Drugs

[Pointedstick]

What's the right societal approach to drugs?

I used to believe that blanket legalization--or at least decriminalization--would slowly start to fix everything. But now I'm not so sure, especially when you talk about the really hard drugs like meth. Meth, heroin, and cocaine are super duper addictive, and people high on them commit heinous, wicked crimes. And their health rapidly deteriorates even if they don't murder anyone. If you could buy this stuff legally at CVS for $5 a dose, I really can't see how things would be any better--and they might be worse since legalization would obviously increase the supply which would increase the consumption (econ 101 here). And more drug use is not something desirable. Parents don't want to see their kids using drugs. Clean people don't want to be around drug users. I understand that it's a bit different for marijuana which is more like alcohol and can be used recreationally by adults in a non-addictive capacity. But even if marijuana becomes totally legal, there's still the problem of what to do about cocaine, heroin, and meth. Those are bad news.

But of course the status quo isn't working either. Having everything be illegal doesn't seem to actually help much; in fact the problem of drug addiction only seems to grow over time. More and more money is spent on law enforcement operations that end up curtailing civil liberties and increasing taxes to pay for them. And having illegal cartel organizations supplying all the drugs creates a huge amount of violence.

What's to be done here?

[I Shrugged]

I don't know. It's a bad problem.

But, can you name anything similar that has been fixed with a top down solution?

[dualstow]

I have know no idea what the solution is, but wow, that recent article on Louisville, Kentucky: 140 deaths in four days.
Completely out of control.

Education is our best tool.

[Kriegsspiel]

i still lean towards blanket legalization, not all in one lump but gradually over time. yes there will be a increase in use ... at first - 1 because all of the hidden users will suddenly be counted and -2 it will increase consumption ..at first.. i suspect that with time the new users would quickly start to diminish due to the benefit of, -1 being open and therefore the self harm becomes obvious and discourages most and -2 the lure of quick cash and the ability dip into your supply get high with your buyers, be the cool kid (though we know your not) disappears.. will it end drug use and abuse ..nope... but the drop in price reducing crimes committed to buy dope, the elimination of violence committed by drug cartels, the ability to identify and offer help to the addicted, and ALL the civil liberties restored would out weigh the up-tic in use..

and then there are the unintended consequences of legalization... and i don't know what they will be but they WILL show up and need to be dealt with.

I think legalizing them all probably has more upsides than any other approach. There are numerous advantages that go along with legalizing drugs, and the disadvantages seem to be limited to more people becoming too addicted to function. This actually might be offset by all the productivity gains when everyone is coked up. So yea, basically no downsides.

[Libertarian666]

What's the right societal approach to drugs?

I used to believe that blanket legalization--or at least decriminalization--would slowly start to fix everything. But now I'm not so sure, especially when you talk about the really hard drugs like meth. Meth, heroin, and cocaine are super duper addictive, and people high on them commit heinous, wicked crimes. And their health rapidly deteriorates even if they don't murder anyone. If you could buy this stuff legally at CVS for $5 a dose, I really can't see how things would be any better--and they might be worse since legalization would obviously increase the supply which would increase the consumption (econ 101 here). And more drug use is not something desirable. Parents don't want to see their kids using drugs. Clean people don't want to be around drug users. I understand that it's a bit different for marijuana which is more like alcohol and can be used recreationally by adults in a non-addictive capacity. But even if marijuana becomes totally legal, there's still the problem of what to do about cocaine, heroin, and meth. Those are bad news.

But of course the status quo isn't working either. Having everything be illegal doesn't seem to actually help much; in fact the problem of drug addiction only seems to grow over time. More and more money is spent on law enforcement operations that end up curtailing civil liberties and increasing taxes to pay for them. And having illegal cartel organizations supplying all the drugs creates a huge amount of violence.

What's to be done here?

The two most harmful drugs from the point of view of social cost are alcohol and tobacco.

We tried making one of those illegal. How did that work out?

Or to put it as simply as possible: no one has the right to use violence against another adult based on what he or she does with his or her body. Any attempts to do so, putting aside their moral bankruptcy, lead to exactly the same results as alcohol Prohibition, and for exactly the same reasons.

tl;dr: every drug should be legal.

[dualstow]

Maybe decriminalize drug use but continue to pursue dealers.

Even the Netherlands is rethinking its extreme permissiveness.

[Libertarian666]

Maybe decriminalize drug use but continue to pursue dealers.

Even the Netherlands is rethinking its extreme permissiveness.

