Professor advocates heroin use

[Langue_doc]

From the New York Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/10/nyregion/Carl-Hart-drugs.html

Discuss.

[spork]

In a sense this is old news: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/09/the-science-of-choice-in-addiction/280080/.

[marshwiggle]

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.

[dismalist]

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.

[downer]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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"?

[dismalist]

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.

[mahagonny]

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?

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.

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.

[dismalist]

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.]

[marshwiggle]

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.

[dismalist]

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.

[mahagonny]

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.

[kaysixteen]

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.

[dismalist]

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.