From the New York Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/10/nyregion/Carl-Hart-drugs.html
Discuss.
In a sense this is old news: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/09/the-science-of-choice-in-addiction/280080/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/09/the-science-of-choice-in-addiction/280080/).
Legalised drug use is like legalised gambling; if the community is going to be on the hook for the counselling, legal costs, etc. of the problem addicts and problem gamblers, then the state has a perfect right (and responsibility) to restrict the activity.
Most heroin deaths are from overdoses and bad needles. Addicts stop after a while. Taken properly, the most serious side-effect of clean heroin is constipation.
Stop this nonsensical war on drugs, which merely promotes violence and incarceration. Regulate the drugs and tax them. Tax and regulate.
Hart is a smart and articulate guy, and he has done important work. We are all aware that the "war against drugs" has been a total failure, and has also been a major factor in the disproportionate incarceration of minorities. So I'm very sympathetic to his ideas.
So if someone is strung out and drugs and injures or kills someone, who can be held responsible? Are they unprosecutable based on some sort of "diminished capacity"?
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 11, 2021, 10:08:23 AM
So if someone is strung out and drugs and injures or kills someone, who can be held responsible? Are they unprosecutable based on some sort of "diminished capacity"?
Simple, like DUI. I believe that started off as inferred premeditation.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 11, 2021, 10:00:35 AM
Legalised drug use is like legalised gambling; if the community is going to be on the hook for the counselling, legal costs, etc. of the problem addicts and problem gamblers, then the state has a perfect right (and responsibility) to restrict the activity.
So what are you, some kind of racist? Don't you know poor people have more anxiety inflicted on them by society and thus are more entitled to relief?
QuoteHart is a smart and articulate guy, and he has done important work. We are all aware that the "war against drugs" has been a total failure, and has also been a major factor in the disproportionate incarceration of minorities. So I'm very sympathetic to his ideas.
But if say three years from now he has become a six times a day mainliner, unable to do his job? Should we then say 'he used to be a smart guy?' Using heroin is always taking a chance.
I'm kind of curious. Since drug use is something people on the left typically want to see less regulated, and gun ownership is something people on the right typically want to see less regulated, how do people view them so differently?
For me, problem gamblers, drug abusers, and irresponsible gun owners are all in the same category; people whose family and others suffer due to their irresponsible behaviour. I think all three things, (drugs, guns*, and gambling), ought to be heavily regulated for the same reason.
*When I see stories from the US of children killing themselves, other children or their parents with a gun that they got hold of because of some idiot (parent or other) whose negligence let them get hold of it, I think the adult in question should be charged with criminal negligence causing death.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 11, 2021, 11:46:22 AM
I'm kind of curious. Since drug use is something people on the left typically want to see less regulated, and gun ownership is something people on the right typically want to see less regulated, how do people view them so differently?
For me, problem gamblers, drug abusers, and irresponsible gun owners are all in the same category; people whose family and others suffer due to their irresponsible behaviour. I think all three things, (drugs, guns*, and gambling), ought to be heavily regulated for the same reason.
*When I see stories from the US of children killing themselves, other children or their parents with a gun that they got hold of because of some idiot (parent or other) whose negligence let them get hold of it, I think the adult in question should be charged with criminal negligence causing death.
Yes. Drugs and guns indeed have a lot in common, but in an unclear way. They can both be sources of harm to
third parties. It's pretty clear with guns -- I aim at legitimate target and someone pops up between my bullet and the target, or I spray illegitimate targets. It's much less clear with drugs, for the source of the harm to third parties is not so much the drugs as the
prohibition of drugs. That's what causes most of the bad stuff associated with drugs, not the drugs themselves.
Thus, regulate guns in a reasonable way, but deregulate drugs in a reasonable way. [Tax them of course.]
Quote from: dismalist on April 11, 2021, 11:56:51 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 11, 2021, 11:46:22 AM
I'm kind of curious. Since drug use is something people on the left typically want to see less regulated, and gun ownership is something people on the right typically want to see less regulated, how do people view them so differently?
For me, problem gamblers, drug abusers, and irresponsible gun owners are all in the same category; people whose family and others suffer due to their irresponsible behaviour. I think all three things, (drugs, guns*, and gambling), ought to be heavily regulated for the same reason.
*When I see stories from the US of children killing themselves, other children or their parents with a gun that they got hold of because of some idiot (parent or other) whose negligence let them get hold of it, I think the adult in question should be charged with criminal negligence causing death.
Yes. Drugs and guns indeed have a lot in common, but in an unclear way. They can both be sources of harm to third parties. It's pretty clear with guns -- I aim at legitimate target and someone pops up between my bullet and the target, or I spray illegitimate targets. It's much less clear with drugs, for the source of the harm to third parties is not so much the drugs as the prohibition of drugs. That's what causes most of the bad stuff associated with drugs, not the drugs themselves.
There was a case a few years ago of a guy having orange juice with methadone in it in his fridge. His child found it, drank it, and died. Pretty similar to the gun cases I mentioned above. Children have been neglected while parents got stoned, etc.Children have died in hot cars while parents get drunk at a bar, etc.
There are MANY cases of harm to third parties, especially children, from drugs. These should, in my opinion, be cases of criminal negligence, causing death (if applicable), just like when it happens due to carelessness with firearms.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 11, 2021, 12:48:52 PM
Quote from: dismalist on April 11, 2021, 11:56:51 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 11, 2021, 11:46:22 AM
I'm kind of curious. Since drug use is something people on the left typically want to see less regulated, and gun ownership is something people on the right typically want to see less regulated, how do people view them so differently?
For me, problem gamblers, drug abusers, and irresponsible gun owners are all in the same category; people whose family and others suffer due to their irresponsible behaviour. I think all three things, (drugs, guns*, and gambling), ought to be heavily regulated for the same reason.
*When I see stories from the US of children killing themselves, other children or their parents with a gun that they got hold of because of some idiot (parent or other) whose negligence let them get hold of it, I think the adult in question should be charged with criminal negligence causing death.
Yes. Drugs and guns indeed have a lot in common, but in an unclear way. They can both be sources of harm to third parties. It's pretty clear with guns -- I aim at legitimate target and someone pops up between my bullet and the target, or I spray illegitimate targets. It's much less clear with drugs, for the source of the harm to third parties is not so much the drugs as the prohibition of drugs. That's what causes most of the bad stuff associated with drugs, not the drugs themselves.
There was a case a few years ago of a guy having orange juice with methadone in it in his fridge. His child found it, drank it, and died. Pretty similar to the gun cases I mentioned above. Children have been neglected while parents got stoned, etc.Children have died in hot cars while parents get drunk at a bar, etc.
There are MANY cases of harm to third parties, especially children, from drugs. These should, in my opinion, be cases of criminal negligence, causing death (if applicable), just like when it happens due to carelessness with firearms.
Fine by me.
Alcohol is one of the worst things you can have in your system if you're driving. But heroin's bad too, because you could nod off. Or you might need to pull over in order to get out and throw up.
Fifty milligrams of benadryl causes people to drive worse than two mixed drinks, according to research (so my doctor tells me), but it's perfectly legal.
Any idiot that thinks that legalizing heroin is a good idea has not worked even one single shift at a Walmart in a decaying, abandoned by harsh modern capitalism city. Not even one.
Quote from: kaysixteen on April 11, 2021, 05:41:05 PM
Any idiot that thinks that legalizing heroin is a good idea has not worked even one single shift at a Walmart in a decaying, abandoned by harsh modern capitalism city. Not even one.
And current policy has effectively prevented the bad things you saw.
Well, if we're truly thinking 'solutions' how about just bombing the hell out of those several provinces in Afghanistan?
Quote from: mahagonny on April 11, 2021, 01:23:21 PM
Alcohol is one of the worst things you can have in your system if you're driving. But heroin's bad too, because you could nod off. Or you might need to pull over in order to get out and throw up.
Fifty milligrams of benadryl causes people to drive worse than two mixed drinks, according to research (so my doctor tells me), but it's perfectly legal.
Your VHS copy of "Panic in Needle Park" is overdue.
Quote from: dismalist on April 11, 2021, 10:02:27 AM
Most heroin deaths are from overdoses and bad needles. Addicts stop after a while. Taken properly, the most serious side-effect of clean heroin is constipation.
Um...I just lost a family member to drug addiction. That is a wee bit...I don't even know what to say...
No. Just no. Particularly not heroin.
I have no problem with allowing people the freedom to make their own choices so long as they bear the responsibilities of those choices.
I will say I'm quite disappointed with the lack of female support of drug legalization. The "my body my choice" philosophy seems to go out the window when it is related to cutting hair without an expensive license, not wearing a car seat belt or motorcycle helmet, using drugs, hiring a prostitute or any other activity in which people exercise choice over their own body. My pro-feminist acceptance of their agency leads me to blame women who are 51% of the population and could thus unilaterally legalize whatever they want for this problem. If you're a woman who is pro-choice and not a libertarian (philosophically at least regardless of party) you are the problem in our "for thee but not for me" culture.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on April 11, 2021, 08:01:50 PM
Quote from: dismalist on April 11, 2021, 10:02:27 AM
Most heroin deaths are from overdoses and bad needles. Addicts stop after a while. Taken properly, the most serious side-effect of clean heroin is constipation.
Um...I just lost a family member to drug addiction. That is a wee bit...I don't even know what to say...
No. Just no. Particularly not heroin.
So sorry, Professor.
Quote from: financeguy on April 12, 2021, 12:19:45 AM
I have no problem with allowing people the freedom to make their own choices so long as they bear the responsibilities of those choices.
I will say I'm quite disappointed with the lack of female support of drug legalization. The "my body my choice" philosophy seems to go out the window when it is related to cutting hair without an expensive license, not wearing a car seat belt or motorcycle helmet, using drugs, hiring a prostitute or any other activity in which people exercise choice over their own body. My pro-feminist acceptance of their agency leads me to blame women who are 51% of the population and could thus unilaterally legalize whatever they want for this problem. If you're a woman who is pro-choice and not a libertarian (philosophically at least regardless of party) you are the problem in our "for thee but not for me" culture.
Maybe 'my body my choice' is not really part of libertarian thinking if the thought process was the pregnancy was something someone else did to you.
It's probably way too late to note the irony in this, but....
QuoteDr. Hart, 54, the first tenured African-American science professor at Columbia, is a gadfly among drug researchers and a rock star among advocates for decriminalizing drugs.
Rock stars are, of course, the problem, and how dangerous drugs became accepted in middle America.
And then:
QuoteUnlike past academic advocates for drug use, like Timothy Leary and Baba Ram Dass, who both experimented with L.S.D. at Harvard University, Dr. Hart rejects as "self-serving" the distinction between so-called good drugs, like psychedelics, and more maligned substances, like heroin and methamphetamine. All, he said, have their place.
Read what John Lennon and George Harrison said about LSD later in life and you'll give it a pass.
Quote from: financeguy on April 12, 2021, 12:19:45 AM
I have no problem with allowing people the freedom to make their own choices so long as they bear the responsibilities of those choices.
I will say I'm quite disappointed with the lack of female support of drug legalization. The "my body my choice" philosophy seems to go out the window when it is related to cutting hair without an expensive license, not wearing a car seat belt or motorcycle helmet, using drugs, hiring a prostitute or any other activity in which people exercise choice over their own body. My pro-feminist acceptance of their agency leads me to blame women who are 51% of the population and could thus unilaterally legalize whatever they want for this problem. If you're a woman who is pro-choice and not a libertarian (philosophically at least regardless of party) you are the problem in our "for thee but not for me" culture.
I understand your point, but seat belts aren't just a 'my body my choice' issue. Bodies become moving projectiles in accidents, and seatbelts prevent your corpse from killing other people.
Maybe forgoing airbags would be a better example to slot in there?
At the end of the day, the question (for drugs, gun, seatbelts, etc) should be what policies will result in the best outcomes. In the case of drugs, making them illegal does not minimize their harm. It leads to drug related violence, impure drugs that lead to death, and funnels money into the black market to support all sorts of things. . Drugs won the war a long time ago, it is time to concede.
Regarding guns, it is the same question. What policies will result in the best outcomes. This is also a bit of a false comparison as not a lot of people are saying we should ban guns, just that they should be regulated in a more reasonable way including background checks, limits on capacity, etc.
Ironic that when someone goes on a shooting spree, the "right" blames mental health, but when someone dies of an overdose they are just a loser junky that made poor choices...
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on April 11, 2021, 08:01:50 PM
Quote from: dismalist on April 11, 2021, 10:02:27 AM
Most heroin deaths are from overdoses and bad needles. Addicts stop after a while. Taken properly, the most serious side-effect of clean heroin is constipation.
Um...I just lost a family member to drug addiction. That is a wee bit...I don't even know what to say...
No. Just no. Particularly not heroin.
I'm sorry to hear this and have also lost friends in part to drug addiction. However, this dosn't really support prohibition, where we push addicts from society instead of offering help and support. Criminalization only serves to make the issue worse and more dangerous whereas more moderate drug policy can help minimize harm.
Again, sorry for your loss.
QuoteQuote from: Kron3007 on April 12, 2021, 04:26:02 AM
oes on a shooting spree, the "right" blames mental health, but when someone dies of an overdose they are just a loser junky that made poor choices...
Whereas the only thing the left will blame you for is failing to enroll in sensitivity training, thereby neglecting your opportunity to prevent anything bad happening to anyone in the future.
QuoteAt the end of the day, the question (for drugs, gun, seatbelts, etc) should be what policies will result in the best outcomes. In the case of drugs, making them illegal does not minimize their harm. It leads to drug related violence, impure drugs that lead to death, and funnels money into the black market to support all sorts of things. Legalization helps reduce harm and dosn't lead to increased abuse. Drugs won the war a long time ago, it is time to concede.
There are ways to fight the harm of substance abuse that don't involve the law, but just like contraception, it only works when it's tried. For example, we got Americans to quit smoking tobacco, not by making it illegal, but by making it uncool.
Quote from: Kron3007 on April 12, 2021, 04:26:02 AM
At the end of the day, the question (for drugs, gun, seatbelts, etc) should be what policies will result in the best outcomes. In the case of drugs, making them illegal does not minimize their harm. It leads to drug related violence, impure drugs that lead to death, and funnels money into the black market to support all sorts of things. . Drugs won the war a long time ago, it is time to concede.
Regarding guns, it is the same question. What policies will result in the best outcomes. This is also a bit of a false comparison as not a lot of people are saying we should ban guns, just that they should be regulated in a more reasonable way including background checks, limits on capacity, etc.
Ironic that when someone goes on a shooting spree, the "right" blames mental health, but when someone dies of an overdose they are just a loser junky that made poor choices...
(FWIW, I'm in favour of our gun restrictions in Canada...) I can't recall, even in the US, anyone claiming that someone on a shooting spree shouldn't be prosecuted and jailed for murder. However, I have heard lots of people on the left, when someone on drugs kills their child, or neglects a child who dies as a result, claim that the person has "suffered enough" and should not be held responsible.
