You can make it safer, peaceful and prevent it to be a source of revenue for actual crimes, or just don't give a crap and be irresponsible.

coffeemug 12y ago
> Drug usage is a personal decision and it's none of state's business. Not unless the drug has been empirically found to have a high probability of harming the individual and a high probability of spreading through communities. Then it's very much state's business because it becomes a matter of social preservation. > I don't understand the use of "pseudo-libertarian". "Pseudo-libertarian" is the kind of libertarian that doesn't account of empirical evidence in their arguments.
- woah 12y ago
  Yea we get it. Drug are bad mmmkay. The fact is that the drug war has done nothing to reduce their use, and it provides a huge source of revenue for actual violent criminals.
geographomics 12y ago
> Drug usage is a personal decision and it's none of state's business. I agree with this up to the point where drug use becomes drug addiction. Of course this doesn't happen to everyone who uses drugs recreationally, but if it does, then it's not so much a decision but a relentless compulsion that thoroughly decimates one's freedom to choose. Whether it's the state's business or not, I suppose that depends on whether one feels the state has some responsibility towards the mental and physical health of its citizens. I'm very much in favour of harm reduction programmes for drug addicts, rather than the prevailing trend of terribly harsh punishment. Some may feel that this sort of thing is too paternalistic and interfering but it's certainly better than imprisonment.

mapt 12y ago

It can, but we have pretty abundant evidence now that the treatment we chose for the threat of heroin, the drug war, has a much worse net effect on society than the disease of unchallenged heroin addiction.

maccard 12y ago

> Heroin isn't weed. It destroys lives of its users Well, no more than any other addiction to opiates. The issue with heroin addiction is that 1) it's illegal; (in many places) 2) it's expensive as hell. Clean Heroin by itself has no majorly bad side effects that aren't associated with other (legal and regularly used/abused) opiates like oxy/hydrocodene. Constipation and cotton mouth are about all that comes to mind. The risks are the same as any other street drugs; bad batches, reusing needles, dirty needles, and unmonitored usage. I'm not saying heroin is good, by any means, but it's not as bad as it's sold as.

nostrademons 12y ago
This isn't really true, pharmacologically. One way to measure the safety of a drug is the therapeutic index [1], basically the ratio of the lethal dose to the effective dose. It's basically how much of a margin of error you have when administering the drug before it'll kill you. Morphine has a TI of around 70, marijuana and LSD are > 1000, codeine is 20, alcohol is around 10, and heroin is 5 [2]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_index [2] http://www.americanscientist.org/libraries/documents/200645104835_307.pdf http://www.americanscientist.org/libraries/documents/2006451...
- maccard 12y ago
  And even lower again is Paracetamol/Acetaminophen (Tylenol if you're in the US), with the fatal dosage being as low as 3 times the recommended dosage [1]. I can walk into a pharmacy here and buy enough of it to shut down my liver for less than a pound. I get what you're saying, but if you're talking about overdosing, then I think it's fair to say Heroin is absolutely lethal. But if used responsibly (I know, I know) it's safe.

icebraining 12y ago

Heroin isn't weed. It destroys lives of its users and certainly harms the society at large. To say otherwise is preposterous, at best. deciplex didn't say it wasn't. Read the phrase again. In fact, it's exactly because heroin is harmful that an approach that actually has a chance of reducing its use - unlike the aforementioned drug war - is in dire need.

klibertp 12y ago

> Heroin isn't weed. It destroys lives of its users and certainly harms the society at large. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8965411 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8965411 Also a sibling comment maccard. Also google "krokodil". In short it's not heroin that destroys lives, it's idiotic policy which makes heroin (or other opiates) very expensive (destroying users' careers and relationships) or unavailable (destroying users' health via them trying to substitute it with something much worse). The only real threat of opiates is overdosing, which comes from increasing tolerance and uncertain quality of a drug. Making opiates legal and quality-checked and allowing to develop substances that would reduce possibility of increasing tolerance would make opiates just as safe as weed, and certainly safer than alcohol. But that wouldn't work, because... what? I'm curious.

geographomics 12y ago
In support of what you're saying: many countries (but not the US) take a less punitive approach, preferring to focus on harm reduction. For example in the UK, needle exchanges - places where you can get clean needles and other paraphenalia - have been well established since the late 1980s to help protect people who inject drugs against the infection risks of needle sharing. It's been credited with greatly reducing the prevalence of HIV and hepatitis viruses amongst that population. Similarly, heroin addicts are often prescribed synthetic opiates such as methadone and buprenorphine, to prevent their reliance on dealers. This doesn't much reduce deaths from overdose, but does seem to prevent societal harm. Indeed if you are charged with theft or robbery and it turns out that it was to help feed your opiate addiction, it's not uncommon for the judge to offer access to a treatment programme in lieu of a custodial sentence. There is however a problem with user compliance. Some recent research over the past decade or so has been in 'contingency management', where addicts are offered financial rewards to attend or comply with such treatments. It's very controversial and so far has had mixed results, but the idea is that the overall cost to the state will be reduced, in that a small 'bribe' can put people on the right path, hopefully leading to feeling more intrinsically rewarded by the success of the treatment, and that is less expensive than medical treatment later on. But despite all this, as you imply, it does need the political will behind it to have any good effect.

byEngineer 12y ago

there is no logical arguments behind keeping it illegal. Just emotional stuff. That's the problem i dislike hard liners on drugs legality so much. They are like cult members and can't talk to their reason. How is it your business if someone's injecting heroin? Is this your business? By the Constituion? By comparison to alcohol or weed? None of your business. The same way like guns. I can buy gun to hurt you, and that's fine, but can't get some chemicals to hurt myself? Where is logic here brother? There is none. Just emotional BS. Get over it. As crash in 1929 legalized alcohol and we don't have beer dealers shooting each other (we used to have them!!!). As crash in 2008 legalized weed in large parts of the country, the same way next crash will legalize rest of it. In this economy I don't have so much money to spend on somebody's else life. Sorry. And now start your emotional cry.