So you're in favor of continuing corruption and violence?

Because the corruption and violence are the result of pursuing dealers.

[dualstow]

Maybe decriminalize drug use but continue to pursue dealers.

Even the Netherlands is rethinking its extreme permissiveness.

So you're in favor of continuing corruption and violence?

Because the corruption and violence are the result of pursuing dealers.

Yes, clearly I'm in favor of corruption and violence.

[Libertarian666]

Maybe decriminalize drug use but continue to pursue dealers.

Even the Netherlands is rethinking its extreme permissiveness.

So you're in favor of continuing corruption and violence?

Because the corruption and violence are the result of pursuing dealers.

Yes, clearly I'm in favor of corruption and violence.

If you are in favor of continued illegality of drugs, then yes, you are in favor of corruption and violence, because those are the results of that illegality.

Of course, you may not have known that previously (although I don't know how that is possible, given the voluminous evidence), but now you do.

So it is up to you whether you want to continue support for such a destructive path, or renounce it.

[dualstow]

Support.

[Dieter]

Definitely for allowing states to decide on Marijuana and Hemp.
(and would/did vote for legalization)

Other drugs get more complicated as you say, but legalization may be the least bad option.

Should make them safer and at least some of the tax revenue should go to treatment and education.

So yeah, could be a phased thing, starting with Hemp, Marijuana, psychedelics (LSD, Peyote, Psilocybin), ....

The more that gets legalized, the more the DEA can focus on the worse stuff.

[Pointedstick]

Yes, I am definitely in favor of legalizing marijuana, hemp, and the relatively harmless psychedelics. It's the harder drugs that worry me. People high on these drugs on those do really, really bad things--and not just in the process of stealing money to buy them. They do things like murder, rape, dismember, and set on fire a 10 year-old girl. Warning: you might not actually want to click on that link. I understand the sordid history of prohibition; clearly that didn't work, and what we're doing today isn't working either. But is full legalization really the answer?

What's the sane policy here?

legalizing marijuana, hemp, and the relatively harmless psychedelics first, prohibition on advertising any and all scheduled or formerly scheduled drugs, slowly legalizing and regulating harder drugs, legislating and reinforcing much steeper penalties for crimes committed under the influence. allow the process of of legalization take as long as necessary with as many small steps as necessary to avoid missteps and potential errors that could result in a costly social hazard..

i cant envision more detailed steps, or specific rules and regulations, different drugs each come with different hazards, and risks. it will be a difficult process to figure out... hence the taking it slowly..

[dualstow]

Check out what other countries are trying and have tried. Portugal, as well as the Netherlands, 2001-present.

[WiseOne]

Another vote for a combination of legalization and education. Between Prohibition and the War on Drugs, I think we should have figured out by now that banning a substance that people want is not going to decrease its usage. It's simply going to create an underground business to supply it and fill up the jails with buyers and small-fry sellers. On the other hand, look what the anti-smoking campaign managed to accomplish.

To be completely consistent about it, we also need to think about decontrolling prescription drugs. It would reduce medical costs enormously, for starters. Probably a good 20% of a physician's day is spent dealing with prescription renewals, phone calls from pharmacies, pleas for prescriptions for this and that, etc. It would be great to restore pharmacy as a real profession, instead of the burger flipper equivalents they are now, and have them keep all drugs behind the counter the way it's done in Europe.

[Maddy]

And while we're at it. . . How about a discussion of the welfare state's role in enabling all this?

[WiseOne]

And while we're at it. . . How about a discussion of the welfare state's role in enabling all this?

What did you have in mind, Maddy?

Getting rid of the special protections granted to the pharmaceutical industry in the US would be awesome, but that's not the welfare state precisely. Or did you mean welfare support in general, so that people who aren't working have the time & energy to devote to recreational drugs?

[Maddy]

And while we're at it. . . How about a discussion of the welfare state's role in enabling all this?

What did you have in mind, Maddy?

Getting rid of the special protections granted to the pharmaceutical industry in the US would be awesome, but that's not the welfare state precisely. Or did you mean welfare support in general, so that people who aren't working have the time & energy to devote to recreational drugs?

WiseOne, I absolutely agree about breaking the pharmaceutical monopoly. It would involve nothing more than enforcement of existing anti-trust laws and so would seem to be the obvious place to start to bring health care costs under control. But it's the elephant in the livingroom. The policymakers are engaging in all kinds of mental and fiscal gymnastics to avoid even discussing that one.