Holding
everyone responsible for their actions should be the case, regardless of what behaviour is "legal".
Quote from: mahagonny on April 12, 2021, 04:45:11 AM
QuoteQuote from: Kron3007 on April 12, 2021, 04:26:02 AM
oes on a shooting spree, the "right" blames mental health, but when someone dies of an overdose they are just a loser junky that made poor choices...
Whereas the only thing the left will blame you for is failing to enroll in sensitivity training, thereby neglecting your opportunity to prevent anything bad happening to anyone in the future.
QuoteAt the end of the day, the question (for drugs, gun, seatbelts, etc) should be what policies will result in the best outcomes. In the case of drugs, making them illegal does not minimize their harm. It leads to drug related violence, impure drugs that lead to death, and funnels money into the black market to support all sorts of things. Legalization helps reduce harm and dosn't lead to increased abuse. Drugs won the war a long time ago, it is time to concede.
There are ways to fight the harm of substance abuse that don't involve the law, but just like contraception, it only works when it's tried. For example, we got Americans to quit smoking tobacco, not by making it illegal, but by making it uncool.
Sensitivity training? The left is the side trying to enact laws to regulate guns to address the issue. Better than thoughts and prayers.
And yes, drug treatment programs only work when they are used, but criminalization makes them less accessable.
Your example of smoking is great support for legalization. If you look at Canada Post cannabis legalization you will see that usage dropped amongst teens, likely because the cool factor is diminished. Glad we agree.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 12, 2021, 05:05:05 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on April 12, 2021, 04:26:02 AM
At the end of the day, the question (for drugs, gun, seatbelts, etc) should be what policies will result in the best outcomes. In the case of drugs, making them illegal does not minimize their harm. It leads to drug related violence, impure drugs that lead to death, and funnels money into the black market to support all sorts of things. . Drugs won the war a long time ago, it is time to concede.
Regarding guns, it is the same question. What policies will result in the best outcomes. This is also a bit of a false comparison as not a lot of people are saying we should ban guns, just that they should be regulated in a more reasonable way including background checks, limits on capacity, etc.
Ironic that when someone goes on a shooting spree, the "right" blames mental health, but when someone dies of an overdose they are just a loser junky that made poor choices...
(FWIW, I'm in favour of our gun restrictions in Canada...) I can't recall, even in the US, anyone claiming that someone on a shooting spree shouldn't be prosecuted and jailed for murder. However, I have heard lots of people on the left, when someone on drugs kills their child, or neglects a child who dies as a result, claim that the person has "suffered enough" and should not be held responsible.
Holding everyone responsible for their actions should be the case, regardless of what behaviour is "legal".
I have not heard that opinion. I think most people, left or right, would support criminal charges in such a situation. Perhaps there are some that disagree, but I hardly think that would have broad support.
Quote from: Kron3007 on April 12, 2021, 06:33:08 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 12, 2021, 05:05:05 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on April 12, 2021, 04:26:02 AM
At the end of the day, the question (for drugs, gun, seatbelts, etc) should be what policies will result in the best outcomes. In the case of drugs, making them illegal does not minimize their harm. It leads to drug related violence, impure drugs that lead to death, and funnels money into the black market to support all sorts of things. . Drugs won the war a long time ago, it is time to concede.
Regarding guns, it is the same question. What policies will result in the best outcomes. This is also a bit of a false comparison as not a lot of people are saying we should ban guns, just that they should be regulated in a more reasonable way including background checks, limits on capacity, etc.
Ironic that when someone goes on a shooting spree, the "right" blames mental health, but when someone dies of an overdose they are just a loser junky that made poor choices...
(FWIW, I'm in favour of our gun restrictions in Canada...) I can't recall, even in the US, anyone claiming that someone on a shooting spree shouldn't be prosecuted and jailed for murder. However, I have heard lots of people on the left, when someone on drugs kills their child, or neglects a child who dies as a result, claim that the person has "suffered enough" and should not be held responsible.
Holding everyone responsible for their actions should be the case, regardless of what behaviour is "legal".
I have not heard that opinion. I think most people, left or right, would support criminal charges in such a situation. Perhaps there are some that disagree, but I hardly think that would have broad support.
From this case (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/father-of-girls-who-froze-to-death-gets-3-years-in-prison-1.840881):
Quote
Prior to sentencing, Saskatchewan Provincial Court Judge Barry Morgan heard recommendations from an aboriginal sentencing circle.
While Morgan was not bound by those recommendations, the circle suggested Pauchay should not go to prison but should be reunited with his wife, Tracey Jimmy, and their other child.
The defence said the judge should consider a non-jail conditional sentence.
In passing sentence Friday, the judge said Pauchay lacked insight into his behaviour and wasn't willing to accept responsibility for what happened.
So there are in fact those that don't want to treat this as criminal.
I'm with the libertarians on this one. What benefit has come from the drug war? Is there any evidence that prohibiting drugs has reduced their use or their availability to a greater extent than legalizing and regulating them would? I don't use drugs or knowingly consort with drug users, but I bet that I could track down some heroin before the end of the day if I really wanted to. And this isn't even to speak of the incredible amount of violence that accompanies the underground drug trade.
Quote from: Kron3007 on April 12, 2021, 04:33:04 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on April 11, 2021, 08:01:50 PM
Quote from: dismalist on April 11, 2021, 10:02:27 AM
Most heroin deaths are from overdoses and bad needles. Addicts stop after a while. Taken properly, the most serious side-effect of clean heroin is constipation.
Um...I just lost a family member to drug addiction. That is a wee bit...I don't even know what to say...
No. Just no. Particularly not heroin.
I'm sorry to hear this and have also lost friends in part to drug addiction. However, this dosn't really support prohibition, where we push addicts from society instead of offering help and support. Criminalization only serves to make the issue worse and more dangerous whereas more moderate drug policy can help minimize harm.
Again, sorry for your loss.
Thank you, that is very kind. And thank you Mahagonny also.
I am a recovering alcoholic and drug addict with 34 years sobriety. I had a great many friends who drank heavily, smoked bales of pot, took the hard psychedelics, and even cocaine. Some of them are perfectly fine, some are not.
Some of us cannot handle mind-altering substances. It does stuff to our thoughts and emotional balance and our ability to cope, and these substances create a powerful craving (in some of us) that can actually overpower even love of family, career, self-protection, health, etc. I know there are some genetic components (that do not always manifest in offspring), some psychological components, and situational drivers, but the essential elements of addiction are part of us.
Some people can endure terrible trauma, emotional and psychological problems, life-altering frustrations, and do not become addicts. Others of us have relatively happy lives, as I did when I developed my serious addiction problems.
The war on drugs is a disaster. The entire approach to addiction should be changed. I agree that expulsion and shame are not the way to go. And actually, the support one receives when you admit you are recovering is amazing----in 34 years I have had exactly one person challenge me to have a beer, and the other partiers, drinks in hand, immediately swarmed to my defense. I didn't even have to say "no." I am entirely in favor of legalizing pot---it is far less damaging than alcohol---and even for legalizing many other drugs.
But the irresponsible statements of people like Professor Hart, no matter how brilliant he might be, do no one any good. It sounds like Hart believes he has found the cure for one of society's great ills, particularly for African-Americans. No way, dude.
I don't have the answer for how society should deal with people who can use drugs et al. responsibly. Denying what drugs are and do is simply irresponsible, however.
Professor Hart is a serious researcher in the field of addiction with a doctorate in neuroscience. I think his proposals should be considered seriously as part of a reform in policy and treatment based on what might work best for individuals and society. I think neither his comments nor the discussion are irresponsible, rather well intentioned and well informed.
The field of addiction research, like most areas, has different groupings and some researchers are controversial. Hart's best known research on addiction is mostly behavioral and has been in tension with the ideas of other researchers. He has largely been a critic of orthodoxy. He has long criticized biological models of addiction and argued that social approaches to reducing addiction will be more successful. His new book is definitely a bold move in self-revelation. But he is not "advocating" heroin use. He is saying that adults will use drugs as part of their lives and it can be reasonable to do that. His main goal is to stop the shaming of drug use.
Quote from: downer on April 12, 2021, 11:25:00 AM
The field of addiction research, like most areas, has different groupings and some researchers are controversial. Hart's best known research on addiction is mostly behavioral and has been in tension with the ideas of other researchers. He has largely been a critic of orthodoxy. He has long criticized biological models of addiction and argued that social approaches to reducing addiction will be more successful. His new book is definitely a bold move in self-revelation. But he is not "advocating" heroin use. He is saying that adults will use drugs as part of their lives and it can be reasonable to do that. His main goal is to stop the shaming of drug use.
Shaming seldom exists in a vacuum; it's usually related to responsibility for consequences. Typically people who protest "shaming" of some activity also object to people being held responsible for entirely forseeable consequences of their actions. The best way to avoid "shaming" is to require people to admit the likely results of their decisions and to remind them of that after they occur.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 12, 2021, 11:32:42 AM
Quote from: downer on April 12, 2021, 11:25:00 AM
The field of addiction research, like most areas, has different groupings and some researchers are controversial. Hart's best known research on addiction is mostly behavioral and has been in tension with the ideas of other researchers. He has largely been a critic of orthodoxy. He has long criticized biological models of addiction and argued that social approaches to reducing addiction will be more successful. His new book is definitely a bold move in self-revelation. But he is not "advocating" heroin use. He is saying that adults will use drugs as part of their lives and it can be reasonable to do that. His main goal is to stop the shaming of drug use.
Shaming seldom exists in a vacuum; it's usually related to responsibility for consequences. Typically people who protest "shaming" of some activity also object to people being held responsible for entirely forseeable consequences of their actions. The best way to avoid "shaming" is to require people to admit the likely results of their decisions and to remind them of that after they occur.
Every once in a while I find myself in agreement with Marshy.
I just lost a sibling to a series of heart attacks generated form meth and heroin use. Before this tragedy, I had to sue for a restraining order on behalf of my elderly, Alzheimer's-affected mother to keep mom's house and her estate safe from this same sibling----and her person safe; addicts seldom travel alone and the people my sibling was bringing into the house were very frightening. I actually cancelled a vacation with my wife and traveled across the continent to sleep in the house, armed, until I could make sure mom was safe and we had cameras installed in the house. I am still nervous about the people who know where the house is. It was a horrible ordeal.
I had no intent to "shame" or injure or punish my sibling, simply to keep my mother who is 2,500 miles away from me safe. My wife and I gave several thousand dollars over the last couple of years to keep this same sibling afloat, all for naught. This has always been part of the drug scene----families and friends need to keep themselves safe from people who have lost control.
I am all for mercilessly dismantling the "war on drugs." Rehabilitation can work. Plenty of people do indeed have overwhelmingly good experiences on drugs (anybody read
Gang Leader for a Day in which Venkatesch observed people using crack recreationally on occasion?). But I look at Hart's rhetoric and I find it ridiculous. Fine if he wants to approach drugs and addiction with an enlightened, revitalized approach. Remove the stigma. Empathy to the addict. All power to him. Then he goes too far. He sounds like he is in denial (favored jargon when discussing addiction).
And his research, it seems to me, is actually a social and political and very personal attempt. I will leave it up to the experts to vet his research, however:
Quote
"This happens all the time when a Black person is killed by police," he said. "Drugs are the ideal scapegoat, because most Americans believe drugs make people crazy and it makes them less than human. Or superhuman."
Dr. Hart argued that most of what you think you know about drugs and drug abuse is wrong: that addiction is not a brain disease; that most of the 50 million Americans who use an illegal drug in a given year have overwhelmingly positive experiences; that our policies have been warped by a focus only on the bad outcomes; and that the results have been devastating for African-American families like his own.
Again, let's revise how we think and approach drugs, and the policing of AA communities, just not because we don't like reality. It didn't work for Timothy Leary either.
The case for legalizing, regulating, and taxing hard drugs rests not with Prof. Hart. It rests with the fact that prohibiting drug use causes more, lots, and lots more, pain and costs and deaths than the present policy. Prof. Hart's conclusions may support the case for legalization; they do not determine it.
Why use shame as a society when we can use force, monetary coercion or simply accept negative outcomes for third parties that come with someone else's irresponsible behavior? We certainly wouldn't want to employ a technique that comes at zero cost and is incredibly effective at changing behavior. Come to think of it, we have way fewer single mothers now that we no longer "shame" them for getting knocked up by the neck tattoo guy. We should start calling smack addicts "strong independent users" rather than junkies.
Quote from: dismalist on April 12, 2021, 05:08:02 PM
The case for legalizing, regulating, and taxing hard drugs rests not with Prof. Hart. It rests with the fact that prohibiting drug use causes more, lots, and lots more, pain and costs and deaths than the present policy. Prof. Hart's conclusions may support the case for legalization; they do not determine it.
It is often argued that legalizing drugs will result in two good outcomes:
- Remove the black market for drugs
- Allow sales to be taxed, which can be used for things like treatment programs.
The problem is that these are mutually exclusive. Specifically, legal sales will only eliminate the black market if the legal product is cheaper. Since the black market product doesn't pay taxes, the higher the taxes are, the more room there is for a black market.
In Canada, where cannabis has been legalized for a few years, something like 1/3 of the cannabis being sold is still illegal. The black market has been reduced, but has not nearly been eliminated.
So treatment programs will have to be "out of pocket" for society if the taxes are low enough to make a dent in the illegal market.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 13, 2021, 04:58:00 AM
Quote from: dismalist on April 12, 2021, 05:08:02 PM
The case for legalizing, regulating, and taxing hard drugs rests not with Prof. Hart. It rests with the fact that prohibiting drug use causes more, lots, and lots more, pain and costs and deaths than the present policy. Prof. Hart's conclusions may support the case for legalization; they do not determine it.
It is often argued that legalizing drugs will result in two good outcomes:
- Remove the black market for drugs
- Allow sales to be taxed, which can be used for things like treatment programs.
The problem is that these are mutually exclusive. Specifically, legal sales will only eliminate the black market if the legal product is cheaper. Since the black market product doesn't pay taxes, the higher the taxes are, the more room there is for a black market.
In Canada, where cannabis has been legalized for a few years, something like 1/3 of the cannabis being sold is still illegal. The black market has been reduced, but has not nearly been eliminated.
So treatment programs will have to be "out of pocket" for society if the taxes are low enough to make a dent in the illegal market.
It has only been legal for a few years and the black market has been consistently shrinking. Over time, it will become a small part of the equation, as it has with alcohol (I'm sure that took many years following prohibition as well).
Cannabis is a little different than most drugs as well since it is a plant, and producing quality product is not trivial. The early legal market was known for poor quality and high costs. As the industry is maturing, the quality has improved and the price has dropped to be competitive with the black market.
In the case of most drugs, they are produced in a lab and the large pharma companies can easily compete on quality, safety, and even price right out of the gate.
