At this point, if you’re illegalizing drugs then you’re propping up the murderous drug cartels and industry of the world. Either legalize it and offer sane societal programs for health and addiction or sanction tyranny.
Maybe for marijuana but the societal effects of legalizing something like heroin wouldn’t be so clear cut.
I personally don’t want to live in a society with legalized recreational opioids and programs like needle sharing are (IMHO) part of the slippery slope towards the normalization of that degenerate behavior.
Not saying that you're wrong, but let's say that heroin is legal starting tomorrow. Do you go out and buy some? Do your friends/family/coworkers? I'm not so sure that the only people that would go buy it legally would be the people already buying it illegally.
maybe those who don't fully internalise the risk go use it..because now _it's legal_ and why would the government let anything be sold in a normal retail setting if it wasn't ok to use?
so, you & I are ok but the next generation..maybe it starts becoming a _much_ better bang for buck than alcohol. and soon we have a load more with a serious life-devastating drug addiction. short sighted at best to legalise it which (make no mistake) absolutely will normalise it.. criminally insane otherwise.
That’s not really how addiction works. Criminalization of the drug makes users criminals - and isolates them from society. Isolation makes people use the drug more. It’s a feedback loop. To stop the loop requires terminating the isolating criminalization.
Something being legal takes a lot of the desire to do something away (except violence, of course).
I think it goes without saying that you have to get & use a product before becoming addicted.
If a product is more widely available & readily sold, then there are going to be more people addicted.
Criminalization has nothing to do with the process of somebody becoming addicted to something.
Heroin(& friends) are addictive to people who try them because they give immense pleasure. When the pleasure becomes less, people don't stop the drug, they take larger doses of it. And then if they're stuck for cash, go for something cheaper that still has pleasure.
Isolation may play a part but it is a small part.
"Addictive drugs provide a shortcut to the brain's reward system by flooding the nucleus accumbens with dopamine. The hippocampus lays down memories of this rapid sense of satisfaction, and the amygdala creates a conditioned response to certain stimuli."
> Something being legal takes a lot of the desire to do something away
That is just not true. What is that statement based on? People want to experiment with things(either purely for a new experience or to conform with their peers).
If product x gives you a high, you will want to try it again..and again..and again.
This isn't theoretical, we see this issue with heroin, opioids, crack cocaine.
Have a look at the results in Portugal (this is a good summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal#Observ...) - then, come back here and tell us what evidence you've found of a slippery slope. I don't believe you'll be able to find any such evidence, because there is no such slippery slope in practice.
It's a lot easier for me to find oxy and heroine than weed if I wanted to today, and I live in Colorado. I have three neighbors who deal pills openly, and one who has pretty good heroine. I have to get in a car to find weed.
The effects are already here, there is no need to hand wring about what might happen. It's a waste of time and intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise.
What? Did you mean needle exchanges? Needle sharing is the problem, needle exchanges help take dirty needles off the street, and reduce the spread of blood diseases like HIV.
> normalization of that degenerate behavior
Why should your morality define what other people can do with their bodies?
Ultimately it is about a constructive approach forward instead of a destructive one. Putting people who use illicit substances in tiny cells and making it near impossible to find employment after they do their time is destructive. Using that money on treatment and addiction programs and letting people who are clean find jobs is constructive.
What slippery slope? We have an existence proof that the “War on Drugs” has been ineffective and the only people who have been served by it are the prison complex and politicians who want to disenfranchise voters.
I can sort of understand concerns around an increase in recreational opioid usage, but that's already happening. Drug overdoses are at epidemic proportions, largely due to the increase in usage of illicitly manufactured synthetic opioids. [0]
The argument for adding regulation, supervision, and proper labeling to opioid manufacture is simple: significantly fewer people will die.
I agree that full legalization of all substances would be dangerous - but I would support decriminalization.
Why so punctilious on the distinction between legalized and decriminalized? Individuals would no longer risk felony convictions for consumption.
- Deaths related to accidental overdose would drop
- State and Federal agencies could still pursue "distributors"
- Reduce the stress on the prison and judicial system (I'll forgo my usual rant regarding for-profit prisons)
- Gives states the legal wiggle room for legalization socially acceptable drugs (i.e. marijuana)
- Could open up more avenues of research on substances that have otherwise been effectively blacklisted.
The execution becomes problematic in having everyone agree on what amount constitutes personal consumption (misdemeanor) versus distribution with intent to sell (felony). But I still believe it would be a step forward.