With regard to the welfare state, I'm referring to the smorgasbord of federal and state aid programs--from traditional welfare to Medicaid, Section 8 housing, disability payments, EBT, supplemental nutrition, energy assistance, etc. These programs make it possible for a veritable subculture of drop-outs to live on the fringes, doing absolutely nothing productive, and to nonetheless have sufficient disposable income to live a reasonably comfortable lifestyle after blowing the majority of their disposable income on drugs.

So while I don't object to legalization per se, I do object to legalization coupled with government subsidies.

[WiseOne]

So while I don't object to legalization per se, I do object to legalization coupled with government subsidies.

Still not totally following you. We have to assume that the class of welfare recipients you're talking about will buy drugs whether they are legal or not; sounds like you're thinking that welfare benefits are proxy for a certain drug and violence-infused culture. The only difference drug laws make is that some proportion of them will end up in jail, which costs more taxpayer money than the aforementioned benefits.

Although, it's less clear when you take into account crimes committed, additional health services utilized for rehab and medical consequences of IVDA, costs to care for their drug-damaged kids, etc. You could justify drug laws on the basis of preventing harm to society by ensuring that potential perpetrators are locked away. Except that you'd have to consider the costs of jails AND the costs of imposing drug laws and prescription regulation on the rest of us. I sincerely doubt that math will add up.

Here's a thought experiment. PointedStick mentioned a situation where a crazed druggie killed a 10 year old girl. Yes, that stuff happens. However, people also die because of the current drug laws. Currently, some antiepileptic drugs are in one of the DEA's restricted categories, because of theoretical potential for abuse. So patients have run out of medication, due to the need for a cognitively impaired person to get new prescriptions every 3 months, and ended up in a ER with status epilepticus - and some have died. Do those people count in the "harm" calculus?

[Libertarian666]

Another vote for a combination of legalization and education. Between Prohibition and the War on Drugs, I think we should have figured out by now that banning a substance that people want is not going to decrease its usage. It's simply going to create an underground business to supply it and fill up the jails with buyers and small-fry sellers. On the other hand, look what the anti-smoking campaign managed to accomplish.

To be completely consistent about it, we also need to think about decontrolling prescription drugs. It would reduce medical costs enormously, for starters. Probably a good 20% of a physician's day is spent dealing with prescription renewals, phone calls from pharmacies, pleas for prescriptions for this and that, etc. It would be great to restore pharmacy as a real profession, instead of the burger flipper equivalents they are now, and have them keep all drugs behind the counter the way it's done in Europe.

Probably the only legitimate public health issue that might necessitate some controls like prescriptions on pharmaceuticals would be for antibiotics, because misuse of those drugs harms people other than the ones taking them.

[Maddy]

Well, it seems that the pharmaceutical industry's monopoly is finally coming under antitrust scrutiny:

The generic drug industry has come under fire the last couple of years because of staggering price increases.

Controversies arising from the 500% hike in the generic price of the EpiPen, used to deliver epinephrine for life-threatening allergic reactions, or the 5,400% explosion in the price of Daraprim for the treatment of potentially deadly parasite infections, have only fueled price-fixing accusations.

But now generic drug executives can expect to face tougher legal repercussions, as evidenced by two federal court lawsuits filed late last year—one in November brought by Eatontown, N.J.-based Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc. against two of its former executives, Jeffrey Glazer and Jason Malek, using the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and one in December that 20 states have filed against six companies, including Heritage, after a major antitrust investigation by the state of Connecticut.

“I think this is a new development,” said Daniel Anziska, an attorney with Troutman Sanders LLP in New York who specializes in antitrust cases. “This is kind of a new permutation. It’s been going on a couple years, the investigation. But this is kind of what’s starting to trickle out of it.”

http://medcitynews.com/2017/02/states-u ... ives-heel/

[dualstow]

I read this yesterday, because of this thread.

Correa's own addiction began when her mother introduced her to heroin at 16, she said.
…
Correa has 10 children and six grandchildren. She cries when she talks of how her grandchildren used to love to visit her when she lived with her boyfriend, who died last year. Yet Correa remains under the bridge and in the gulch injecting heroin.

Her biggest fear is not death, she said, but a normal life.

"I've never been well or happy for a long period of time so when I do feel like I'm doing well I'm afraid because it's not a feeling I'm familiar with and it scares me," Correa said. "When I do become clean, I've got to become a new person because I've been this other person for so long."

(link above at " this ").