Regardless, even taking half of the black market away has generated a lot of tax revenue for Canada (likewise in legal states). Much more than the $0 that was previously raised from the black market, not to mention reducing funds flowing into organized crime etc
I don't know about anyone else, but I feel ripped off whenever I'm not getting a really good quality of paranoia.
Sincere question: how will 'looking at drugs differently' change the seductive nature of getting high and the wreckage it produces? This professor makes a case for moderate, controlled use of heroin and then implies that we've got the whole George Floyd story wrong because we've stigmatized recreational drug use. George Floyd's life was ruined by drugs. It doesn't matter how anybody talks about them and doesn't matter a great deal what the laws are when a person tries recreational use and the drug overtakes his self control.
Of course, I don't have a solution, but I'm trying to eliminate questions that aren't productive.
Quote from: mahagonny on April 13, 2021, 05:59:34 AM
I don't know about anyone else, but I feel ripped off whenever I'm not getting a really good quality of paranoia.
Sincere question: how will 'looking at drugs differently' change the seductive nature of getting high and the wreckage it produces? This professor makes a case for moderate, controlled use of heroin and then implies that we've got the whole George Floyd story wrong because we've stigmatized recreational drug use. George Floyd's life was ruined by drugs. It doesn't matter how anybody talks about them and doesn't matter a great deal what the laws are when a person tries recreational use and the drug overtakes his self control.
Of course, I don't have a solution, but I'm trying to eliminate questions that aren't productive.
This guy... George Floyd's life was ruined by the police officer that killed him.
Quote from: Kron3007 on April 13, 2021, 05:44:41 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 13, 2021, 04:58:00 AM
Quote from: dismalist on April 12, 2021, 05:08:02 PM
The case for legalizing, regulating, and taxing hard drugs rests not with Prof. Hart. It rests with the fact that prohibiting drug use causes more, lots, and lots more, pain and costs and deaths than the present policy. Prof. Hart's conclusions may support the case for legalization; they do not determine it.
It is often argued that legalizing drugs will result in two good outcomes:
- Remove the black market for drugs
- Allow sales to be taxed, which can be used for things like treatment programs.
Yeah, I am thinking heroin, where the legal stuff will be of higher dependable quality than the illegal stuff. Here, one can impose a tax equal to the markup of the cartels without affecting street price. With street price unchanged, demand for heroin wouldn't increase either. There is no need to earmark the tax revenue to help addicts, but one could,of course.
[/list]
The problem is that these are mutually exclusive. Specifically, legal sales will only eliminate the black market if the legal product is cheaper. Since the black market product doesn't pay taxes, the higher the taxes are, the more room there is for a black market.
In Canada, where cannabis has been legalized for a few years, something like 1/3 of the cannabis being sold is still illegal. The black market has been reduced, but has not nearly been eliminated.
So treatment programs will have to be "out of pocket" for society if the taxes are low enough to make a dent in the illegal market.
It has only been legal for a few years and the black market has been consistently shrinking. Over time, it will become a small part of the equation, as it has with alcohol (I'm sure that took many years following prohibition as well).
Cannabis is a little different than most drugs as well since it is a plant, and producing quality product is not trivial. The early legal market was known for poor quality and high costs. As the industry is maturing, the quality has improved and the price has dropped to be competitive with the black market.
In the case of most drugs, they are produced in a lab and the large pharma companies can easily compete on quality, safety, and even price right out of the gate.
Regardless, even taking half of the black market away has generated a lot of tax revenue for Canada (likewise in legal states). Much more than the $0 that was previously raised from the black market, not to mention reducing funds flowing into organized crime etc
Quote from: dismalist on April 13, 2021, 08:48:44 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 13, 2021, 04:58:00 AM
It is often argued that legalizing drugs will result in two good outcomes:
- Remove the black market for drugs
- Allow sales to be taxed, which can be used for things like treatment programs.
The problem is that these are mutually exclusive. Specifically, legal sales will only eliminate the black market if the legal product is cheaper. Since the black market product doesn't pay taxes, the higher the taxes are, the more room there is for a black market.
In Canada, where cannabis has been legalized for a few years, something like 1/3 of the cannabis being sold is still illegal. The black market has been reduced, but has not nearly been eliminated.
So treatment programs will have to be "out of pocket" for society if the taxes are low enough to make a dent in the illegal market.
Yeah, I am thinking heroin, where the legal stuff will be of higher dependable quality than the illegal stuff. Here, one can impose a tax equal to the markup of the cartels without affecting street price. With street price unchanged, demand for heroin wouldn't increase either. There is no need to earmark the tax revenue to help addicts, but one could,of course.
I'm not so sure about that, due to moral hazard. With a "safe" supply, especially if there are government-sponsored "safe injection" sites, there may be a lot of curious people willing to try harder drugs who are too afraid to do so now.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 13, 2021, 09:09:06 AM
Quote from: dismalist on April 13, 2021, 08:48:44 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 13, 2021, 04:58:00 AM
It is often argued that legalizing drugs will result in two good outcomes:
- Remove the black market for drugs
- Allow sales to be taxed, which can be used for things like treatment programs.
The problem is that these are mutually exclusive. Specifically, legal sales will only eliminate the black market if the legal product is cheaper. Since the black market product doesn't pay taxes, the higher the taxes are, the more room there is for a black market.
In Canada, where cannabis has been legalized for a few years, something like 1/3 of the cannabis being sold is still illegal. The black market has been reduced, but has not nearly been eliminated.
So treatment programs will have to be "out of pocket" for society if the taxes are low enough to make a dent in the illegal market.
Yeah, I am thinking heroin, where the legal stuff will be of higher dependable quality than the illegal stuff. Here, one can impose a tax equal to the markup of the cartels without affecting street price. With street price unchanged, demand for heroin wouldn't increase either. There is no need to earmark the tax revenue to help addicts, but one could,of course.
I'm not so sure about that, due to moral hazard. With a "safe" supply, especially if there are government-sponsored "safe injection" sites, there may be a lot of curious people willing to try harder drugs who are too afraid to do so now.
Somewhere up thread or on another thread someone suggested that illegal use of marijuana went
down on account it was no longer cool when legal! :-)
Anyway, one can adjust the tax rate to prevent additional consumption beyond the original level.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on April 13, 2021, 08:18:05 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on April 13, 2021, 05:59:34 AM
I don't know about anyone else, but I feel ripped off whenever I'm not getting a really good quality of paranoia.
Sincere question: how will 'looking at drugs differently' change the seductive nature of getting high and the wreckage it produces? This professor makes a case for moderate, controlled use of heroin and then implies that we've got the whole George Floyd story wrong because we've stigmatized recreational drug use. George Floyd's life was ruined by drugs. It doesn't matter how anybody talks about them and doesn't matter a great deal what the laws are when a person tries recreational use and the drug overtakes his self control.
Of course, I don't have a solution, but I'm trying to eliminate questions that aren't productive.
This guy... George Floyd's life was ruined by the police officer that killed him.
Right...I get it. Police malpractice. I'm not disputing that. The point I am making is the professor talks about how we misunderstand opiates by not allowing for the fact that some can use it without getting hooked. But then talks about Floyd without seeming to understand that Floyd was an example of the person who is out of control with drug use.
Floyd's girlfriend testified that that had been the case for both of them. 'Struggling with opiate dependency.'
Slightly different topic, but there's a question that has puzzled me for a long time.
Why do people who see tobacco smoking as unhealthy, dirty, etc. seem to view pot smoking as somehow chic? Given that both cause respiratory issues (as does vaping), both make your house and clothes smelly, both have second-hand exposure problems, and so on. As intoxicants go, there are many other choices than cannabis that don't have those issues.
Because pots gets you intoxicated, so it's worth it.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 13, 2021, 10:53:13 AM
Slightly different topic, but there's a question that has puzzled me for a long time.
Why do people who see tobacco smoking as unhealthy, dirty, etc. seem to view pot smoking as somehow chic? Given that both cause respiratory issues (as does vaping), both make your house and clothes smelly, both have second-hand exposure problems, and so on. As intoxicants go, there are many other choices than cannabis that don't have those issues.
Smoking increases the risk of dying from lung cancer by about a third. Pot doesn't seem to.
But...how does putting smoke in your lungs not harm your breathing? The first reaction of your lungs to smoke is 'what the...get this shit out of here.' The discomfort of putting smoke into your body has to be mastered.
Quote from: dismalist on April 13, 2021, 09:13:58 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 13, 2021, 09:09:06 AM
Quote from: dismalist on April 13, 2021, 08:48:44 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 13, 2021, 04:58:00 AM
It is often argued that legalizing drugs will result in two good outcomes:
- Remove the black market for drugs
- Allow sales to be taxed, which can be used for things like treatment programs.
The problem is that these are mutually exclusive. Specifically, legal sales will only eliminate the black market if the legal product is cheaper. Since the black market product doesn't pay taxes, the higher the taxes are, the more room there is for a black market.
In Canada, where cannabis has been legalized for a few years, something like 1/3 of the cannabis being sold is still illegal. The black market has been reduced, but has not nearly been eliminated.
So treatment programs will have to be "out of pocket" for society if the taxes are low enough to make a dent in the illegal market.
Yeah, I am thinking heroin, where the legal stuff will be of higher dependable quality than the illegal stuff. Here, one can impose a tax equal to the markup of the cartels without affecting street price. With street price unchanged, demand for heroin wouldn't increase either. There is no need to earmark the tax revenue to help addicts, but one could,of course.
I'm not so sure about that, due to moral hazard. With a "safe" supply, especially if there are government-sponsored "safe injection" sites, there may be a lot of curious people willing to try harder drugs who are too afraid to do so now.
Somewhere up thread or on another thread someone suggested that illegal use of marijuana went down on account it was no longer cool when legal! :-)
Anyway, one can adjust the tax rate to prevent additional consumption beyond the original level.
For clarity, cannabis use has not gone down overall but has among teens, which is probably the most important.
On aspect of this that is interesting is that is seems more people admit to trying it post legalization, but the number of regular users is about the same. However, these data are all based off of surveys, and now that it is legal people may be more inclined to be honest, making it hard to know for sure.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 13, 2021, 10:53:13 AM
Slightly different topic, but there's a question that has puzzled me for a long time.
Why do people who see tobacco smoking as unhealthy, dirty, etc. seem to view pot smoking as somehow chic? Given that both cause respiratory issues (as does vaping), both make your house and clothes smelly, both have second-hand exposure problems, and so on. As intoxicants go, there are many other choices than cannabis that don't have those issues.
Why is palm oil seen as the devil, yet coconut oil is trendy when they are both fats? Because they are similar on the surface, but not the same.
Heady days of Amsterdam's drug culture turn bad as hard stuff brings violence and corruption (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-netherlands-drugs/heady-days-of-amsterdams-drug-culture-turn-bad-as-hard-stuff-brings-violence-and-corruption-idUSKCN1VI1OJ)
At the same time, from Wikipedia (because it is easy to find the summaries):
Quote
Criminal investigations into more serious forms of organized crime mainly involve drugs (72%). Most of these are investigations of hard drug crime (specifically cocaine and synthetic drugs) although the number of soft drug cases is rising and currently accounts for 69% of criminal investigations.[32]
In a study of the levels of cannabis, cocaine, MDMA, methamphetamine and other amphetamine in wastewater from 42 major cities in Europe Amsterdam came near the top of the list in every category but methamphetamine.[33]
The Netherlands tolerates the sale of soft drugs in 'coffee shops'. A coffee shop is an establishment where cannabis may be sold subject to certain strict conditions, but no alcoholic drinks may be sold or consumed. The Dutch government does not prosecute members of the public for possession or use of small quantities of soft drugs.[34]
In the province of North-Brabant in the south of the Netherlands, the organized crime organizations form the main producer of MDMA, amphetamine and cannabis in Europe. Together with the proximity of the ports of Antwerp and especially Rotterdam where heroin and cocaine enter the European continent, this causes these substances to be readily available for a relative low price. Therefore, there is a large quantity drugs of a relative high purity/quality available. This means that users will not have to rely on more polluted substances with greater health risks. Together with an approach that focuses on easily accessible health care, harm reduction and prevention, this causes the medical condition of the Dutch addicts to be less severe than that of many other countries.[35]
Is the Netherlands becoming a narco-state? (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50821542)
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on April 13, 2021, 06:51:33 PM
Heady days of Amsterdam's drug culture turn bad as hard stuff brings violence and corruption (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-netherlands-drugs/heady-days-of-amsterdams-drug-culture-turn-bad-as-hard-stuff-brings-violence-and-corruption-idUSKCN1VI1OJ)
At the same time, from Wikipedia (because it is easy to find the summaries):
Quote
Criminal investigations into more serious forms of organized crime mainly involve drugs (72%). Most of these are investigations of hard drug crime (specifically cocaine and synthetic drugs) although the number of soft drug cases is rising and currently accounts for 69% of criminal investigations.[32]
In a study of the levels of cannabis, cocaine, MDMA, methamphetamine and other amphetamine in wastewater from 42 major cities in Europe Amsterdam came near the top of the list in every category but methamphetamine.[33]
The Netherlands tolerates the sale of soft drugs in 'coffee shops'. A coffee shop is an establishment where cannabis may be sold subject to certain strict conditions, but no alcoholic drinks may be sold or consumed. The Dutch government does not prosecute members of the public for possession or use of small quantities of soft drugs.[34]
In the province of North-Brabant in the south of the Netherlands, the organized crime organizations form the main producer of MDMA, amphetamine and cannabis in Europe. Together with the proximity of the ports of Antwerp and especially Rotterdam where heroin and cocaine enter the European continent, this causes these substances to be readily available for a relative low price. Therefore, there is a large quantity drugs of a relative high purity/quality available. This means that users will not have to rely on more polluted substances with greater health risks. Together with an approach that focuses on easily accessible health care, harm reduction and prevention, this causes the medical condition of the Dutch addicts to be less severe than that of many other countries.[35]
Is the Netherlands becoming a narco-state? (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50821542)
The stuff's gotta be taxed to keep quantity what is has been.
There's also the typical fallacy of composition here: Of course Amsterdam is going to have more stuff in its waste water if it's the only free city.
Tax, man, tax.
Quote from: dismalist on April 13, 2021, 07:06:47 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on April 13, 2021, 06:51:33 PM
Is the Netherlands becoming a narco-state? (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50821542)
The stuff's gotta be taxed to keep quantity what is has been.
There's also the typical fallacy of composition here: Of course Amsterdam is going to have more stuff in its waste water if it's the only free city.
Tax, man, tax.
From the article:
Quote
The Netherlands has in a sense created the perfect environment for the drugs trade to flourish.
With its extensive transport network, its lenient drug laws and penalties, and its proximity to a number of lucrative markets, it is an obvious hub for the global narcotics flow.
Yup, not wasting resources on "the war on drugs" makes it all rainbows and unicorns.
