Professor advocates heroin use

[mahagonny]

Because pots gets you intoxicated, so it's worth it.

[dismalist]

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.

[mahagonny]

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.

[Kron3007]

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.

[Kron3007]

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.

[Wahoo Redux]

Heady days of Amsterdam's drug culture turn bad as hard stuff brings violence and corruption

At the same time, from Wikipedia (because it is easy to find the summaries):

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?

[dismalist]

Heady days of Amsterdam's drug culture turn bad as hard stuff brings violence and corruption

At the same time, from Wikipedia (because it is easy to find the summaries):

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?

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.

[marshwiggle]

Is the Netherlands becoming a narco-state?

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:

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.

[Kron3007]

Heady days of Amsterdam's drug culture turn bad as hard stuff brings violence and corruption

At the same time, from Wikipedia (because it is easy to find the summaries):

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?

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.

[kaysixteen]

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.

[Kron3007]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.

[mahagonny]

Anyone who refuses to understand that putting smoke in their lungs is bad for them...deserves to.

[dismalist]

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.

And now we have little treatment and lots of deaths! We can't have it all.

[kaysixteen]

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.