7 ms·

Legalize everything and produce it pharmaceutically, and this problems pretty much disappears.

by t433 4y ago

SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
Yeah, and a whole host of other problems show up…
- hasmolo 4y ago
  can you elaborate?
  - SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
    “ Illegal drugs increase crime, partly because some users turn to crime to pay for their habits and partly because some users are stimulated by certain drugs to act more violently. Legalization, however, will not affect addiction and its effects on the propensity to violence. Instead of legalizing drugs, better treatment, education, and research are needed to curb dependency on drugs and the adverse health and social effects of drug use.”[0] [0] https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/against-legalization-drugs-1 https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/against-...
    - cmyr 4y ago
      'illegal drugs' is a pretty broad brush, and treating opiods and psychedelics equivalently is silly. Surely treatment, education and research would all be far easier alongside decriminalization?
    - hutzlibu 4y ago
      "Illegal drugs increase crime, partly because some users turn to crime to pay for their habits " If all drugs would be illegal, then they would be mostly so cheap that this argument falls apart very quickly. Drugs are only expensive because they are illegal. Poppy and coca are not hard to grow and neither is hemp. And the chemical drugs are way more cheap to produce. So very high quality stuff would remain expensive, the same way a fine wine is expensive, but just to get drunk is cheap (even with taxes). "and partly because some users are stimulated by certain drugs to act more violently." And yes, that is true, but one of the most famous and widespread drug that makes people aggressive is already legal - alcohol. "Legalization, however, will not affect addiction" And this is up for debate, for some it will be easier to get help, because the stigma and criminalisation is gone, but yes, some might start it, because it becomes avaiable. And I did not look in the recent numbers, but back then when I did - in the netherlands for example, drug use decreased, after marijuhana was legalised. It is quite complex - some people are afraid of anything illegal, some are appealed by it, mainly teenagers who are in most danger of becoming addicts/developing brain damage. "better treatment, education, and research are needed to curb dependency on drugs and the adverse health and social effects of drug use." But this is true. And better, than jail people who simply need help.
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    - The black market is always cheaper. - Even in a legal market how many people are always buying their own? - If everything is legal then it's even easier for people to spike drinks and the like. - Purdue Pharma marketing issue writ large. - Patients pressuring their doctors to prescribe, or alternatively feeling pressured by their doctors to use a particular drug. - If it's legal it's easier to purposefully or accidentally overdose (e.g. alcohol today). Especially if it's also cheaper. Off the top of my head.
    - kstrauser 4y ago
      That bit about Purdue resonates with me. I'm not firmly against legalization of harder drugs, but that's a case where average people given legal access to pharmaceutical-grade medicine through proper legal venues has been absolutely catastrophic. If I were making a case against legalization, that would be my Exhibit A.
    - cmyr 4y ago
      > - The black market is always cheaper. anecdata: I'm in canada, which has legalized marijuana recently. The black market is cheaper, but all but the most die-hard stoners I know like to buy government weed, because the product is consistent and you know what you're getting. > - Even in a legal market how many people are always buying their own? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but in a legal market even if I don't buy something directly at least I have vastly increased faith that i know what something is. > - If everything is legal then it's even easier for people to spike drinks and the like. Who knows, but I strongly doubt that there is a large pool of potential rapists at large who are currently stymied primarily due to the difficulty in acquiring GHB. > - Purdue Pharma marketing issue writ large. > - Patients pressuring their doctors to prescribe, or alternatively feeling pressured by their doctors to use a particular drug. There are definitely a bunch of social and policy questions that would need to be addressed when considering legalization, sure. > - If it's legal it's easier to purposefully or accidentally overdose (e.g. alcohol today). Especially if it's also cheaper. Almost certainly not, as the majority of overdoses are the consequence of people not knowing what they're taking, or not knowing how to take it.
      - 4y ago
newsclues 4y ago
MDMA became dangerous after it was made illegal. When it was legal, it was made by chemists in labs who cared. The problem with legalizing drugs is ensuring the greedpigs don't take over the industry and actually dealing with the root causes of addiction.
buzzert 4y ago
A better way to frame the drug legalization issue is, "should pharmaceutical companies be allowed to profit from incredibly addictive drugs?" Does that framing change your mind at all? Sure, small-time drug dealers are currently allowed to profit from it. Once they get big enough though, they're usually stopped by the DEA. The idea of giving this enormous profit incentive to multi-million dollar corporations with huge advertising budgets is absolutely terrifying to me.
- MaxfordAndSons 4y ago
  This is an inaccurate understanding of the drug economy. The drug cartels that supply the street dealers are multi billion dollar businesses rivaling the size of the big pharma corporations. And the DEA absolutely is not "usually stopping" them. They disrupt low and mid level arms of their operations with some regularity, but it does little to stem the rivers of money flowing towards the groups controlling the illicit drug trade at a high level. Even if we presume that big pharma is a very corrupt industry and that allowing advertising of narcotics would increase drug use in some populations, bringing the production and distribution into a moderately well regulated market would likely cause a net reduction of usage and overall harm.
  - bostonsre 4y ago
    Didn't we kind of already try this out some with opiates? Didn't big pharma already push opiates and cause millions of people to become addicted and cause an untold number of deaths and didn't that contribute to the current situation that we are in now with opiate addiction? I don't see how legalizing it completely where anyone who wants it without a prescription could possibly turn into anything but an absolute mess. How many millions of people will say "O, the government legalized it and I can buy it in a store, it must not be so bad, I might as well try it out", become addicted and have their lives ruined? People can't rationalize their way out of addiction of this stuff easily.
    - hnav 4y ago
      Not exactly, hence the rise of fentanyl. Prior to the rise of fentanyl, new addicts often went from prescription pills like oxycodone to heroin as their lives unraveled because prescription drugs are expensive and hard to get. Some enterprising drug dealers started enhancing their cut heroin with fentanyl which can be imported from China and is extremely dense compared to other opiates, which matters because smuggling is most of the cost. Downward pressure on the prices changed the ratio until you were left with pure fentanyl, so in effect prescription pills were not available enough and drug dealers were able to capture the market with more dangerous but cheaper product.
hammock 4y ago
>produce it pharmaceutically They are... in Mexico... with expert training from China...
- AngriestLettuce 4y ago
  With no consequences for chemically altering their products... or getting people killed...
  - hammock 4y ago
    Doesn't sound too different from Big Pharma in the US, at least in certain drug categories...
- opportune 4y ago
  The problem is not actually the production of the fentanyl itself, but the way it’s mixed in with “heroin” or pressed into pills (plus all the likely accidental contamination from using the same equipment to process fentanyl and stuff like cocaine). If the mixture is not done well, it creates hotspots that can easily cause an overdose due to a much higher density of fentanyl. And also, this part is not necessarily done pharmaceutically, so there is no standardization of dosage or strength. Which can in part incentivize producers to progressively increase the ratio of fentanyl to <other> so theirs is “stronger”.