Quote from: dismalist on April 13, 2021, 07:06:47 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on April 13, 2021, 06:51:33 PM
Heady days of Amsterdam's drug culture turn bad as hard stuff brings violence and corruption (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-netherlands-drugs/heady-days-of-amsterdams-drug-culture-turn-bad-as-hard-stuff-brings-violence-and-corruption-idUSKCN1VI1OJ)
At the same time, from Wikipedia (because it is easy to find the summaries):
Quote
Criminal investigations into more serious forms of organized crime mainly involve drugs (72%). Most of these are investigations of hard drug crime (specifically cocaine and synthetic drugs) although the number of soft drug cases is rising and currently accounts for 69% of criminal investigations.[32]
In a study of the levels of cannabis, cocaine, MDMA, methamphetamine and other amphetamine in wastewater from 42 major cities in Europe Amsterdam came near the top of the list in every category but methamphetamine.[33]
The Netherlands tolerates the sale of soft drugs in 'coffee shops'. A coffee shop is an establishment where cannabis may be sold subject to certain strict conditions, but no alcoholic drinks may be sold or consumed. The Dutch government does not prosecute members of the public for possession or use of small quantities of soft drugs.[34]
In the province of North-Brabant in the south of the Netherlands, the organized crime organizations form the main producer of MDMA, amphetamine and cannabis in Europe. Together with the proximity of the ports of Antwerp and especially Rotterdam where heroin and cocaine enter the European continent, this causes these substances to be readily available for a relative low price. Therefore, there is a large quantity drugs of a relative high purity/quality available. This means that users will not have to rely on more polluted substances with greater health risks. Together with an approach that focuses on easily accessible health care, harm reduction and prevention, this causes the medical condition of the Dutch addicts to be less severe than that of many other countries.[35]
Is the Netherlands becoming a narco-state? (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50821542)
The stuff's gotta be taxed to keep quantity what is has been.
There's also the typical fallacy of composition here: Of course Amsterdam is going to have more stuff in its waste water if it's the only free city.
Tax, man, tax.
Yeah, it is not really a great comparison.
While there is no good case study for legalization, I think Portugal comes a lot closer. They decriminalized all drugs back in 2000 and are not a Marco state by any means. In fact, most of the indicators are pretty positive, including reduced drug related HIV infections (this main goal), and reduced use among teens.
There is very little actual data to support prohibition, just gut feelings.
Excellent question regarding baccky vs weed-- seeing that smoking baccky, however dumb, does not get you wasted, and does not have the effects on the brain that weed clearly does, what would possibly be the rationale for saying 'cig smokers are pariahs and should be treated as such', but 'blaze up, dude, welcome to 2021!'?
As to what heroin does to people who use it (let alone more powerful opioids such as fentanyl), well... it is not open to discussion, and why anyone thinks this should be legal....? One does not love one's neighbor by letting him become a junkie, and one certainly does not love one's neighbor's kids by letting him do so.
Quote from: kaysixteen on April 14, 2021, 11:12:53 PM
Excellent question regarding baccky vs weed-- seeing that smoking baccky, however dumb, does not get you wasted, and does not have the effects on the brain that weed clearly does, what would possibly be the rationale for saying 'cig smokers are pariahs and should be treated as such', but 'blaze up, dude, welcome to 2021!'?
As to what heroin does to people who use it (let alone more powerful opioids such as fentanyl), well... it is not open to discussion, and why anyone thinks this should be legal....? One does not love one's neighbor by letting him become a junkie, and one certainly does not love one's neighbor's kids by letting him do so.
Regarding tobacco vs cannabis, there is lots of evidence that tobacco leads to cancer and all sorts of health issues. The link with Cannabis is not nearly as clear.
No one is advocating heroine use, the debate is really about how to minimize societal harm while balancing personal freedom. There is not much evidence that prohibition reduces use, so while might feel like it is doing something it may be counterproductive. More importantly, In an illegal framework the drugs themselves are less safe and people are forced into hiding, which contributes to needle sharing and HIV transmission. A large amount of fentanyl overdoses result from it being present in other drugs as a contaminant, which simply would not happen in a legal system.
Most people have the same end goal, which is to minimize harm. We just disagree with how to get there.
Quote from: Kron3007 on April 15, 2021, 04:49:15 AM
Most people have the same end goal, which is to minimize harm. We just disagree with how to get there.
Or, we disagree on how "harm" is defined, so we're not trying to minimize the same thing. Or, some want to
maximize "health", which is different again.
To make an analogy in academic terms, if we're trying to "improve" pedagogy. Even if we assume, for the moment, that we can reliably and validly measure learning, the question remains as to which of these things we want to do:
- minimize the number of people who fail
- minimize the difference between the highest and lowest grade (quartile, etc.)
- maximize the average grade
- maximize the median grade
- maximize the average grade of the lowest quartile
and so on.
The point is, the strategies to do each of those would be different, and the things that would be allowed to fall through the cracks would be different in each case.
Back to harm reduction; an approach which keeps people alive but gets very few into treatment programs is not obviously better than one which gets a large number into successful treatment despite a few deaths.
Anyone who refuses to understand that putting smoke in their lungs is bad for them...deserves to.
QuoteBack to harm reduction; an approach which keeps people alive but gets very few into treatment programs is not obviously better than one which gets a large number into successful treatment despite a few deaths.
And now we have little treatment and lots of deaths! We can't have it all.
Awright, I'll face up, 'maximizing personal freedom' is of little to no concern to me. I am an opponent of godless libertarianism, and, yes, am essentially a Purtianesque paternalist. Heroin use, whether legalized or otherwise, is unambiguously awful, and should not be permitted. Period. As to weed, it ain't good either-- before one cries 'medical marijuana', explain why it is that the THC in weed cannot be distilled to pill form for the user to take--- we know comparatively little about weed's ill effects as opposed to baccky because we were largely prevented from studying the former, whereas the latter has been studied up the wazoo for three generations. But what we are learning now about weed is enough to confirm what I have to look at daily, at Walmart, even in users that have never used hard drugs and likely never will. I am in favor of strong governmental intervention to suppress vice and create better living conditions for people, period.
I got to thinking more at work today regarding why tobacco cigs are considered bad now whereas weed is increasingly viewed as 'chic', even by those who'd never think of using it. 50-60 years back, smoking was more or less equally distributed across American socioeconomic classes, but then we began to experience a significant quit-off amongst middle class and above folks, meaning that now cig use is largely confined to the working and lower classes, acquiring thereby an increased social stigma from their betters. Weed, otoh, whilst many of the lower classes use it, is also 'chic' amongst many of the upper orders.
Quote from: mahagonny on April 15, 2021, 06:02:25 AM
Anyone who refuses to understand that putting smoke in their lungs is bad for them...deserves to.
I think most people would admit that inhaling snake is not healthy, and choose to do so with their eyes open. This does not however, mean that all smoke is created equal, and the evidence just does not support the conclusion that cannabis is as harmful as tobacco for many reasons. It is also true that the cannabis market is shifting away from smoking and other forms of injection are growing, so cannabis use is not necessarily inexorably linked to smoking.
This is also the case for alcohol, fried food, etc. However, I don't judge people who choose to eat doughnuts instead of carrots or wish them harm.
Quote from: kaysixteen on April 15, 2021, 10:47:32 PM
Awright, I'll face up, 'maximizing personal freedom' is of little to no concern to me. I am an opponent of godless libertarianism, and, yes, am essentially a Purtianesque paternalist. Heroin use, whether legalized or otherwise, is unambiguously awful, and should not be permitted. Period. As to weed, it ain't good either-- before one cries 'medical marijuana', explain why it is that the THC in weed cannot be distilled to pill form for the user to take--- we know comparatively little about weed's ill effects as opposed to baccky because we were largely prevented from studying the former, whereas the latter has been studied up the wazoo for three generations. But what we are learning now about weed is enough to confirm what I have to look at daily, at Walmart, even in users that have never used hard drugs and likely never will. I am in favor of strong governmental intervention to suppress vice and create better living conditions for people, period.
I got to thinking more at work today regarding why tobacco cigs are considered bad now whereas weed is increasingly viewed as 'chic', even by those who'd never think of using it. 50-60 years back, smoking was more or less equally distributed across American socioeconomic classes, but then we began to experience a significant quit-off amongst middle class and above folks, meaning that now cig use is largely confined to the working and lower classes, acquiring thereby an increased social stigma from their betters. Weed, otoh, whilst many of the lower classes use it, is also 'chic' amongst many of the upper orders.
Perhaps you should move to China or something then, or maybe Iran to get more religious zeal. Would you also want the government to prescribe your diet due to the obesity epidemic (causes way more harm than weed ever will)?
Quote from: kaysixteen on April 15, 2021, 10:47:32 PM
I got to thinking more at work today regarding why tobacco cigs are considered bad now whereas weed is increasingly viewed as 'chic', even by those who'd never think of using it. 50-60 years back, smoking was more or less equally distributed across American socioeconomic classes, but then we began to experience a significant quit-off amongst middle class and above folks, meaning that now cig use is largely confined to the working and lower classes, acquiring thereby an increased social stigma from their betters. Weed, otoh, whilst many of the lower classes use it, is also 'chic' amongst many of the upper orders.
That makes sense.
Quote from: Kron3007 on April 16, 2021, 03:51:22 AM
Perhaps you should move to China or something then. Would you also want the government to prescribe your diet due to the obesity epidemic?
Food is necessary for life. Non-medicinal drugs aren't. And in fact, there are all kinds of government regulations about possession and labelling of substances that are poisonous. With all of the deaths due to fentanyl, where tiny quantities are fatal, is it reasonable to believe that giving freer access to it will somehow be an improvement, no matter what sort of community "supports" there are? Human beings make all kinds of short-sighted and simply bad decisions, as evidenced by the obesity epidemic. There is a balance to be sought between personal freedom and epidemics of harm due to *bad impulse control.
*
Everyone has issues about which they struggle to make good choices. It's not limited to any one group or socioeconomic status.
Quote from: kaysixteen on April 15, 2021, 10:47:32 PM
Awright, I'll face up, 'maximizing personal freedom' is of little to no concern to me. I am an opponent of godless libertarianism, and, yes, am essentially a Purtianesque paternalist. Heroin use, whether legalized or otherwise, is unambiguously awful, and should not be permitted. Period. As to weed, it ain't good either-- before one cries 'medical marijuana', explain why it is that the THC in weed cannot be distilled to pill form for the user to take--- we know comparatively little about weed's ill effects as opposed to baccky because we were largely prevented from studying the former, whereas the latter has been studied up the wazoo for three generations. But what we are learning now about weed is enough to confirm what I have to look at daily, at Walmart, even in users that have never used hard drugs and likely never will. I am in favor of strong governmental intervention to suppress vice and create better living conditions for people, period.
I got to thinking more at work today regarding why tobacco cigs are considered bad now whereas weed is increasingly viewed as 'chic', even by those who'd never think of using it. 50-60 years back, smoking was more or less equally distributed across American socioeconomic classes, but then we began to experience a significant quit-off amongst middle class and above folks, meaning that now cig use is largely confined to the working and lower classes, acquiring thereby an increased social stigma from their betters. Weed, otoh, whilst many of the lower classes use it, is also 'chic' amongst many of the upper orders.
As for the reason that people don't want to rely on extracted and purified THC if you actually care (which is unlikely), if is because THC is one of many bioactive compounds in the plant. The belief is that many of these compounds interact and that the end effect is different depending on the specific combination. As such, the pharma approach may not have the same effect.
This may sounds like hippy mumbo jumbo to you, but it is actually very common with medicinal plants. For example, they have done a lot of work with at John's wort, and found that the crude plant extract was more effective than the equivalent amount of the main compounds. Likewise, some quinine resistant strains of malaria are still susceptible to crude extracts from the chinchona tree (where the compound originates). So, the use of purified compounds is not necessarily equivalent to whole plant products.
I know you don't care about freedoms so much, but now you want to tell people how they should medicate? Why does it matter to you if they get THC in a pill or plant? In both cases they would be high.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 16, 2021, 04:01:23 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on April 15, 2021, 10:47:32 PM
I got to thinking more at work today regarding why tobacco cigs are considered bad now whereas weed is increasingly viewed as 'chic', even by those who'd never think of using it. 50-60 years back, smoking was more or less equally distributed across American socioeconomic classes, but then we began to experience a significant quit-off amongst middle class and above folks, meaning that now cig use is largely confined to the working and lower classes, acquiring thereby an increased social stigma from their betters. Weed, otoh, whilst many of the lower classes use it, is also 'chic' amongst many of the upper orders.
That makes sense.
Quote from: Kron3007 on April 16, 2021, 03:51:22 AM
Perhaps you should move to China or something then. Would you also want the government to prescribe your diet due to the obesity epidemic?
Food is necessary for life. Non-medicinal drugs aren't. And in fact, there are all kinds of government regulations about possession and labelling of substances that are poisonous. With all of the deaths due to fentanyl, where tiny quantities are fatal, is it reasonable to believe that giving freer access to it will somehow be an improvement, no matter what sort of community "supports" there are? Human beings make all kinds of short-sighted and simply bad decisions, as evidenced by the obesity epidemic. There is a balance to be sought between personal freedom and epidemics of harm due to *bad impulse control.
*Everyone has issues about which they struggle to make good choices. It's not limited to any one group or socioeconomic status.
Most (or at least many) people who overdose on fentanyl were not out trying to do fentanyl. It is often found as a contaminant in relatively safer drugs and results in accidental OD. If it were legal, this would not happen.
As for food, yes it is needed to live, but you don't need to deep fry it your mention of labelling is interesting. Why not ban it if it is poisonous?
Quote from: Kron3007 on April 16, 2021, 04:05:06 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 16, 2021, 04:01:23 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on April 16, 2021, 03:51:22 AM
Perhaps you should move to China or something then. Would you also want the government to prescribe your diet due to the obesity epidemic?
Food is necessary for life. Non-medicinal drugs aren't. And in fact, there are all kinds of government regulations about possession and labelling of substances that are poisonous. With all of the deaths due to fentanyl, where tiny quantities are fatal, is it reasonable to believe that giving freer access to it will somehow be an improvement, no matter what sort of community "supports" there are? Human beings make all kinds of short-sighted and simply bad decisions, as evidenced by the obesity epidemic. There is a balance to be sought between personal freedom and epidemics of harm due to *bad impulse control.
*Everyone has issues about which they struggle to make good choices. It's not limited to any one group or socioeconomic status.
Most (or at least many) people who overdose on fentanyl were not out trying to do fentanyl. It is often found as a contaminant in relatively safer drugs and results in accidental OD. If it were legal, this would not happen.
As for food, yes it is needed to live, but you don't need to deep fry it your mention of labelling is interesting. Why not ban it if it is poisonous?
Is legally requiring seatbelt use a good thing? What about wearing helmets for motorcycles and bicycles? Except for underage passengers, the
vast majority of the benefit of these things goes to the adults doing them. The reason these have been legislated is that they save the lives of the people who wouldn't voluntarily make these choices.
