7 ms·

Find it misleading that almost all of the recent articles on this subject talk about decriminalization as the cause for the drop in drug related health issues.

• Radle 9y ago
  Well, but it clearly shows that making drugs illegal, does not help at all to keep people save.
  • seanhandley 9y ago
    What about all the criminals that can no longer make money selling on the black market? Killing unregulated production allows for cleaner, safer substances to be created with known strength and purity. After decades of prohibition, we can conclude the "War On Drugs" is a lost cause and people will always seek out drugs. If people are going to take drugs regardless, let's make sure they're clean and the profits of sale don't fund criminal gangs.
    • thatswrong0 9y ago
      Exactly. Beyond removing the criminal element, the fentanyl epidemic should make the destructive nature of our current policy so obvious as to warrant the complete legalization (and regulation) of heroin. People are dying at incredibly high rates because they are not getting pure substances - they are receiving substances cut with something that can kill at tiny doses. Not only do heroin addicts have to deal with heroin overdoses (which are still quite possible), but they have to deal with fentanyl overdoses. Every time they use unregulated product, they are gambling with their lives. Our drug policy in America is completely ignorant of this reality.
      • vidarh 9y ago
        I keep saying that the evidence on the danger of the current drug policy is so clear that I refuse to see this as a subjective issue where a politician is justified to be of the opinion current policy is ok anymore. I can understand "ordinary people" not reading up on it, but at this point I personally consider politicians who continue to oppose large scale drug reform to be morally responsible for contributing to mass murder. I accept they're not legally responsible, but I genuinely believe most of them should be in prison on murder charges for their parts in perpetuating these violent policies unless they've at the very least voted in opposition to these policies if/when they've had the chance.
    • gehwartzen 9y ago
      Just want to point out that the two don't necessarily have to go hand in hand as often portraid in the US. Things can be legalized without being regulated.
  • MadSax 9y ago
    Herbs should be treated like speech, freely available with education and stipulation that they be used wisely.
• aidenn0 9y ago
  I think regardless of the details of legality, it is strong anecdotal evidence that dollars spent on treatment reduce OD deaths more than dollars spent on enforcement. It adds to a strong body of research that already points in that direction
  • lmickh 9y ago
    Yes, it appears to affirm that law enforcement is not the best bang for the buck. There has been plenty of work indicating that like you mentioned. That wasn't a "bold risk". That is separate from saying that changing the legality of it impacts the usage though. There is not reason to take the result beyond what it indicates.
    • toyg 9y ago
      You cannot realistically get one without the other. Treatment often cannot be cold turkey, which means the addict will have to keep consuming (and hence carrying and buying) for a period; if that's illegal, treatment is not going to work. And no, methadone is not the same. Taking Sweden as control, for example, they spend loads on health services and treatment; but without decriminalisation, their numbers are still terrible.
      • usrusr 9y ago
        Sure you can. Restrict illegality to use/possession outside of a treatment program. There already are many things pharmacists are not allowed to sell without a doctor's prescription, including strong opoids. You would probably not want this kind of prescription to be signable by just any MD though, but that's another story.
    • syshum 9y ago
      >That is separate from saying that changing the legality of it impacts the usage though You can not before treatment and for keeping it illegal. These are mutually exclusive, as treatment for drug addiction has to be voluntary on the part of the user, and often time criminal convictions, and stress of legal issues are what drive people to use drugs.
• anigbrowl 9y ago
  They shifted a significant chunk of money to health services. But everyone knows this, it's the obvious corollary of decriminalization and has been stated over and over.
  • bdamm 9y ago
    How? It's entirely possible to decriminalize and simply move law enforcement monies to other efforts, leaving nothing for health services.
    • anigbrowl 9y ago
      Why do you think that is relevant to anything since it's not what actually happened? It seems like you want all the content of every article shoehorned into the few words of the headline. That's not going to happen.
    • TulliusCicero 9y ago
      It's technically possible yes, but decriminalization is generally proposed as a component of a larger strategy called "treating addiction as a health issue rather than a criminal one".
      • bdamm 9y ago
        Your belief in functional, rational government is encouraging.
        • TulliusCicero 9y ago
          I think it's possible, although sometimes it doesn't feel so. :)
  • Spooky23 9y ago
    If you live in the United States, a significant number of people believe that getting sick is a moral failure. Drug use? Forget it.
• libertine 9y ago
  You've got a point there. I think one of the main things is that people stopped being considered criminals to being considered "sick" - they have addiction, they need help, so they require health care. If the police catches you with weed - you'll need to go psychological counseling for example.