Legalize everything and produce it pharmaceutically, and this problems pretty much disappears.

by t433 4y ago

Legalize everything and produce it pharmaceutically, and this problems pretty much disappears.

SpeedilyDamage 4y ago

Yeah, and a whole host of other problems show up…

hasmolo 4y ago
can you elaborate?
- SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
  “ Illegal drugs increase crime, partly because some users turn to crime to pay for their habits and partly because some users are stimulated by certain drugs to act more violently. Legalization, however, will not affect addiction and its effects on the propensity to violence. Instead of legalizing drugs, better treatment, education, and research are needed to curb dependency on drugs and the adverse health and social effects of drug use.”[0] [0] https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/against-legalization-drugs-1 https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/against-...
  - cmyr 4y ago
    'illegal drugs' is a pretty broad brush, and treating opiods and psychedelics equivalently is silly. Surely treatment, education and research would all be far easier alongside decriminalization?
  - hutzlibu 4y ago
    "Illegal drugs increase crime, partly because some users turn to crime to pay for their habits " If all drugs would be illegal, then they would be mostly so cheap that this argument falls apart very quickly. Drugs are only expensive because they are illegal. Poppy and coca are not hard to grow and neither is hemp. And the chemical drugs are way more cheap to produce. So very high quality stuff would remain expensive, the same way a fine wine is expensive, but just to get drunk is cheap (even with taxes). "and partly because some users are stimulated by certain drugs to act more violently." And yes, that is true, but one of the most famous and widespread drug that makes people aggressive is already legal - alcohol. "Legalization, however, will not affect addiction" And this is up for debate, for some it will be easier to get help, because the stigma and criminalisation is gone, but yes, some might start it, because it becomes avaiable. And I did not look in the recent numbers, but back then when I did - in the netherlands for example, drug use decreased, after marijuhana was legalised. It is quite complex - some people are afraid of anything illegal, some are appealed by it, mainly teenagers who are in most danger of becoming addicts/developing brain damage. "better treatment, education, and research are needed to curb dependency on drugs and the adverse health and social effects of drug use." But this is true. And better, than jail people who simply need help.
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  - The black market is always cheaper. - Even in a legal market how many people are always buying their own? - If everything is legal then it's even easier for people to spike drinks and the like. - Purdue Pharma marketing issue writ large. - Patients pressuring their doctors to prescribe, or alternatively feeling pressured by their doctors to use a particular drug. - If it's legal it's easier to purposefully or accidentally overdose (e.g. alcohol today). Especially if it's also cheaper. Off the top of my head.
  - kstrauser 4y ago
    That bit about Purdue resonates with me. I'm not firmly against legalization of harder drugs, but that's a case where average people given legal access to pharmaceutical-grade medicine through proper legal venues has been absolutely catastrophic. If I were making a case against legalization, that would be my Exhibit A.
  - cmyr 4y ago
    > - The black market is always cheaper. anecdata: I'm in canada, which has legalized marijuana recently. The black market is cheaper, but all but the most die-hard stoners I know like to buy government weed, because the product is consistent and you know what you're getting. > - Even in a legal market how many people are always buying their own? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but in a legal market even if I don't buy something directly at least I have vastly increased faith that i know what something is. > - If everything is legal then it's even easier for people to spike drinks and the like. Who knows, but I strongly doubt that there is a large pool of potential rapists at large who are currently stymied primarily due to the difficulty in acquiring GHB. > - Purdue Pharma marketing issue writ large. > - Patients pressuring their doctors to prescribe, or alternatively feeling pressured by their doctors to use a particular drug. There are definitely a bunch of social and policy questions that would need to be addressed when considering legalization, sure. > - If it's legal it's easier to purposefully or accidentally overdose (e.g. alcohol today). Especially if it's also cheaper. Almost certainly not, as the majority of overdoses are the consequence of people not knowing what they're taking, or not knowing how to take it.
    - 4y ago

