To be contrarian and utilitarian on this point - and this ain’t pretty - what would the resource saving be between everything we do now to prevent illicit drug use, and treat the affected and later, after the death surge?
Because of the pharmacological effects of the drugs or because of the cultural expectations around the behaviour of drug users?
yup. still hoping for a fourth book. Although I hold that ‘her old ones were better?’
1 Like
Amsterdam is far from fully legalized, we have legalized private usage of marijuana, sure.
However the production side is still illegal leading to illegal farms in empty houses tapping their electricity and occasionally lighting on fire, still no real control over the quality of the products, and recently we even forced our garden centers to tattle if they suspect someone is buying stuff to stock a growhouse.
Not to mention nearly all other drugs that we do outlaw.
9 Likes
(I don’t think there would be a significant death surge so I’ll ignore that bit)
I guess it will be roughly analogous to housing the homeless instead of treating them and locking them up all the time. I remember reading a article on here that suggested this would offer something like a 3x overall cost reduction.
So without any facts to back me up I would wager this would save a LOT of money.
And the point many people here forgot is, this would save a lot of lives in the drug-battles in Mexico and elsewhere.
9 Likes
I assume you asked this just because you wanted to see the little, “Why don’t we have both?” girl, so I’ll oblige.
But honestly I probably wouldn’t use drugs very much if at all. But having never smoked weed in my life, I’ve promised myself that when it is legal I’m going to go get stoned, just to be the one person who actually did that.
9 Likes
Back to good-ol’ racketeering.
Probably not.
Yes, there will always be some drug casualties. But even in the immediate aftermath of legalisation, we’re likely to see a decline in the death toll, not an increase.
-
A very large proportion of illicit drug casualties are victims of prohibition. Inability to accurately measure dosage due to variable purity greatly increases overdose rates. Black-market supply also leads to poisonings via drug substitution. As a general rule, prohibition makes drugs more dangerous, not less.
-
Most people actually don’t enjoy constant extreme intoxication. Yes, many people enjoy occasional moderate intoxication, but that’s all. There is no huge untapped demand for PCP, Krokodil, Fentanyl etc.
-
Legalisation does not mean a free-for-all. Legalise, regulate, educate. Legalising opiates doesn’t imply heroin vending machines in kindergartens. Driving while intoxicated remains a crime.
-
Substitution. Most people are looking to enjoy themselves, but they’ll happily do it with safer options when available. A major driver in the rise of mephedrone was the crackdown on the supply of the relatively much safer MDMA. There’s little motivation to consume high-risk drugs when equally enjoyable but safer alternatives are easily available.
-
History: the end of alcohol prohibition did see a slight increase in alcohol consumption, but it didn’t create a surge in death rates. More tipsy people, less poisoned people.
14 Likes
what would happen if we just let everybody lose to do whatever they want?
I’m totally digging the typo, man.
3 Likes
LSD vacation? LSD vacation. LSD vacation!
More seriously, it would be really nice to just walk into a week shop and get something for my random, yet periodic back pain that won’t get me stoned, addicted or stuck with dumb side effects like constipation (yeah, lookin’ at you opioids and fake opioids).
6 Likes
Yep. The negative externalities of the illicit narcotic business are beyond calculation. Channel the money into legit paths, and the really bad people can’t wield power like they do.
1 Like
Eh - not sure I support that. Even though weed is mostly safe, it does seem to negatively affect still forming brains, and I would imagine if we researched it mushrooms may too. Though at college level or maybe senior year I see the value.
Then again I get the point of teaching responsible use vs abstinence. Though personally if my kid were to experiment with stuff, I’d rather she wait until she was older.
I agree with all your points here.
Also, while thinking more on the subject, if the US did stop the war on drug, including the money we give to places like Mexico and Columbia - imagine how this would affect things?
Personally, if I was Mexico NOW, I would be like, fuck this, legalize week and coke, and work with the cartels to set up legit operations. No mo more murdering of army and drug agents and the cartels. The cartels win because they aren’t hindered by the Mexican government, and their profits would go up. The money they lost to taxes going legit would probably be similar to what they lose laundering it.
If the US gave up and no longer supported Mexico and other countries, I am pretty sure they would follow their lead.
What’s funny that with all this talk of free drugs you might assume I am doing so for selfish reasons. But as one who HAS to take drugs function during the day, I would rather be off of them as much as I can. I AM curious about weeds ability to help with chronic pain, but I rarely partake in the legal stuff we have right now with smoking and alcohol.
Something to consider: what would have happened if we’d taken all the money that was wasted on prohibition and instead given it to pharmacologists for the purpose of researching better, safer drugs?
6 Likes
There’d be billions of dollars left over for Nice Things. You know, like educating our kids, fixing our roads and bridges, getting the Navy that fancy next-generation fighter jet (I’m a jet geek, so I just want it so the Blue Angels can fly over my house in 'em, which they do for a nearby air show every two years).
Also, something even more fun than LSD might’ve been synthesised.
2 Likes
As with sex education, there’s a fair bit of evidence that honest and realistic drug education actually delays the onset of drug use.
“Drugs can be fun, but they’re also dangerous, and if you go too hard too soon you’ll damage your ability to enjoy them later. If you are going to use them, wait until you’re in the right place with the right people and titrate your dose to the minimum required to have fun. A few beers with a good mate is more sustainable and a lot more fun than getting stinking drunk with people who don’t care about you.” ← This is also a part of my version of drug safety education.
I’d also include some basic neuroscience with a (honest, non-scaremongering) focus on the vulnerability of the developing adolescent brain to neurotoxicity.
11 Likes
Oh I agree that there should be a more honest, non-scare based tactic. Which is why I support actual sex education vs abstinence only. (Pray for me when I have to deal with this shit, as I know what my ex-wife is going to push.)
I think where I draw the line, at that level at least, is telling people how to actually take the drug, whether that be finding the right mushrooms, packing a bong, or finding a vein. Though, again, depends on the age. That would be more appropriate at 18+.
5 Likes
5 Likes
According to the .gov overdose deaths are on the rise from Rx drugs…
Rx (all) @ ~ 26.5k deaths (multiple federal schedules)
Opioid @ ~19k (S2)
Benzo’s @ ~8k (S4)
Blow @ ~5.5k (S1)
Heroin @ ~11k(S1)
Marijuana @ 0 (S1)
Note: All #'s ~ cuz those charts don’t show so great on the phone & I just woke up so everything is still a bit fuzzy.
Also Note: anyone else see a hypocrisy in federal drug scheduling?
4 Likes
Clarify your point?
The discussion was not “do people die from drug use?” or “are opioids more dangerous than cannabis?”. It was “would an end to prohibition for all drugs create a sudden spike in the death toll?”.
I know that in Colorado (at least, not sure about other states) it’s legal for visitors from other states to partake. I miss Colorado…
Totes need a GoFundMe to get you to the Centennial state!
Heck, kinda tempted to fund that myself…