There are lots of safety requirements put into law that apply even when the only person to benefit is the one being restricted. Libertarians take the rather cold, but consistent, position that people should not be restricted this way and they simply have to live with the consequences of their own choices. I can't recall libertarians pushing for things like safe injection sites, so I don't think many people wanting to decriminalize drugs are libertarians.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 16, 2021, 05:23:34 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on April 16, 2021, 04:05:06 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 16, 2021, 04:01:23 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on April 16, 2021, 03:51:22 AM
Perhaps you should move to China or something then. Would you also want the government to prescribe your diet due to the obesity epidemic?
Food is necessary for life. Non-medicinal drugs aren't. And in fact, there are all kinds of government regulations about possession and labelling of substances that are poisonous. With all of the deaths due to fentanyl, where tiny quantities are fatal, is it reasonable to believe that giving freer access to it will somehow be an improvement, no matter what sort of community "supports" there are? Human beings make all kinds of short-sighted and simply bad decisions, as evidenced by the obesity epidemic. There is a balance to be sought between personal freedom and epidemics of harm due to *bad impulse control.
*Everyone has issues about which they struggle to make good choices. It's not limited to any one group or socioeconomic status.
Most (or at least many) people who overdose on fentanyl were not out trying to do fentanyl. It is often found as a contaminant in relatively safer drugs and results in accidental OD. If it were legal, this would not happen.
As for food, yes it is needed to live, but you don't need to deep fry it your mention of labelling is interesting. Why not ban it if it is poisonous?
Is legally requiring seatbelt use a good thing? What about wearing helmets for motorcycles and bicycles? Except for underage passengers, the vast majority of the benefit of these things goes to the adults doing them. The reason these have been legislated is that they save the lives of the people who wouldn't voluntarily make these choices.
There are lots of safety requirements put into law that apply even when the only person to benefit is the one being restricted. Libertarians take the rather cold, but consistent, position that people should not be restricted this way and they simply have to live with the consequences of their own choices. I can't recall libertarians pushing for things like safe injection sites, so I don't think many people wanting to decriminalize drugs are libertarians.
I don't actually consider myself a libertarian, and fully support seatbelt laws.
This may seem like a contradiction, but isn't. The reason is that there is good data showing that seatbelt laws reduce harm. There is no such data showing that drug laws reduce harm, and a lot that shows the opposite.
Riding motorcycles is dangerous. Parachuting is dangerous. Mountain biking is dangerous. However, we do not ban these activities, we establish safety standards to minimize harm. It should be the same with drugs.
Policy needs to be driven by data. If you are asking me to give up personal choice for the greater good, you better be able to show me data supporting that it will work.
Quote from: Kron3007 on April 16, 2021, 05:34:25 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 16, 2021, 05:23:34 AM
Is legally requiring seatbelt use a good thing? What about wearing helmets for motorcycles and bicycles? Except for underage passengers, the vast majority of the benefit of these things goes to the adults doing them. The reason these have been legislated is that they save the lives of the people who wouldn't voluntarily make these choices.
There are lots of safety requirements put into law that apply even when the only person to benefit is the one being restricted. Libertarians take the rather cold, but consistent, position that people should not be restricted this way and they simply have to live with the consequences of their own choices. I can't recall libertarians pushing for things like safe injection sites, so I don't think many people wanting to decriminalize drugs are libertarians.
I don't actually consider myself a libertarian, and fully support seatbelt laws.
This may seem like a contradiction, but isn't. The reason is that there is good data showing that seatbelt laws reduce harm. There is no such data showing that drug laws reduce harm, and a lot that shows the opposite.
I support seatbelt laws as well.
Note that the argument above is very similar to what many in the US gun lobby use about opposing gun laws. "Guns don't kill people; people kill people", "All it takes to stop one bad person with a gun is one good person with a gun", etc.
Unfettered access to dangerous things
will result in more people using those things, of whom a certain percentage will have very bad outcomes.
Quote
Riding motorcycles is dangerous. Parachuting is dangerous. Mountain biking is dangerous. However, we do not ban these activities, we establish safety standards to minimize harm. It should be the same with drugs.
Policy needs to be driven by data. If you are asking me to give up personal choice for the greater good, you better be able to show me data supporting that it will work.
Should we stop requiring prescriptions for any medications? We could make pharmacies just like the grocery store, where everyone can just buy what they want. Would that be an improvement? Presumably doctors would still tell people what to buy, there just wouldn't be any gatekeepers restricting "personal choice".
Ah, compulsory seat belt laws are not all that straightforward: Some drivers are safer with the belt than they want to be. To get back to their desired level of risk, they drive less carefully. Doesn't hurt them much in a crash, for they are belted, but more innocent pedestrians get nailed!
The pharmaceutical problem is different form recreational drugs. It's largely a lack of information on the part of the patient that makes the prescription useful for efficacy and safety. Some drugs are over-the counter where efficacy and safety are straightforward. One can argue about where the line should be drawn.
Of course guns kill people, additional people, more than would be killed with knives or baseball bats!
Be that as it may, the non consequential moralizing upthread is just that, moralizing. What's at stake is lives. Legalization plus taxation will save lives. Wishful thinking will not.
Almost against my better judgment, I am going to continue this thread. Weed is bad, heroin is worse, and there ain't no reason to allow either.
I am perhaps willing to entertain the perhaps nonsensical argument used in favor of smoking medicinal weed, rather than just taking TCH pills, but the overwhelming majority of potheads around here would not qualify for med weed under any reasonable set of criteria. Weed makes people stinky, do-nothing, brain-addled morons. And some of these stellar citizens have children.
Eating too many French fries does not do that.
There is no way to make opioid use beneficial to users, or to society.
I had ignored the nutty idea that we should be legalizing these things in order to tax them, as part of my religious belief woudl be to assert that it be a dumb and immoral idea to tax people for their use of bad substances, gambling, etc.
Quote from: dismalist on April 16, 2021, 08:07:02 AM
The pharmaceutical problem is different form recreational drugs. It's largely a lack of information on the part of the patient that makes the prescription useful for efficacy and safety. Some drugs are over-the counter where efficacy and safety are straightforward. One can argue about where the line should be drawn.
But it makes no sense to have laws around the distribution of
medicinally-useful drugs when purely
recreational drugs have none. Why should someone be fined, or possibly even jailed, for some error in protocol for a drug with recognized benefits if there is no required protocol whatsoever for drugs with no medicinal purpose? (Pharmacists would be better off becoming just plain drug dealers at that point to avoid the potential legal hassles. If, instead of "filling prescriptions", they're just "selling drugs", even though they may have
looked at the prescription, then they're not responsible for errors or oversights.)
Quote from: kaysixteen on April 16, 2021, 11:33:41 PM
Almost against my better judgment, I am going to continue this thread. Weed is bad, heroin is worse, and there ain't no reason to allow either.
I am perhaps willing to entertain the perhaps nonsensical argument used in favor of smoking medicinal weed, rather than just taking TCH pills, but the overwhelming majority of potheads around here would not qualify for med weed under any reasonable set of criteria. Weed makes people stinky, do-nothing, brain-addled morons. And some of these stellar citizens have children.
Eating too many French fries does not do that.
There is no way to make opioid use beneficial to users, or to society.
I had ignored the nutty idea that we should be legalizing these things in order to tax them, as part of my religious belief woudl be to assert that it be a dumb and immoral idea to tax people for their use of bad substances, gambling, etc.
Edibles. No lung issue, no stinky smell.
Quote from: kaysixteen on April 16, 2021, 11:33:41 PM
Almost against my better judgment, I am going to continue this thread. Weed is bad, heroin is worse, and there ain't no reason to allow either.
I am perhaps willing to entertain the perhaps nonsensical argument used in favor of smoking medicinal weed, rather than just taking TCH pills, but the overwhelming majority of potheads around here would not qualify for med weed under any reasonable set of criteria. Weed makes people stinky, do-nothing, brain-addled morons. And some of these stellar citizens have children.
Eating too many French fries does not do that.
There is no way to make opioid use beneficial to users, or to society.
I had ignored the nutty idea that we should be legalizing these things in order to tax them, as part of my religious belief woudl be to assert that it be a dumb and immoral idea to tax people for their use of bad substances, gambling, etc.
You have high standards for personal conduct. Although I don't like weed, never did, and I despise peer pressure, some potheads have been regular high achievers and conduct themselves with maturity. Louis Armstrong for example. Obviously it doesn't do the same thing to them that it does to me. I know this won't change your mind. That's fine.
I knew a teenage girl who got in trouble for pot regularly. I tired to dissuade her. After watching her over a period of time (my girlfriend's daughter) I concluded she was actually more sane and relaxed when a little high.
Quote from: kaysixteen on April 16, 2021, 11:33:41 PM
Almost against my better judgment, I am going to continue this thread. Weed is bad, heroin is worse, and there ain't no reason to allow either.
I am perhaps willing to entertain the perhaps nonsensical argument used in favor of smoking medicinal weed, rather than just taking TCH pills, but the overwhelming majority of potheads around here would not qualify for med weed under any reasonable set of criteria. Weed makes people stinky, do-nothing, brain-addled morons. And some of these stellar citizens have children.
Eating too many French fries does not do that.
There is no way to make opioid use beneficial to users, or to society.
I had ignored the nutty idea that we should be legalizing these things in order to tax them, as part of my religious belief woudl be to assert that it be a dumb and immoral idea to tax people for their use of bad substances, gambling, etc.
You are straight out of reefer madness...
I consume cannabis, and do not consider myself a do-nothing, brain addled moron. I exercise, eat well, am successful, and even have children. You would be surprised at how many high functioning "potheads" there are all around you, we just dont advertise it.
The whole stoner stereotype is silly. It is like believing that anyone who enjoys a glass of wine is a raging alcoholic. There are definitely people who fit the bill, but they are not the majority.
As for the tax angle, the government already taxes all sorts of gambling, alcohol, tobacco, etc, so you have already lost the battle. I'm just glad for separation of church and state.
Quote from: kaysixteen on April 16, 2021, 11:33:41 PM
Weed is bad, heroin is worse, and there ain't no reason to allow either.
Anybody had / have an alcoholic in the family?
With meth and heroine the physical and psychological toll is almost immediate. With alcoholic it is usually a long, progressive disease like cancer, but I would say that in a great many cases alcohol has the same effects as hard drugs. In some ways alcoholism is more insidious precisely because it is a long-term disease, so people become used to the alcoholic personality and lifestyle, and its symptoms are relatively easy to hide until the illness is acute.
40% of all violent crime involves alcohol, and I heard somewhere that it is more like 80%. Imagine how much safer and saner our college campuses would be without alcohol, not to mention our cities, highways, weekends, holidays, and family dinners.
Plus I have never heard of anyone cracking their best-friend over the head with a bong because they got in a stupid stoned argument about a football game.
Legalize. Just don't pretend everything is hunky-dory with these substances. They are simply dangerous, all of them.
Legalization solves a lot of problems. There is no longer a lucrative and dangerous lifestyle in dealing them illegally. It is easier to seek treatment when one doesn't fear jail time. Control and labelling avoids the risk of overdose.
Not saying these things aren't dangerous, but the sex shops in town also sell happen to sell airplane glue and CO2 cartridges. I'm not sure that it's because people's dildos need fixing or the gourmets at the orgy demand real stuff on their post-coital banana splits?
Let's face it, people try to get a buzz off a lot of things.
I know that friends who live in places where recreational use of pot is legalized tend to use it more now. They also tend to drink less. I suspect I may well do the same. I'll be interested to see statistics to see if average pot use increases with legalization.
The only time I had any opiates was in hospital for pain management and I can't say that I'm tempted to try them more.
But I am curious about MDMA. The main reason I never sought it out is that I wouldn't know how to be sure the stuff I was getting was pure.
Quote from: Kron3007 on April 17, 2021, 07:17:09 AM
I consume cannabis, and do not consider myself a do-nothing, brain addled moron. I exercise, eat well, am successful, and even have children. You would be surprised at how many high functioning "potheads" there are all around you, we just dont advertise it.
The whole stoner stereotype is silly. It is like believing that anyone who enjoys a glass of wine is a raging alcoholic. There are definitely people who fit the bill, but they are not the majority.
What is the significance of this coming Tuesday? I have never smoked a joint but I know about "420"? Why?
Because more than alcohol or tobacco, the marketing of cannabis is targeted around the glorification of the pothead culture. For whatever reason, the people promoting legalization of marijuana have
embraced that image. You don't see beer companies advertising keggers.
Quote
As for the tax angle, the government already taxes all sorts of gambling, alcohol, tobacco, etc, so you have already lost the battle. I'm just glad for separation of church and state.
If you remember during the Chretien government, they had to lower the taxes on tobacco significantly becuase the black market was getting too big. As I've said before, eliminating the black market and generating tax revenue are mutually exclusive; the more of one, the less of the other.
Cannabis has been legal for almost three years. So why don't we want to get high off Ottawa's supply? (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-cannabis-has-been-legal-for-almost-three-years-so-why-dont-we-want-to/) from someone in the cannabis industry about why the black market hasn't declined.
No, the black market sets a maximum tax rate one can impose, which is the markup of the illegals. Up to that rate, there is nothing mutually exclusive.
Quote from: dismalist on April 17, 2021, 09:49:48 AM
No, the black market sets a maximum tax rate one can impose, which is the markup of the illegals. Up to that rate, there is nothing mutually exclusive.
But the black market product can be produced without environmental, health, or safety regulations, so it has much less overhead than an approved facility operating under all the restrictions of a legitimate business.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 17, 2021, 09:57:44 AM
Quote from: dismalist on April 17, 2021, 09:49:48 AM
No, the black market sets a maximum tax rate one can impose, which is the markup of the illegals. Up to that rate, there is nothing mutually exclusive.
But the black market product can be produced without environmental, health, or safety regulations, so it has much less overhead than an approved facility operating under all the restrictions of a legitimate business.
Actually, I assume that legal production cost of heroin is much lower than illegal production: No cops and judges to bribe, no hitmen to pay, no smugglers to pay, and so on.
Quote from: dismalist on April 17, 2021, 10:01:59 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 17, 2021, 09:57:44 AM
Quote from: dismalist on April 17, 2021, 09:49:48 AM
No, the black market sets a maximum tax rate one can impose, which is the markup of the illegals. Up to that rate, there is nothing mutually exclusive.
But the black market product can be produced without environmental, health, or safety regulations, so it has much less overhead than an approved facility operating under all the restrictions of a legitimate business.
Actually, I assume that legal production cost of heroin is much lower than illegal production: No cops and judges to bribe, no hitmen to pay, no smugglers to pay, and so on.
That would make it
the exception to the rule about
every industry; the illegal operations out of someone's garage with unsafe operations, paying no taxes, benefits for workers, etc. make their living by offering goods or services
cheaper than the regulated industry. When accidents happen and people are injured or die, they just disappear and start again somewhere else.