For those of you who favor decriminalizing the harder stuff, how do you foresee dealing with the addicts? To me, cannabis on the shelf at WalMart sounds like more trouble for the cartels than for civilization, so that's a good thing.
Heroin on the shelves at WalMart...maybe not such a good idea.

Do you envision a government dispensary where addicts can be tracked, given psychological counseling, etc., when they come for their fix? Will the heroin be free of cost? Who would be the producer?

Or, will it just be a free-for-all with no government dispensary and no gov't intervention whatsoever?

If a lot of disconcerting outcomes are popping into your brain with every new solution you conceive of, then your brain is working. If not, I'd love to hear what you've come up with.

[Dieter]

I read this yesterday, because of this thread.

Correa's own addiction began when her mother introduced her to heroin at 16, she said.
…
Correa has 10 children and six grandchildren. She cries when she talks of how her grandchildren used to love to visit her when she lived with her boyfriend, who died last year. Yet Correa remains under the bridge and in the gulch injecting heroin.

Her biggest fear is not death, she said, but a normal life.

"I've never been well or happy for a long period of time so when I do feel like I'm doing well I'm afraid because it's not a feeling I'm familiar with and it scares me," Correa said. "When I do become clean, I've got to become a new person because I've been this other person for so long."

(link above at " this ").

For those of you who favor decriminalizing the harder stuff, how do you foresee dealing with the addicts? To me, cannabis on the shelf at WalMart sounds like more trouble for the cartels than for civilization, so that's a good thing.
Heroin on the shelves at WalMart...maybe not such a good idea.

Do you envision a government dispensary where addicts can be tracked, given psychological counseling, etc., when they come for their fix? Will the heroin be free of cost? Who would be the producer?

Or, will it just be a free-for-all with no government dispensary and no gov't intervention whatsoever?

If a lot of disconcerting outcomes are popping into your brain with every new solution you conceive of, then your brain is working. If not, I'd love to hear what you've come up with.

In broad strokes, I could see drug regulations equivalents such as:

Hemp == agriculture
Marijuana == Beer / Wine
Psychadelics == Hard Alcohol

"Hard" drugs == see what ideas come up after phased legalization of the above to see what does / doesn't work; maybe legalize, maybe never. Experiment to see what works better than the current system...

As for dealing with the addicts, tax the stuff and apply a good chunk to education and treatment.

Spend less on law enforcement / jails and more on education / treatment.

[WiseOne]

I figure newly legalized drugs should be treated like cigarettes are now: only available behind the counter and to people over 18.

We'd deal with addicts exactly the same way we deal with them now, minus the criminal prosecutions and jail sentences for drug offenses. Having more money available for treatment programs, derived from taxes on legal sales, will likely increase the number who go into treatment and possibly success rates, because rehab stints will be less likely to be cut short by lack of funds.

Also, the increased income to states from having drug production and sale count as a legal business will help indirectly in lots of ways: reduced property taxes, more funding available for Medicaid, schools, drug education ads etc. Add to that the fact that the police and district attorneys will now have to focus their efforts on combatting real crimes, instead of prosecuting drug offenses.

Then there would be less illegal border traffic, since there would be no more need for drug runners and the Mexican/Columbian cartels will have lost their best customer.

Trying to think of some downsides for you. There will likely to be a transient spike in use of newly legalized drugs, but usage will settle back down as the novelty wears off. Insurance companies may start denying claims related to recreational drug use, also.

[Libertarian666]

I figure newly legalized drugs should be treated like cigarettes are now: only available behind the counter and to people over 18.

We'd deal with addicts exactly the same way we deal with them now, minus the criminal prosecutions and jail sentences for drug offenses. Having more money available for treatment programs, derived from taxes on legal sales, will likely increase the number who go into treatment and possibly success rates, because rehab stints will be less likely to be cut short by lack of funds.

Also, the increased income to states from having drug production and sale count as a legal business will help indirectly in lots of ways: reduced property taxes, more funding available for Medicaid, schools, drug education ads etc. Add to that the fact that the police and district attorneys will now have to focus their efforts on combatting real crimes, instead of prosecuting drug offenses.

Then there would be less illegal border traffic, since there would be no more need for drug runners and the Mexican/Columbian cartels will have lost their best customer.

Trying to think of some downsides for you. There will likely to be a transient spike in use of newly legalized drugs, but usage will settle back down as the novelty wears off. Insurance companies may start denying claims related to recreational drug use, also.

That's about the best that we could hope for as a practical matter, so I support it.