> - Deaths related to accidental overdose would drop
If you want to have any chance of achieving this one, the drug in question has to be obtained from a pharmaceutical channel rather than a black market channel.
That means legalizing sale in some way too, otherwise the drugs themselves will continue to be impure and unsafe.
Luckily the drugs that are the most problematic are already legal, they just require a prescription to obtain.
So in the short term the answer is to start treating the drug aspect of drug addiction as the medical issue that it is, and allow doctors to write prescriptions to addicts.
Then you'll have a much easier time providing them assistance finding a job, education, safe housing, and medical care for any underlying condition they might have, which most of them really, really want.
It’s very dangerous to purchase anything on the illicit market. I’d rather someone just have the effects of addiction and the drug itself to fight than also flipping the dice on their lives every time they use.
> Maybe for marijuana but the societal effects of legalizing something like heroin wouldn’t be so clear cut.
Here's the issue though, it's simply not the case that the law gives us any control over the situation. The opposite is true: banning individual substances like heroin actually prevents us from having any control over them at all.
We made heroin illegal, but the market continued to exist. It simply shifted to a different set of manufacturers, distributers, and retailers. And, it totally removed any control we had over who could buy it, as well as the authenticity, purity, and safety of the product.
Worse still, banning it actually incentivized the market to continue and even expand, by artificially increasing the value of the product and significantly increasing the potential profit.
The manufacturers have no accountability or regulation whatsoever, they're pumping out fentanyl analogs of varying potency that are almost impossible to even handle safely. That alone is responsible for many, many overdose deaths.
The distributors are frequently tied to or directly run by organized crime.
The retailers can sell whatever they want to whoever they want, regardless of how dangerous it is, how fraudulent the sale is, or how many people die.
Continuing to hope that restricting it just a little more will finally solve the problem is not only unreasonable but making the very things we're concerned about worse.
>I personally don’t want to live in a society with legalized recreational sex and programs like free condoms are (IMHO) part of the slippery slope towards the normalization of that degenerate behavior.
Sounds pretty crazy now?
People are going to do it regardless of your or anybody else's moral tutting. The best we can do is not shame them and keep them inside a medical system, making sure to minimize harm and keeping the door open to medical treatment.
Shutting the door on addicts and making them afraid of even EMTs is causing way more harm and death then helping minimize harm.
I really hope so. I think it's likely, but Trump is unpredictable.
I'm an extreme libertarian (anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist), and much of what Trump said on the campaign trail was spot on. the biggest problem I have with him is that he often makes very strong statements, then goes on to directly contradict them. From my perspective, he's either completely unconcerned about keeping his promises or he changes his mind so frequently that there's no practical difference.
Trump repeatedly promised to support medical usage in particular, which would mean removing cannabis from Schedule 1. The DEA failed to do so.
His appointment of Jeff Sessions was a huge blow to a lot of issues that I (and many others) feel strongly about and that Trump had vocally supported. Marijuana policy included.
For what it's worth, I don't think it'll substantially hurt his re-election chances. My social circles are pretty much Trump's core constituency, and for them, his SCOTUS picks were the core issue. So far, both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have been pretty much exactly what he promised. Granted, only time will tell if they stay the course that they've set, but they remain originalists during their tenure as Justices, but so far that's been the case with Gorsuch. As long as the Senate confirms Kavanaugh and neither of them "pull a Kennedy" and move to the left after being seated, I can't think of anything off the top of my head that would cause people to stay home on Election Day, much less vote against him.
Hopefully this "Marijuana Policy Coordination Committee" will go the way of his "Second Amendment Coalition". The SAC was comprised of all the right people from my side of the issue, and Trump was outspoken about his support of repealing restrictions - but the SAC itself quietly faded away, and even the press release was removed from his site last May.
> Departments were told to “identify marijuana threats; issues created by state marijuana initiatives; and consequences of use, production, and trafficking on national health, safety, and security.”
As a resident of a county that produces a huge amount of weed, the biggest problems are due to it being illegal. Mexican cartels growing it in USFS land, long list of missing people that were reportedly working at a grow scene, random shallow graves discovered in the woods, polluted rivers that we can't swim in, major pesticide usage.
One of the marks of a mature mind is being able to say "Thing X is bad, but any attempt to reduce X will cause more harm than X, so the practical and ethical thing to do is nothing."