• jdmoreira 9y ago
  I'm Portuguese and I grew up watching the heroin epidemic we had in Portugal. It was horrible, like the article mentions 1% of the population was addicted to heroin. Curiously I now live in Sweden, but I lived in Portugal for the first 11 years of the decriminalization. And the solution actually started years before, in the early 90s. It's a bit like you said, it was an huge investment in public health - the first success was that you could get a kit to inject heroin for free in any pharmacy, paid by the state, no questions asked! It was a huge win against the spread of HIV. The biggest difference I see comparing the Portuguese reality to the Swedish one is the lack of social stigma regarding drugs. Drugs are just openly discussed in Portugal and addicts are well integrated in society. I have friends whose parents are heroin addicts and for the most part they are a normal family with jobs and responsabilities. Sometimes they relapse but it's not a big deal because they have a network and feel safe to get help quickly and the state sponsors replacement therapies in the meanwhile. These are people that started doing heroin in the late 80s and for the most part still raised a family and are good parents and neighbors. It's just a disease like any other and Portuguese people see addiction that way.
  • CamelCaseName 9y ago
    I don't have much to say other than that I really admire that sense of thinking, and I hope more countries can adopt a similar vision.
  • bjelkeman-again 9y ago
    I wish we could get the same attitude in Sweden. What do you think is the main barrier in Sweden?
    • vidarh 9y ago
      I'm Norwegian, not Swedish, but there is this lutheran/protestant culture that's very deeply embedded in the Scandinavian/Nordic countries that have one hand contributed to the success of things like criminal reform and welfare, because those areas happened to unite a lot of Christians and a lot of liberals and left wing people around a shared belief of how to treat people with decency and compassion, but which at the same time can be very paternalistic when applied to other areas. You see this in terms of policies on things like alcohol and drugs in particular, but also areas like prostitution, where the attitude is often that the people involved are sinners who both need help and punishment, and where there is an attitude of "we know best" about legislation and treatment options. The Nordic countries often looks liberal on the surface, but while they have secularised rapidly there is still an undercurrent of Christian moralistic ideas that have had a very firm grip in many areas, aided by the long lasting state churches (e.g. the Norwegian Lutheran church was a state church with the government appointing key people until 2012).
• woodandsteel 9y ago
  Well, yes and no. You are right that it is essential to spend a whole lot of money on health services. But if drugs are illegal then a great deal of those limited funds go instead to policing. Besides that, people are a whole lot more likely to voluntarily go for help if they know they won't be arrested for what they have been doing.
• cvsh 9y ago
  >I get that some folks want to legalize drugs, but make an argument for it that doesn't involve this twisting of results to match the desired outcome. Criminalizing drugs has negative externalities like boosting the profits of organized crime, but is often argued to outweigh those side effects by suppressing drug use, which is harmful. If we found a way to make drug use much less harmful, then why would we not decriminalize drugs concurrently, given that its positives are negated so there's no argument remaining that they outweigh its negatives? Even if the critical factor in reducing drug use harms was health services, the argument for concurrent decriminalization is overwhelming.
• Kurtz79 9y ago
  It's hard to decouple decriminalization (which is not legalization) with simply investing in better treatment for addicts. If to get treatment they basically have to turn themselves in, and are liable to go to jail, I doubt many would make that choice.
• lm2s 9y ago
  It's not really misleading if you know the how and why. For the addicts to accept health services help (like clean needles or getting off heroin) they could not be under threat of going to jail. So you decriminalise to allow addicts to come forth and accept clean needles and other help, while simultaneously investing more money to provide that help. It's a two prong "attack" and it's pretty simple actually.
  • jdmoreira 9y ago
    Exactly. Also, decriminalizing sends a message to the population that addicts are not criminals but people that by a series of mistakes and bad decisions are currently in a bad situation and in need of help.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
• EGO_DEATH 9y ago
  Actually, you can say that people are scared to seek help because of the stigma. In a country with a judgemental culture of shame like Sweden you're in between a rock and a hard place. Because anyone with a credit card can access your legal history and see if you have been convicted for something, it's a pretty self destructive choice to make, and leads to unnecessary suffering.
• jdavis703 9y ago
  There's a bill in California to de-criminalize drugs (AB 186) -- provided you use them in purpose built medical facility. Right now no serious (i.e. elected) politicians are discussing a totally deregulated drug market as far as I know.
• mmjaa 9y ago
  > decriminalization Criminalization means, they send the police to address the issue. De-criminalizaton means, they no longer send the police to address the issue. This isn't hand-waving, the term really means what has happened: since people are no longer treated as criminals, humanity has been added to the mix - and, appears to be helping solve the problem. I think you maybe just don't understand the term. Yes, in fact, de-criminalization is the key issue: patients, not criminals.