Professor advocates heroin use

[jimbogumbo]

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.

[downer]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.

[Wahoo Redux]

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:

"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.

[dismalist]

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.

[financeguy]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.

[Kron3007]

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

[mahagonny]

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.

[Sun_Worshiper]

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.

[dismalist]

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

[marshwiggle]

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.

[dismalist]

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.

[mahagonny]

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.'

[marshwiggle]

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.