X is sometimes a drug one might like to ban, but it's also frequently a technical practice or a company culture issue. The desire to fix everything ends up causing a lot of misery.
The article describes the desire for a media campaign against cannabis more than a war.
It's okay if the goverment makes statements about cannabis in a negative light. DOT talks about the dangers of driving. CDC talks about the dangers of vaping. The truth is cannabis isn't 100% harmless, and it's probably a good thing if our society has someone looking into the risks of this large social change we made.
While it is OK for the government to make statements that portray things in a positive or negative light, it is not OK for them to do so in the absense of supporting evidence, or worse yet, in the presence of evidence to the contrary. The former is, charitably, called "marketing" - but the latter is more commonly known as "lying".
The Trump Administration has taken one of the most liberal positions on cannabis of any Republican president ever.
His stated positions on supporting states with medical laws, and his complete absence of federal raids on people following state cannabis laws, is very good for a republican president.
It's true that Trump has signaled for an end to the federal ban on marijuana, and that U.S. attorneys have since stopped targeting marijuana companies that are in legal states. However, this status quo was set by Obama-era rules (the "Cole memo" [0]). It's still up to President Trump to actually push through the legislation, which he has not been great at. But his public stance is definitely non-trivial, as it encourages those on the Republican side to support legislation that ends the federal ban, no matter what Attorney Sessions pushes for. Also, Sessions may at this point be seen as a lame duck anyway.
In truth, it's hard to make a lot of evidence-based scientific statements given the government's propensity for not supporting marijuana in research [1]. We would be able to find out a lot more about health and societal implications if it could be openly studied in the first place.
42 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 125 ms ] threadI personally don’t want to live in a society with legalized recreational opioids and programs like needle sharing are (IMHO) part of the slippery slope towards the normalization of that degenerate behavior.
EDIT: I meant to type “injection sites”.
so, you & I are ok but the next generation..maybe it starts becoming a _much_ better bang for buck than alcohol. and soon we have a load more with a serious life-devastating drug addiction. short sighted at best to legalise it which (make no mistake) absolutely will normalise it.. criminally insane otherwise.
Something being legal takes a lot of the desire to do something away (except violence, of course).
If a product is more widely available & readily sold, then there are going to be more people addicted.
Criminalization has nothing to do with the process of somebody becoming addicted to something. Heroin(& friends) are addictive to people who try them because they give immense pleasure. When the pleasure becomes less, people don't stop the drug, they take larger doses of it. And then if they're stuck for cash, go for something cheaper that still has pleasure. Isolation may play a part but it is a small part.
from https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/how-addict...:
"Addictive drugs provide a shortcut to the brain's reward system by flooding the nucleus accumbens with dopamine. The hippocampus lays down memories of this rapid sense of satisfaction, and the amygdala creates a conditioned response to certain stimuli."
> Something being legal takes a lot of the desire to do something away
That is just not true. What is that statement based on? People want to experiment with things(either purely for a new experience or to conform with their peers).
If product x gives you a high, you will want to try it again..and again..and again. This isn't theoretical, we see this issue with heroin, opioids, crack cocaine.
Case in point, less people in the Netherlands smoke weed frequently than in the USA.
for real?
The effects are already here, there is no need to hand wring about what might happen. It's a waste of time and intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise.
What? Did you mean needle exchanges? Needle sharing is the problem, needle exchanges help take dirty needles off the street, and reduce the spread of blood diseases like HIV.
> normalization of that degenerate behavior
Why should your morality define what other people can do with their bodies?
Ultimately it is about a constructive approach forward instead of a destructive one. Putting people who use illicit substances in tiny cells and making it near impossible to find employment after they do their time is destructive. Using that money on treatment and addiction programs and letting people who are clean find jobs is constructive.
The argument for adding regulation, supervision, and proper labeling to opioid manufacture is simple: significantly fewer people will die.
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2018/p0329-drug-overdose-...
Why so punctilious on the distinction between legalized and decriminalized? Individuals would no longer risk felony convictions for consumption.
- Deaths related to accidental overdose would drop
- State and Federal agencies could still pursue "distributors"
- Reduce the stress on the prison and judicial system (I'll forgo my usual rant regarding for-profit prisons)
- Gives states the legal wiggle room for legalization socially acceptable drugs (i.e. marijuana)
- Could open up more avenues of research on substances that have otherwise been effectively blacklisted.