(For cannabis growth, there are lots of stories of farmers finding patches of weed growing in some obscure corner of their property. Illegally using someone else's property is a whole lot cheaper than buying land, paying taxes, etc. Not to mention grow-ops in empty houses using electricity stolen from neighbouring properties, etc.)
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 17, 2021, 10:31:39 AM
Quote from: dismalist on April 17, 2021, 10:01:59 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 17, 2021, 09:57:44 AM
Quote from: dismalist on April 17, 2021, 09:49:48 AM
No, the black market sets a maximum tax rate one can impose, which is the markup of the illegals. Up to that rate, there is nothing mutually exclusive.
But the black market product can be produced without environmental, health, or safety regulations, so it has much less overhead than an approved facility operating under all the restrictions of a legitimate business.
Actually, I assume that legal production cost of heroin is much lower than illegal production: No cops and judges to bribe, no hitmen to pay, no smugglers to pay, and so on.
That would make it the exception to the rule about every industry; the illegal operations out of someone's garage with unsafe operations, paying no taxes, benefits for workers, etc. make their living by offering goods or services cheaper than the regulated industry. When accidents happen and people are injured or die, they just disappear and start again somewhere else.
(For cannabis growth, there are lots of stories of farmers finding patches of weed growing in some obscure corner of their property. Illegally using someone else's property is a whole lot cheaper than buying land, paying taxes, etc. Not to mention grow-ops in empty houses using electricity stolen from neighbouring properties, etc.)
Well, the source of the higher costs for an illegal industry is the illegality. Gotta protect oneself from the law. That costs money. The garage examples are random occurrences, not whole, regular, industries.
Quote from: dismalist on April 17, 2021, 10:51:13 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 17, 2021, 10:31:39 AM
Quote from: dismalist on April 17, 2021, 10:01:59 AM
Actually, I assume that legal production cost of heroin is much lower than illegal production: No cops and judges to bribe, no hitmen to pay, no smugglers to pay, and so on.
That would make it the exception to the rule about every industry; the illegal operations out of someone's garage with unsafe operations, paying no taxes, benefits for workers, etc. make their living by offering goods or services cheaper than the regulated industry. When accidents happen and people are injured or die, they just disappear and start again somewhere else.
(For cannabis growth, there are lots of stories of farmers finding patches of weed growing in some obscure corner of their property. Illegally using someone else's property is a whole lot cheaper than buying land, paying taxes, etc. Not to mention grow-ops in empty houses using electricity stolen from neighbouring properties, etc.)
Well, the source of the higher costs for an illegal industry is the illegality. Gotta protect oneself from the law. That costs money. The garage examples are random occurrences, not whole, regular, industries.
By that logic, there should be no illegal construction, cosmetic surgery, or a host of other things.
Any legal industry should puts its illegal shadow out of business. Illegality is less expensive because payments only need to be made when
absolutely necessary;
unless and until cops and/or judges notice, they don't need to be paid, etc.
QuoteAny legal industry should puts its illegal shadow out of business.
Precisely: You won't find any illegal construction operation from which you can buy houses whenever you like. The examples are all small and random. Not regular, dependable delivery on a mass scale.
The overwhelming share of our economic activity is actually legal! :-)
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 17, 2021, 09:46:26 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on April 17, 2021, 07:17:09 AM
I consume cannabis, and do not consider myself a do-nothing, brain addled moron. I exercise, eat well, am successful, and even have children. You would be surprised at how many high functioning "potheads" there are all around you, we just dont advertise it.
The whole stoner stereotype is silly. It is like believing that anyone who enjoys a glass of wine is a raging alcoholic. There are definitely people who fit the bill, but they are not the majority.
What is the significance of this coming Tuesday? I have never smoked a joint but I know about "420"? Why?
Because more than alcohol or tobacco, the marketing of cannabis is targeted around the glorification of the pothead culture.
For whatever reason, the people promoting legalization of marijuana have embraced that image. You don't see beer companies advertising keggers.
That's mostly an effect of illegality I suspect. If you look at the way legal cannabis companies advertise, they don't promote that image at all. Some companies even promote their products as being less intense.
Quote from: downer on April 17, 2021, 09:22:59 AM
I know that friends who live in places where recreational use of pot is legalized tend to use it more now. They also tend to drink less. I suspect I may well do the same. I'll be interested to see statistics to see if average pot use increases with legalization.
The only time I had any opiates was in hospital for pain management and I can't say that I'm tempted to try them more.
But I am curious about MDMA. The main reason I never sought it out is that I wouldn't know how to be sure the stuff I was getting was pure.
Maybe. I used it prior to legalization as well as post legalization, and my consumption has not changed at all. Perhaps this is not the case for everyone, but I don't think most people who consumed it before legalization have changed their habits. It is hard to get any good data on usage levels since they are all survey based, and the legal status definitely impacts people's honesty.
Quote from: Caracal on April 17, 2021, 11:44:21 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 17, 2021, 09:46:26 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on April 17, 2021, 07:17:09 AM
I consume cannabis, and do not consider myself a do-nothing, brain addled moron. I exercise, eat well, am successful, and even have children. You would be surprised at how many high functioning "potheads" there are all around you, we just dont advertise it.
The whole stoner stereotype is silly. It is like believing that anyone who enjoys a glass of wine is a raging alcoholic. There are definitely people who fit the bill, but they are not the majority.
What is the significance of this coming Tuesday? I have never smoked a joint but I know about "420"? Why?
Because more than alcohol or tobacco, the marketing of cannabis is targeted around the glorification of the pothead culture.
For whatever reason, the people promoting legalization of marijuana have embraced that image. You don't see beer companies advertising keggers.
That's mostly an effect of illegality I suspect. If you look at the way legal cannabis companies advertise, they don't promote that image at all. Some companies even promote their products as being less intense.
My memory of beer commercials (when they were allowed here) was young people in bikinis by the lake having fun, very much glorifying beer culture. So, I think you are a little off base.
As with beer, the legal pot industry in Canada cannot market at all. What I have seen from them is not the 420 stoner bro culture at all.
I see the various arguments for pot legalization, esp coming from admitted potheads (though I am also at pains to point out that most potheads, like most drunks, cig smokers, etc., vastly overestimate 1) how good they smell 2) how underimpaired a/o addicted they are), but I am living in a place where I see the downsides of drugs and booze every day. They ruin lives, destroy neighborhoods, etc. My religious beliefs tell me that people should not have to live that way, and the state should ameliorate their conditions. To a large extent, whether they like it or not, as no man is an island.
Quote from: kaysixteen on April 18, 2021, 07:59:44 PM
I see the various arguments for pot legalization, esp coming from admitted potheads (though I am also at pains to point out that most potheads, like most drunks, cig smokers, etc., vastly overestimate 1) how good they smell 2) how underimpaired a/o addicted they are), but I am living in a place where I see the downsides of drugs and booze every day. They ruin lives, destroy neighborhoods, etc. My religious beliefs tell me that people should not have to live that way, and the state should ameliorate their conditions. To a large extent, whether they like it or not, as no man is an island.
Should we reinstitute prohibition then?
Quote from: kaysixteen on April 18, 2021, 07:59:44 PM
I see the various arguments for pot legalization, esp coming from admitted potheads (though I am also at pains to point out that most potheads, like most drunks, cig smokers, etc., vastly overestimate 1) how good they smell 2) how underimpaired a/o addicted they are), but I am living in a place where I see the downsides of drugs and booze every day. They ruin lives, destroy neighborhoods, etc. My religious beliefs tell me that people should not have to live that way, and the state should ameliorate their conditions. To a large extent, whether they like it or not, as no man is an island.
You seem that think your religion gives you moral superiority. It doesn't. Freedom of religion swings both ways You are free to believe as you wish, and others are free to believe as they wish without your religious beliefs being imposed upon them. Policy should be based on data, not the subjective morality of a subset of the population.
I invite you to come smell me if you like, you may be pleasantly surprised.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on April 18, 2021, 10:11:02 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on April 18, 2021, 07:59:44 PM
I see the various arguments for pot legalization, esp coming from admitted potheads (though I am also at pains to point out that most potheads, like most drunks, cig smokers, etc., vastly overestimate 1) how good they smell 2) how underimpaired a/o addicted they are), but I am living in a place where I see the downsides of drugs and booze every day. They ruin lives, destroy neighborhoods, etc. My religious beliefs tell me that people should not have to live that way, and the state should ameliorate their conditions. To a large extent, whether they like it or not, as no man is an island.
Should we reinstitute prohibition then?
What we should do is making drinking alcohol uncool and embarrassing like we did with smoking tobacco. Attitudes change and behavior follows.
As I think you noted upthread, alcohol causes more or similar amount of calamity as most of these other substances, even without a black market.
Quote from: mahagonny on April 19, 2021, 05:16:54 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on April 18, 2021, 10:11:02 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on April 18, 2021, 07:59:44 PM
I see the various arguments for pot legalization, esp coming from admitted potheads (though I am also at pains to point out that most potheads, like most drunks, cig smokers, etc., vastly overestimate 1) how good they smell 2) how underimpaired a/o addicted they are), but I am living in a place where I see the downsides of drugs and booze every day. They ruin lives, destroy neighborhoods, etc. My religious beliefs tell me that people should not have to live that way, and the state should ameliorate their conditions. To a large extent, whether they like it or not, as no man is an island.
Should we reinstitute prohibition then?
What we should do is making drinking alcohol uncool and embarrassing like we did with smoking tobacco. Attitudes change and behavior follows.
As I think you noted upthread, alcohol causes more or similar amount of calamity as most of these other substances, even without a black market.
To channel Charlton Heston, you will pry my evening drink from my cold dead hand.:)
Quote from: mahagonny on April 19, 2021, 05:16:54 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on April 18, 2021, 10:11:02 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on April 18, 2021, 07:59:44 PM
I see the various arguments for pot legalization, esp coming from admitted potheads (though I am also at pains to point out that most potheads, like most drunks, cig smokers, etc., vastly overestimate 1) how good they smell 2) how underimpaired a/o addicted they are), but I am living in a place where I see the downsides of drugs and booze every day. They ruin lives, destroy neighborhoods, etc. My religious beliefs tell me that people should not have to live that way, and the state should ameliorate their conditions. To a large extent, whether they like it or not, as no man is an island.
Should we reinstitute prohibition then?
What we should do is making drinking alcohol uncool and embarrassing like we did with smoking tobacco. Attitudes change and behavior follows.
As I think you noted upthread, alcohol causes more or similar amount of calamity as most of these other substances, even without a black market.
One of the differences of alcohol is that lots of it is bought and consumed by people
not intending to become intoxicated. Different types of alcohol are paired with different kinds of food regularly. There are many people who
never drink enough to become legally impaired, and have
no intention of doing so. It's not clear with drugs like marijuana that such a subset of the market exists, or how large it would be.
Baptists and bootleggers. The unholy alliance.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 19, 2021, 06:10:06 AM
One of the differences of alcohol is that lots of it is bought and consumed by people not intending to become intoxicated. Different types of alcohol are paired with different kinds of food regularly. There are many people who never drink enough to become legally impaired, and have no intention of doing so. It's not clear with drugs like marijuana that such a subset of the market exists, or how large it would be.
Regardless, alcohol causes an untold amount of damage. Does it matter why some people buy it?
We accept booze because it has been part of culture since forever, but that doesn't mean it is any less harmful than these newer agricultural and synthetic substances. Booze is the biggest gateway drug for kids (or at least it used to be----was for me) and the most abused. And, again, because booze is such a frequent guest at dinner and BBQ parties, alcoholism often flies just under the radar.
There are, BTW, people who get mildly high or use pot to relax, just like the martini after work.
Quote from: kaysixteen on April 18, 2021, 07:59:44 PM
I see the various arguments for pot legalization, esp coming from admitted potheads (though I am also at pains to point out that most potheads, like most drunks, cig smokers, etc., vastly overestimate 1) how good they smell 2) how underimpaired a/o addicted they are), but I am living in a place where I see the downsides of drugs and booze every day. They ruin lives, destroy neighborhoods, etc. My religious beliefs tell me that people should not have to live that way, and the state should ameliorate their conditions. To a large extent, whether they like it or not, as no man is an island.
Former pothead, but found I don't really like it anymore. But in a field that studies this. If you read Carl Hart's book, he discusses how most of the negative side effects of drug use are caused by external factors. For example, by making it illegal, it creates a black market full of adjacent crimes. He also talks about how most of the despair is from socioeconomic issues, not the drugs themselves. Yes, addiction crosses class lines, but many of the bad outcomes of addiction don't happen to the rich. And if we focused our time and money on actually fixing those instead of punishing users, then we could actually fix them. The war on drugs is a demonstrable failure.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on April 19, 2021, 08:03:27 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 19, 2021, 06:10:06 AM
One of the differences of alcohol is that lots of it is bought and consumed by people not intending to become intoxicated. Different types of alcohol are paired with different kinds of food regularly. There are many people who never drink enough to become legally impaired, and have no intention of doing so. It's not clear with drugs like marijuana that such a subset of the market exists, or how large it would be.
Regardless, alcohol causes an untold amount of damage. Does it matter why some people buy it?
We accept booze because it has been part of culture since forever, but that doesn't mean it is any less harmful than these newer agricultural and synthetic substances. Booze is the biggest gateway drug for kids (or at least it used to be----was for me) and the most abused. And, again, because booze is such a frequent guest at dinner and BBQ parties, alcoholism often flies just under the radar.
There are, BTW, people who get mildly high or use pot to relax, just like the martini after work.
The real question at hand here is not if alcohol causes problems in society, or drugs, or gambling. It is about what policies minimize the impact and reduce social harm. You do not need to condone drug use to support a more rational drug policy. I dont support heroine use, but agree that it should be legal.
During prohibition, people did not stop drinking. Prohibition simply pushed it underground and increased the associated risks (ie. poisoning from impurities in unregulated alcohol). I currently have a student from Iran, where alcohol and drugs are all banned, but he tells me that this has not stopped people from consuming alcohol or using drugs, it has just moved underground.
Before legalization, cannabis was readily available across Canada (as it is in the USA). In fact, it was reported by high school students that it was easier to obtain than alcohol due to regulations. However, the associated risks of an unregulated market are higher due to lack of quality control, so we had a situation where they had easier access to illegal products with no oversight. Legacy cannabis producers apply all sorts of pesticides and growth regulators, and there is no quality control to ensure it is not moldy or contains mycotoxins. It can even be laced with other, more hazardous drugs. In the legal framework, all products are tested for microbe levels, pesticide residue, heavy metals, etc, and products have been recalled for consumer safety.
