Professor advocates heroin use

[Kron3007]

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. 

[mahagonny]

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.

[jimbogumbo]

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.:)

[marshwiggle]

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.

[dismalist]

Baptists and bootleggers. The unholy alliance.

[Wahoo Redux]

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.

[Diogenes]

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.

[Kron3007]

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.

 

   

[marshwiggle]

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,

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.

[dismalist]

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,

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.

[dismalist]

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,

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, 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.

[kaysixteen]

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.

[dismalist]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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:

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.

[dismalist]

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:

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! :-)