newsclues 4y ago

MDMA became dangerous after it was made illegal. When it was legal, it was made by chemists in labs who cared. The problem with legalizing drugs is ensuring the greedpigs don't take over the industry and actually dealing with the root causes of addiction.

buzzert 4y ago

A better way to frame the drug legalization issue is, "should pharmaceutical companies be allowed to profit from incredibly addictive drugs?" Does that framing change your mind at all? Sure, small-time drug dealers are currently allowed to profit from it. Once they get big enough though, they're usually stopped by the DEA. The idea of giving this enormous profit incentive to multi-million dollar corporations with huge advertising budgets is absolutely terrifying to me.

MaxfordAndSons 4y ago
This is an inaccurate understanding of the drug economy. The drug cartels that supply the street dealers are multi billion dollar businesses rivaling the size of the big pharma corporations. And the DEA absolutely is not "usually stopping" them. They disrupt low and mid level arms of their operations with some regularity, but it does little to stem the rivers of money flowing towards the groups controlling the illicit drug trade at a high level. Even if we presume that big pharma is a very corrupt industry and that allowing advertising of narcotics would increase drug use in some populations, bringing the production and distribution into a moderately well regulated market would likely cause a net reduction of usage and overall harm.
- bostonsre 4y ago
  Didn't we kind of already try this out some with opiates? Didn't big pharma already push opiates and cause millions of people to become addicted and cause an untold number of deaths and didn't that contribute to the current situation that we are in now with opiate addiction? I don't see how legalizing it completely where anyone who wants it without a prescription could possibly turn into anything but an absolute mess. How many millions of people will say "O, the government legalized it and I can buy it in a store, it must not be so bad, I might as well try it out", become addicted and have their lives ruined? People can't rationalize their way out of addiction of this stuff easily.
  - hnav 4y ago
    Not exactly, hence the rise of fentanyl. Prior to the rise of fentanyl, new addicts often went from prescription pills like oxycodone to heroin as their lives unraveled because prescription drugs are expensive and hard to get. Some enterprising drug dealers started enhancing their cut heroin with fentanyl which can be imported from China and is extremely dense compared to other opiates, which matters because smuggling is most of the cost. Downward pressure on the prices changed the ratio until you were left with pure fentanyl, so in effect prescription pills were not available enough and drug dealers were able to capture the market with more dangerous but cheaper product.

hammock 4y ago

>produce it pharmaceutically They are... in Mexico... with expert training from China...

AngriestLettuce 4y ago
With no consequences for chemically altering their products... or getting people killed...
- hammock 4y ago
  Doesn't sound too different from Big Pharma in the US, at least in certain drug categories...
opportune 4y ago
The problem is not actually the production of the fentanyl itself, but the way it’s mixed in with “heroin” or pressed into pills (plus all the likely accidental contamination from using the same equipment to process fentanyl and stuff like cocaine). If the mixture is not done well, it creates hotspots that can easily cause an overdose due to a much higher density of fentanyl. And also, this part is not necessarily done pharmaceutically, so there is no standardization of dosage or strength. Which can in part incentivize producers to progressively increase the ratio of fentanyl to <other> so theirs is “stronger”.