Quote from: Kron3007 on April 19, 2021, 09:31:02 AM
Before legalization, cannabis was readily available across Canada (as it is in the USA). In fact, it was reported by high school students that it was easier to obtain than alcohol due to regulations. However, the associated risks of an unregulated market are higher due to lack of quality control, so we had a situation where they had easier access to illegal products with no oversight. Legacy cannabis producers apply all sorts of pesticides and growth regulators, and there is no quality control to ensure it is not moldy or contains mycotoxins. It can even be laced with other, more hazardous drugs. In the legal framework, all products are tested for microbe levels, pesticide residue, heavy metals, etc, and products have been recalled for consumer safety.
But apparently,
Quote from: dismalist on April 17, 2021, 10:51:13 AM
Well, the source of the higher costs for an illegal industry is the illegality. Gotta protect oneself from the law. That costs money.
It's hard to see how both of these can be true.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 19, 2021, 10:35:26 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on April 19, 2021, 09:31:02 AM
Before legalization, cannabis was readily available across Canada (as it is in the USA). In fact, it was reported by high school students that it was easier to obtain than alcohol due to regulations. However, the associated risks of an unregulated market are higher due to lack of quality control, so we had a situation where they had easier access to illegal products with no oversight. Legacy cannabis producers apply all sorts of pesticides and growth regulators, and there is no quality control to ensure it is not moldy or contains mycotoxins. It can even be laced with other, more hazardous drugs. In the legal framework, all products are tested for microbe levels, pesticide residue, heavy metals, etc, and products have been recalled for consumer safety.
But apparently,
Quote from: dismalist on April 17, 2021, 10:51:13 AM
Well, the source of the higher costs for an illegal industry is the illegality. Gotta protect oneself from the law. That costs money.
It's hard to see how both of these can be true.
One has to count all the costs, not just some.
Quote from: dismalist on April 19, 2021, 10:38:19 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 19, 2021, 10:35:26 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on April 19, 2021, 09:31:02 AM
Before legalization, cannabis was readily available across Canada (as it is in the USA). In fact, it was reported by high school students that it was easier to obtain than alcohol due to regulations. However, the associated risks of an unregulated market are higher due to lack of quality control, so we had a situation where they had easier access to illegal products with no oversight. Legacy cannabis producers apply all sorts of pesticides and growth regulators, and there is no quality control to ensure it is not moldy or contains mycotoxins. It can even be laced with other, more hazardous drugs. In the legal framework, all products are tested for microbe levels, pesticide residue, heavy metals, etc, and products have been recalled for consumer safety.
But apparently,
Quote from: dismalist on April 17, 2021, 10:51:13 AM
Well, the source of the higher costs for an illegal industry is the illegality. Gotta protect oneself from the law. That costs money.
It's hard to see how both of these can be true.
One has to count all the costs, not just some.
Price in the legal market for cannabis in Canada is indeed higher than in the illegal market. Oh my god!
Turns out Canada is a special case. Shows how
not to legalize.
Looking through here https://transformdrugs.org/assets/files/PDFs/capturing-the-market-canada-fulltext-2020.pdf (https://transformdrugs.org/assets/files/PDFs/capturing-the-market-canada-fulltext-2020.pdf), one can see a 10%
ad valorem tax on cannabis, but the price differential is greater.
-Clearly, the illegals don't pay all the other excise taxes, I infer. Tax enforcement
must be lax.
-Licensing of retail outlets by some Provinces has been highly restrictive.
-But the clincher is that Provinces can control retail prices. Some keep them
high so as not to promote additional consumption!
This is decriminalization + regulation, not legalization plus taxation. No wonder the illegal market is still substantial.
Any other country wants to do this, I'd say don't bother.
Random thoughts:
1) obviously I attempt to act and legislate in accordance with my religious views. Everyone does, even if those religious views are irreligious atheism. My right to try to make my beliefs normative practice in our society is just as strong as Prof. Pothead's right to try to make his views normative and indeed legal. I am not going to apologize for this, as I stand firmly by my thinking regarding why I think narcotics, even weed, are awful cancers on society that should not be allowed (and more or less everything we are now learning about weed's actual effects, esp on teenagers, is on my side). The fact that the war on drugs has not been run well, mistakes have been made, etc., does not alter this. The fact that booze prohibition did not work well does not mean it was necessarily a bad idea, despite the points mentioned here that a) many people drink without intending to get wasted, or even buzzed, b) booze has been part of our culture forever c) illegal booze purveyors produce crime, bad boozes, etc., ought not mean we should celebrate drinking, or even not try to restrict it (we have strong drinking ages, active and rather stringent policies against drunk driving, alcohol advertising, and social pressures against its use (look at 1960s-70s TV shows and compare them to now, with regards to people then regularly drinking hsrd liquor, having 'liquor cabinets' even if they themselves did not drink, etc.
2)Let's just ask this plainly, for anyone who thinks heroin ought to be legalized-- what benefits of such legalization are you thinking would occur, and how would such bennies counteract the vast increase in opioid addiction it would create (and remember that things like 'oxycontin' are essentially legalized heroin. I get the point regarding the great socioeconomic underpinnings of the opioid and meth crises (and many weed users, legal or illegal, are similarly despairing people who are trying to deal with their own bad circumstances by forceably forgetting it away), but this is an argument for doing something about these problems, not for surrendering to them and making the poison legal, more or less conceding endemic underclass status to the users and many others in their communities.
Quote from: kaysixteen on April 19, 2021, 12:01:25 PM
Random thoughts:
1) obviously I attempt to act and legislate in accordance with my religious views. Everyone does, even if those religious views are irreligious atheism. My right to try to make my beliefs normative practice in our society is just as strong as Prof. Pothead's right to try to make his views normative and indeed legal. I am not going to apologize for this, as I stand firmly by my thinking regarding why I think narcotics, even weed, are awful cancers on society that should not be allowed (and more or less everything we are now learning about weed's actual effects, esp on teenagers, is on my side). The fact that the war on drugs has not been run well, mistakes have been made, etc., does not alter this. The fact that booze prohibition did not work well does not mean it was necessarily a bad idea, despite the points mentioned here that a) many people drink without intending to get wasted, or even buzzed, b) booze has been part of our culture forever c) illegal booze purveyors produce crime, bad boozes, etc., ought not mean we should celebrate drinking, or even not try to restrict it (we have strong drinking ages, active and rather stringent policies against drunk driving, alcohol advertising, and social pressures against its use (look at 1960s-70s TV shows and compare them to now, with regards to people then regularly drinking hsrd liquor, having 'liquor cabinets' even if they themselves did not drink, etc.
2)Let's just ask this plainly, for anyone who thinks heroin ought to be legalized-- what benefits of such legalization are you thinking would occur, and how would such bennies counteract the vast increase in opioid addiction it would create (and remember that things like 'oxycontin' are essentially legalized heroin. I get the point regarding the great socioeconomic underpinnings of the opioid and meth crises (and many weed users, legal or illegal, are similarly despairing people who are trying to deal with their own bad circumstances by forceably forgetting it away), but this is an argument for doing something about these problems, not for surrendering to them and making the poison legal, more or less conceding endemic underclass status to the users and many others in their communities.
And forbidding this stuff is obviously not the way to proceed. Non-consequential morals do not make the world a better place.
Bennies of legalizing heroin:
-clean needles, fewer addict deaths;
-clean produce, fewer addict deaths;
-fewer supplier induced deaths;
-won't need oxycontin.
The Cartels can build swimming pools instead of servicing this market.
It's a calculus of lives.
Quote from: dismalist on April 19, 2021, 11:55:00 AM
Price in the legal market for cannabis in Canada is indeed higher than in the illegal market. Oh my god!
Turns out Canada is a special case. Shows how not to legalize.
This is decriminalization + regulation, not legalization plus taxation.
According to this (https://www.thoughtco.com/decriminalization-versus-legalization-of-marijuana-3368393):
Quote
Decriminalization is a loosening of criminal penalties imposed for personal marijuana use even though the manufacturing and sale of the substance remain illegal.
Legalization, on the other hand, is the lifting or abolishment of laws banning the possession and personal use of marijuana. More importantly, legalization allows the government to regulate and tax marijuana use and sales.
So, in Canada it is definitely
legalization, not decriminalization.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 19, 2021, 12:16:51 PM
Quote from: dismalist on April 19, 2021, 11:55:00 AM
Price in the legal market for cannabis in Canada is indeed higher than in the illegal market. Oh my god!
Turns out Canada is a special case. Shows how not to legalize.
This is decriminalization + regulation, not legalization plus taxation.
According to this (https://www.thoughtco.com/decriminalization-versus-legalization-of-marijuana-3368393):
Quote
Decriminalization is a loosening of criminal penalties imposed for personal marijuana use even though the manufacturing and sale of the substance remain illegal.
Legalization, on the other hand, is the lifting or abolishment of laws banning the possession and personal use of marijuana. More importantly, legalization allows the government to regulate and tax marijuana use and sales.
So, in Canada it is definitely legalization, not decriminalization.
Definitions are never right or wrong, just more or less useful, Marsh. My use is ... well, more useful! :-)
Quote from: dismalist on April 19, 2021, 12:22:06 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 19, 2021, 12:16:51 PM
Quote from: dismalist on April 19, 2021, 11:55:00 AM
Price in the legal market for cannabis in Canada is indeed higher than in the illegal market. Oh my god!
Turns out Canada is a special case. Shows how not to legalize.
This is decriminalization + regulation, not legalization plus taxation.
According to this (https://www.thoughtco.com/decriminalization-versus-legalization-of-marijuana-3368393):
Quote
Decriminalization is a loosening of criminal penalties imposed for personal marijuana use even though the manufacturing and sale of the substance remain illegal.
Legalization, on the other hand, is the lifting or abolishment of laws banning the possession and personal use of marijuana. More importantly, legalization allows the government to regulate and tax marijuana use and sales.
So, in Canada it is definitely legalization, not decriminalization.
Definitions are never right or wrong, just more or less useful, Marsh. My use is ... well, more useful! :-)
In what way?
When Trudeau was campaigning to legalize weed, and trying to be all cool about it, the ONLY way it was going to fly politically is if there were severe restrictions. For instance:
- No sales to minors (with a LOT more penalties for doing so than for tobacco)
- Impaired driving enforcement measures as strong as for alcohol. This was made especially difficult since there's not a simple breath test for cannabis since there are a whole bunch of volatiles.
Given all of the carnage due to drunk drivers, NO-ONE would let politicians off the hook for shrugging and saying"OOPS!" when people are killed by stoned drivers. So the restrictions reflect that. Still I think there are at least a couple of weed stores within a couple of blocks of my home, (one for sure), so it's readily available.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 19, 2021, 12:41:33 PM
Quote from: dismalist on April 19, 2021, 12:22:06 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 19, 2021, 12:16:51 PM
Quote from: dismalist on April 19, 2021, 11:55:00 AM
Price in the legal market for cannabis in Canada is indeed higher than in the illegal market. Oh my god!
Turns out Canada is a special case. Shows how not to legalize.
This is decriminalization + regulation, not legalization plus taxation.
According to this (https://www.thoughtco.com/decriminalization-versus-legalization-of-marijuana-3368393):
Quote
Decriminalization is a loosening of criminal penalties imposed for personal marijuana use even though the manufacturing and sale of the substance remain illegal.
Legalization, on the other hand, is the lifting or abolishment of laws banning the possession and personal use of marijuana. More importantly, legalization allows the government to regulate and tax marijuana use and sales.
So, in Canada it is definitely legalization, not decriminalization.
Definitions are never right or wrong, just more or less useful, Marsh. My use is ... well, more useful! :-)
In what way?
When Trudeau was campaigning to legalize weed, and trying to be all cool about it, the ONLY way it was going to fly politically is if there were severe restrictions. For instance:
- No sales to minors (with a LOT more penalties for doing so than for tobacco)
- Impaired driving enforcement measures as strong as for alcohol. This was made especially difficult since there's not a simple breath test for cannabis since there are a whole bunch of volatiles.
Given all of the carnage due to drunk drivers, NO-ONE would let politicians off the hook for shrugging and saying"OOPS!" when people are killed by stoned drivers. So the restrictions reflect that. Still I think there are at least a couple of weed stores within a couple of blocks of my home, (one for sure), so it's readily available.
Never said anything against that, Marsh. I just mentioned stuff that prevents this from working properly. I used words for that that some others would not. No biggy.
Anyway, we have to stop meeting like this. :-)
Quote from: dismalist on April 19, 2021, 12:48:24 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 19, 2021, 12:41:33 PM
Quote from: dismalist on April 19, 2021, 12:22:06 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 19, 2021, 12:16:51 PM
Quote from: dismalist on April 19, 2021, 11:55:00 AM
Price in the legal market for cannabis in Canada is indeed higher than in the illegal market. Oh my god!
Turns out Canada is a special case. Shows how not to legalize.
This is decriminalization + regulation, not legalization plus taxation.
According to this (https://www.thoughtco.com/decriminalization-versus-legalization-of-marijuana-3368393):
Quote
Decriminalization is a loosening of criminal penalties imposed for personal marijuana use even though the manufacturing and sale of the substance remain illegal.
Legalization, on the other hand, is the lifting or abolishment of laws banning the possession and personal use of marijuana. More importantly, legalization allows the government to regulate and tax marijuana use and sales.
So, in Canada it is definitely legalization, not decriminalization.
Definitions are never right or wrong, just more or less useful, Marsh. My use is ... well, more useful! :-)
In what way?
When Trudeau was campaigning to legalize weed, and trying to be all cool about it, the ONLY way it was going to fly politically is if there were severe restrictions. For instance:
- No sales to minors (with a LOT more penalties for doing so than for tobacco)
- Impaired driving enforcement measures as strong as for alcohol. This was made especially difficult since there's not a simple breath test for cannabis since there are a whole bunch of volatiles.
Given all of the carnage due to drunk drivers, NO-ONE would let politicians off the hook for shrugging and saying"OOPS!" when people are killed by stoned drivers. So the restrictions reflect that. Still I think there are at least a couple of weed stores within a couple of blocks of my home, (one for sure), so it's readily available.
Never said anything against that, Marsh. I just mentioned stuff that prevents this from working properly. I used words for that that some others would not. No biggy.
Anyway, we have to stop meeting like this. :-)
But I still don't get what makes this more expensive in Canada then it needs to be. From the product safety measures someone else mentioned, to the restrictions on sales (like for alcohol and tobacco), what measures are unnecessary and prevent it from "working properly"?
Price controls and speed of licensing retail establishments, probably also producers.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 19, 2021, 12:58:17 PM
Quote from: dismalist on April 19, 2021, 12:48:24 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 19, 2021, 12:41:33 PM
Quote from: dismalist on April 19, 2021, 12:22:06 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 19, 2021, 12:16:51 PM
Quote from: dismalist on April 19, 2021, 11:55:00 AM
Price in the legal market for cannabis in Canada is indeed higher than in the illegal market. Oh my god!
Turns out Canada is a special case. Shows how not to legalize.
This is decriminalization + regulation, not legalization plus taxation.