The execution becomes problematic in having everyone agree on what amount constitutes personal consumption (misdemeanor) versus distribution with intent to sell (felony). But I still believe it would be a step forward.
If you want to have any chance of achieving this one, the drug in question has to be obtained from a pharmaceutical channel rather than a black market channel.
That means legalizing sale in some way too, otherwise the drugs themselves will continue to be impure and unsafe.
Luckily the drugs that are the most problematic are already legal, they just require a prescription to obtain.
So in the short term the answer is to start treating the drug aspect of drug addiction as the medical issue that it is, and allow doctors to write prescriptions to addicts.
Then you'll have a much easier time providing them assistance finding a job, education, safe housing, and medical care for any underlying condition they might have, which most of them really, really want.
Here's the issue though, it's simply not the case that the law gives us any control over the situation. The opposite is true: banning individual substances like heroin actually prevents us from having any control over them at all.
We made heroin illegal, but the market continued to exist. It simply shifted to a different set of manufacturers, distributers, and retailers. And, it totally removed any control we had over who could buy it, as well as the authenticity, purity, and safety of the product.
Worse still, banning it actually incentivized the market to continue and even expand, by artificially increasing the value of the product and significantly increasing the potential profit.
The manufacturers have no accountability or regulation whatsoever, they're pumping out fentanyl analogs of varying potency that are almost impossible to even handle safely. That alone is responsible for many, many overdose deaths.
The distributors are frequently tied to or directly run by organized crime.
The retailers can sell whatever they want to whoever they want, regardless of how dangerous it is, how fraudulent the sale is, or how many people die.
Continuing to hope that restricting it just a little more will finally solve the problem is not only unreasonable but making the very things we're concerned about worse.
Sounds pretty crazy now?
People are going to do it regardless of your or anybody else's moral tutting. The best we can do is not shame them and keep them inside a medical system, making sure to minimize harm and keeping the door open to medical treatment.
Shutting the door on addicts and making them afraid of even EMTs is causing way more harm and death then helping minimize harm.
I'm an extreme libertarian (anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist), and much of what Trump said on the campaign trail was spot on. the biggest problem I have with him is that he often makes very strong statements, then goes on to directly contradict them. From my perspective, he's either completely unconcerned about keeping his promises or he changes his mind so frequently that there's no practical difference.
Trump repeatedly promised to support medical usage in particular, which would mean removing cannabis from Schedule 1. The DEA failed to do so.
His appointment of Jeff Sessions was a huge blow to a lot of issues that I (and many others) feel strongly about and that Trump had vocally supported. Marijuana policy included.
For what it's worth, I don't think it'll substantially hurt his re-election chances. My social circles are pretty much Trump's core constituency, and for them, his SCOTUS picks were the core issue. So far, both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have been pretty much exactly what he promised. Granted, only time will tell if they stay the course that they've set, but they remain originalists during their tenure as Justices, but so far that's been the case with Gorsuch. As long as the Senate confirms Kavanaugh and neither of them "pull a Kennedy" and move to the left after being seated, I can't think of anything off the top of my head that would cause people to stay home on Election Day, much less vote against him.
Hopefully this "Marijuana Policy Coordination Committee" will go the way of his "Second Amendment Coalition". The SAC was comprised of all the right people from my side of the issue, and Trump was outspoken about his support of repealing restrictions - but the SAC itself quietly faded away, and even the press release was removed from his site last May.
As a resident of a county that produces a huge amount of weed, the biggest problems are due to it being illegal. Mexican cartels growing it in USFS land, long list of missing people that were reportedly working at a grow scene, random shallow graves discovered in the woods, polluted rivers that we can't swim in, major pesticide usage.
X is sometimes a drug one might like to ban, but it's also frequently a technical practice or a company culture issue. The desire to fix everything ends up causing a lot of misery.
It's okay if the goverment makes statements about cannabis in a negative light. DOT talks about the dangers of driving. CDC talks about the dangers of vaping. The truth is cannabis isn't 100% harmless, and it's probably a good thing if our society has someone looking into the risks of this large social change we made.
His stated positions on supporting states with medical laws, and his complete absence of federal raids on people following state cannabis laws, is very good for a republican president.
[0] http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-marijuana-20...
[1] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/10/25/ag-sessions...
It's extraordinary to me how we so willingly accept policy that directly and negatively affects so, so many facets of society and economy.
You want to maintain all the effects of growth, profits and budgets of a drug war economy? If so then you're a fucking idiot.