According to this (https://www.thoughtco.com/decriminalization-versus-legalization-of-marijuana-3368393):
Quote
Decriminalization is a loosening of criminal penalties imposed for personal marijuana use even though the manufacturing and sale of the substance remain illegal.
Legalization, on the other hand, is the lifting or abolishment of laws banning the possession and personal use of marijuana. More importantly, legalization allows the government to regulate and tax marijuana use and sales.
So, in Canada it is definitely legalization, not decriminalization.
Definitions are never right or wrong, just more or less useful, Marsh. My use is ... well, more useful! :-)
In what way?
When Trudeau was campaigning to legalize weed, and trying to be all cool about it, the ONLY way it was going to fly politically is if there were severe restrictions. For instance:
- No sales to minors (with a LOT more penalties for doing so than for tobacco)
- Impaired driving enforcement measures as strong as for alcohol. This was made especially difficult since there's not a simple breath test for cannabis since there are a whole bunch of volatiles.
Given all of the carnage due to drunk drivers, NO-ONE would let politicians off the hook for shrugging and saying"OOPS!" when people are killed by stoned drivers. So the restrictions reflect that. Still I think there are at least a couple of weed stores within a couple of blocks of my home, (one for sure), so it's readily available.
Never said anything against that, Marsh. I just mentioned stuff that prevents this from working properly. I used words for that that some others would not. No biggy.
Anyway, we have to stop meeting like this. :-)
But I still don't get what makes this more expensive in Canada then it needs to be. From the product safety measures someone else mentioned, to the restrictions on sales (like for alcohol and tobacco), what measures are unnecessary and prevent it from "working properly"?
Legal cannabis starts at about $4/g CAD ($112/OZ). This is pretty competitive with the black market. Initially this was not the case, but now there is very little price differential and quality within the legal system has improved. Over the next several years, I dont think there will be too much black market left.
Explain the logic behind the assertion that legalized heroin will mean fewer user deaths. If you legalize it, you will get more people using it, more people addicted to it, and more people committing crime to finance their habits, as well as more crime associated with wasted junkies, even if these wasted junkies are acting in accordance with legal underlying drug use.
Quote from: kaysixteen on April 19, 2021, 01:33:13 PM
Explain the logic behind the assertion that legalized heroin will mean fewer user deaths. If you legalize it, you will get more people using it, more people addicted to it, and more people committing crime to finance their habits, as well as more crime associated with wasted junkies, even if these wasted junkies are acting in accordance with legal underlying drug use.
Tax equal to illegal markup to maintain street price. No additional users. For the umpteenth time.
Quote from: kaysixteen on April 19, 2021, 12:01:25 PM
Random thoughts:
1) obviously I attempt to act and legislate in accordance with my religious views. Everyone does, even if those religious views are irreligious atheism. My right to try to make my beliefs normative practice in our society is just as strong as Prof. Pothead's right to try to make his views normative and indeed legal. I am not going to apologize for this, as I stand firmly by my thinking regarding why I think narcotics, even weed, are awful cancers on society that should not be allowed (and more or less everything we are now learning about weed's actual effects, esp on teenagers, is on my side). The fact that the war on drugs has not been run well, mistakes have been made, etc., does not alter this. The fact that booze prohibition did not work well does not mean it was necessarily a bad idea, despite the points mentioned here that a) many people drink without intending to get wasted, or even buzzed, b) booze has been part of our culture forever c) illegal booze purveyors produce crime, bad boozes, etc., ought not mean we should celebrate drinking, or even not try to restrict it (we have strong drinking ages, active and rather stringent policies against drunk driving, alcohol advertising, and social pressures against its use (look at 1960s-70s TV shows and compare them to now, with regards to people then regularly drinking hsrd liquor, having 'liquor cabinets' even if they themselves did not drink, etc.
2)Let's just ask this plainly, for anyone who thinks heroin ought to be legalized-- what benefits of such legalization are you thinking would occur, and how would such bennies counteract the vast increase in opioid addiction it would create (and remember that things like 'oxycontin' are essentially legalized heroin. I get the point regarding the great socioeconomic underpinnings of the opioid and meth crises (and many weed users, legal or illegal, are similarly despairing people who are trying to deal with their own bad circumstances by forceably forgetting it away), but this is an argument for doing something about these problems, not for surrendering to them and making the poison legal, more or less conceding endemic underclass status to the users and many others in their communities.
1) Yes, you are free to hold your beliefs and even call names to denigrate me rather than addressing comments if you wish. Basically, you are saying that despite all of the evidence showing that the war on drugs and prohibition failed, we should double down on this approach because it aligns with your inherently superior morality. I am saying that we should make policy decisions that minimize social harm based on empirical data. No one has argued against age of consumption laws, driving under the influence penalties, or anything else of that nature, those are all part and parcel of a legal framework. There are no age restrictions on the black market....
2) You are operating under the assumption that legalization would result in a vast increase in heroine use. This is not based on evidence, and actually goes against what we do know from the limited examples. Criminalization is what has created and perpetuates the "underclass status" of users and leads to all sorts of problems. If you find someone using heroine you would want to put them in jail (often leading to recidivism and escalated crimes), whereas I would want to offer them support and treatment to help get their life together. Which approach is more Christ like?
Quote from: dismalist on April 19, 2021, 01:38:23 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on April 19, 2021, 01:33:13 PM
Explain the logic behind the assertion that legalized heroin will mean fewer user deaths. If you legalize it, you will get more people using it, more people addicted to it, and more people committing crime to finance their habits, as well as more crime associated with wasted junkies, even if these wasted junkies are acting in accordance with legal underlying drug use.
Tax equal to illegal markup to maintain street price. No additional users. For the umpteenth time.
This assumes it has been
absolutely established that the legal production and distribution cost will be below the street price. If it isn't then this will be impossible, unless the government actually
*subsidizes the sale of drugs. (And at the very least, the production cost is going to vary for different drugs. It is highly unlikely that the legal production cost for
every drug will be below the street price. It certainly would require some evidence.)
*And let's see you get voter support for the government subsidizing recreational drug sales, and then paying for treatment programs as well. It's not only irrational, it's an obvious waste of their money.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 19, 2021, 02:02:28 PM
Quote from: dismalist on April 19, 2021, 01:38:23 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on April 19, 2021, 01:33:13 PM
Explain the logic behind the assertion that legalized heroin will mean fewer user deaths. If you legalize it, you will get more people using it, more people addicted to it, and more people committing crime to finance their habits, as well as more crime associated with wasted junkies, even if these wasted junkies are acting in accordance with legal underlying drug use.
Tax equal to illegal markup to maintain street price. No additional users. For the umpteenth time.
This assumes it has been absolutely established that the legal production and distribution cost will be below the street price. If it isn't then this will be impossible, unless the government actually *subsidizes the sale of drugs. (And at the very least, the production cost is going to vary for different drugs. It is highly unlikely that the legal production cost for every drug will be below the street price. It certainly would require some evidence.)
*And let's see you get voter support for the government subsidizing recreational drug sales, and then paying for treatment programs as well. It's not only irrational, it's an obvious waste of their money.
You work on the evidence, Marsh.
Quote from: kaysixteen on April 19, 2021, 01:33:13 PM
Explain the logic behind the assertion that legalized heroin will mean fewer user deaths. If you legalize it, you will get more people using it, more people addicted to it, and more people committing crime to finance their habits, as well as more crime associated with wasted junkies, even if these wasted junkies are acting in accordance with legal underlying drug use.
The science shows otherwise. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/portugal-drug-decriminalization/
Quote from: kaysixteen on April 19, 2021, 12:01:25 PM
what benefits of such legalization are you thinking would occur
Whatever we have been doing is not working.
It seems like it is time to try something else.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on April 19, 2021, 03:30:11 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on April 19, 2021, 12:01:25 PM
what benefits of such legalization are you thinking would occur
Whatever we have been doing is not working.
It seems like it is time to try something else.
Drinking more than we should? It's working fine if you go by George Carlin's Bill of Rights:
1. the right to do anything you please.
2. The right to take the consequences.
Quote from: Kron3007 on April 19, 2021, 09:31:02 AM
During prohibition, people did not stop drinking. Prohibition simply pushed it underground and increased the associated risks (ie. poisoning from impurities in unregulated alcohol). I currently have a student from Iran, where alcohol and drugs are all banned, but he tells me that this has not stopped people from consuming alcohol or using drugs, it has just moved underground.
A bit more complicated than that. As you might imagine, it's a little hard to compare consumption numbers of an illegal and a legal substance, but the evidence mostly suggests that in the United States prohibition did result in a drop in consumption of alcohol. Perhaps by 25-30 percent, although it rose by the end of the period.
I would imagine legalization of marijuana would result in somewhat higher consumption. I was never particularly interested in weed, but smoked it a handful of times with friends. The last time was years ago and my throat hurt for a week afterwards. I never bought it and there's no way I would illegally. That isn't a moral decision, I'm just not really interested. That said, if it was legalized and I could just go to a store, I could imagine buying an edible or something just to see what it was like. I don't know if I actually would, but it would be more likely than me going through the trouble to buy it illegally.
Quote from: Caracal on April 20, 2021, 06:53:30 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on April 19, 2021, 09:31:02 AM
During prohibition, people did not stop drinking. Prohibition simply pushed it underground and increased the associated risks (ie. poisoning from impurities in unregulated alcohol). I currently have a student from Iran, where alcohol and drugs are all banned, but he tells me that this has not stopped people from consuming alcohol or using drugs, it has just moved underground.
A bit more complicated than that. As you might imagine, it's a little hard to compare consumption numbers of an illegal and a legal substance, but the evidence mostly suggests that in the United States prohibition did result in a drop in consumption of alcohol. Perhaps by 25-30 percent, although it rose by the end of the period.
I would imagine legalization of marijuana would result in somewhat higher consumption. I was never particularly interested in weed, but smoked it a handful of times with friends. The last time was years ago and my throat hurt for a week afterwards. I never bought it and there's no way I would illegally. That isn't a moral decision, I'm just not really interested. That said, if it was legalized and I could just go to a store, I could imagine buying an edible or something just to see what it was like. I don't know if I actually would, but it would be more likely than me going through the trouble to buy it illegally.
Yes, it is definitely more nuanced. The important question to me is not how many people consumed alcohol during or after that period (or drugs in this case), it is who consumes it, how much they consume, and most importantly what the effect on adverse events is.
In the case of cannabis, there are those who would go out and try it if it were legal as you suggest. Based on the data coming out of Canada, there is increased usage post legalization in some groups, but not in the number of regular users or problem users. More importantly, there has been a decline in teen use which is likely more important when considering the greater social implications. So, in this case, you may see a modest increase in overall consumption, but that dosnt mean that there is increased abuse or negative outcomes.
I would also mention that all of these data are based on survey results and once a product is legal people will be more apt to admit using it (I likely would not have been this open online prior to legalization), so if anything the increase is overestimated.
Quote from: Kron3007 on April 20, 2021, 08:27:43 AM
In the case of cannabis, there are those who would go out and try it if it were legal as you suggest. Based on the data coming out of Canada, there is increased usage post legalization in some groups, but not in the number of regular users or problem users. More importantly, there has been a decline in teen use which is likely more important when considering the greater social implications. So, in this case, you may see a modest increase in overall consumption, but that dosnt mean that there is increased abuse or negative outcomes.
I'm guessing some of the decline in teen use is due to the fact that something their boomer grandparents thought of as "edgy" several decades ago can hardly be cool for teenagers today.
Legalizing ecstasy or something more recent may have more takeup among young people because it wouldn't have that stigma.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 20, 2021, 08:45:53 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on April 20, 2021, 08:27:43 AM
In the case of cannabis, there are those who would go out and try it if it were legal as you suggest. Based on the data coming out of Canada, there is increased usage post legalization in some groups, but not in the number of regular users or problem users. More importantly, there has been a decline in teen use which is likely more important when considering the greater social implications. So, in this case, you may see a modest increase in overall consumption, but that dosnt mean that there is increased abuse or negative outcomes.
I'm guessing some of the decline in teen use is due to the fact that something their boomer grandparents thought of as "edgy" several decades ago can hardly be cool for teenagers today.
Legalizing ecstasy or something more recent may have more takeup among young people because it wouldn't have that stigma.
Perhaps. I don't think this means legalization would always have this result, but demonstrates that legalization does not necessarily lead to increased use across the board.
Also, ecstasy was the big thing when I was a teen so I dont know how edgy it is either. Need to get into Ayahuasca or something.
Quote from: dismalist on April 17, 2021, 11:08:03 AM
QuoteAny legal industry should puts its illegal shadow out of business.
Precisely: You won't find any illegal construction operation from which you can buy houses whenever you like. The examples are all small and random. Not regular, dependable delivery on a mass scale.
The overwhelming share of our economic activity is actually legal! :-)
Here's one of those small and random operations:
Joint-police probe smashes $7M grow-op in Belleville, Ont. (https://www.thegrowthop.com/cannabis-news/joint-police-probe-smashes-7m-grow-op-in-belleville-ont)
Quote from: Kron3007 on April 20, 2021, 08:27:43 AM
Yes, it is definitely more nuanced. The important question to me is not how many people consumed alcohol during or after that period (or drugs in this case), it is who consumes it, how much they consume, and most importantly what the effect on adverse events is.
In the case of cannabis, there are those who would go out and try it if it were legal as you suggest. Based on the data coming out of Canada, there is increased usage post legalization in some groups, but not in the number of regular users or problem users. More importantly, there has been a decline in teen use which is likely more important when considering the greater social implications. So, in this case, you may see a modest increase in overall consumption, but that dosnt mean that there is increased abuse or negative outcomes.
Yeah, I agree. If cannabis was legalized its possible I'd try it to see if it was any more pleasant than it was years ago, but it seems pretty unlikely I'd become a regular user. The illegality of cannabis doesn't keep people from coming into contact with it and people who are inclined to be heavy users aren't likely to be deterred by the small amount of effort involved in getting it illegally.
If ice cream became illegal, on the other hand, I'd be getting it on the black market and buying a huge chest freezer to store in it...
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 20, 2021, 10:02:00 AM
Quote from: dismalist on April 17, 2021, 11:08:03 AM
QuoteAny legal industry should puts its illegal shadow out of business.
Precisely: You won't find any illegal construction operation from which you can buy houses whenever you like. The examples are all small and random. Not regular, dependable delivery on a mass scale.
The overwhelming share of our economic activity is actually legal! :-)
Here's one of those small and random operations:
Joint-police probe smashes $7M grow-op in Belleville, Ont. (https://www.thegrowthop.com/cannabis-news/joint-police-probe-smashes-7m-grow-op-in-belleville-ont)
Apologies, Marsh, but $7 mill is chickenfeed.
So what happens to all that seized dope I wonder.
Quote from: mahagonny on April 25, 2021, 06:49:08 AM
So what happens to all that seized dope I wonder.
Cops smoke it.